Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page1 of 51

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 [email protected]
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3 [email protected]
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
4 [email protected]
Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
5 [email protected]
Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
6 [email protected]
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
7 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601

8 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
9 [email protected]
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
10 Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066

11 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
12 [email protected]
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
13 [email protected]
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
14 Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028

15 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, and
16 PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL

17 * Admitted pro hac vice

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL
20 T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

21 DECLARATION OF NICOLE JO
Plaintiffs, MOSS IN SUPPORT OF
22 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS
23 AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
Plaintiff-Intervenor, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
24 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN
v. THE DEPOSITION OF RONALD
25 PRENTICE

26 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Trial Date: January 11, 2010

capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
27 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his
28 official capacity as Director of the California

DECLARATION OF NICOLE JO MOSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN

PRENTICE DEPOSITION – CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page2 of 51

1 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of

Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official
2 capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
& Strategic Planning for the California Department
3
of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
4 official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
5 capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
the County of Los Angeles,
6
Defendants,
7
and
8
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
9 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
10 SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
11 YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL,
12
Defendant-Intervenors.
13

14
Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
15

16 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
17 [email protected]
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
18 Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
19 Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
[email protected]
20 Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
[email protected]
21 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 637-4610, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622
22
* Admitted pro hac vice
23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF NICOLE JO MOSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN

PRENTICE DEPOSITION – CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page3 of 51

1 I, Nicole Jo Moss, declare as follows in support of Defendant-Intervenors’ (“the Proponents”)

2 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen the Deposition of Ronald Prentice:

3 1. I am counsel for the Proponents in the above-captioned matter. The information stated in

4 this declaration is based on my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I could and would

5 testify competently thereto.

6 2. Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration are copies of the portions of Mr. Prentice’s

7 deposition transcripts where he discussed the nature of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.

8 3. Attached as Exhibit B to this declaration are copies of the portions of Mr. Prentice’s

9 deposition transcripts where he was questioned about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

10 4. Attached as Exhibit C to this declaration are copies of the portions of Mr. Prentice’s

11 deposition transcripts where he discussed Pastor James Garlow’s grassroots campaign.

12 5. Attached as Exhibit D to this declaration are copies of the portions of Mr. Prentice’s

13 deposition transcripts where he discussed ProtectMarriage.com’s involvement, or lack thereof, in

14 developing and supervising content for the iProtectMarriage.com website.

15

16 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration

17 was executed in San Francisco, California on January 20, 2010.

18

19 By: /s/ Nicole Jo Moss

20 Nicole Jo Moss

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
1
DECLARATION OF NICOLE JO MOSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN
PRENTICE DEPOSITION – CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page4 of 51

EXHIBIT A
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page5 of 51

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

---oOo---

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

Deposition of

RONALD PRENTICE

Volume I

Thursday, December 17, 2009

REPORTED BY: LESLIE CASTRO, CSR #8876

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

Court Reporting Services
41 Sutter Street, Suite 1605
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page6 of 51
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 54 Page 56
10:16:35 1 MS. STEWART: Just before you respond, I want to 10:19:38 1 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 1 was
10:16:37 2 see if we can make a stipulation for the record going 10:19:54 2 Marked for identification.)
10:16:40 3 forward that I don't have to repeatedly ask the witness 10:20:06 3 MS. STEWART: Q A document that at the top says
10:16:45 4 if he is going to follow your instruction. 10:20:08 4 "Protect Marriage." And I'm going to ask you to take a
10:16:48 5 MS. MOSS: That is fine. 10:20:15 5 look at it and tell me if you recognize it.
10:16:49 6 MS. STEWART: I'm going to pretty much assume it 10:20:37 6 (Pause in the proceedings.)
10:16:51 7 unless there's something in the way he answers it 10:20:38 7 THE WITNESS: I would say I can only go so far as
10:16:52 8 that -- 10:20:42 8 to say I'm familiar with its general content. I don't
10:16:54 9 MS. MOSS: Sure. 10:20:45 9 know if it's in any way been altered, but yes.
10:16:55 10 MS. STEWART: -- that assumes otherwise. 10:20:48 10 MS. STEWART: Q And on the left, it has, sort of,
10:16:58 11 Q. So going back to the question with your 10:20:52 11 a gray box that says "ProtectMarriage.com" and has some
10:17:03 12 counsel's instruction, who was on the ad hoc committee 10:20:57 12 little people.
10:17:04 13 that the board of directors of California Renewal gave 10:20:59 13 Do you see that?
10:17:07 14 authority to form a ballot committee? 10:20:59 14 A. Yes.
10:17:11 15 A. There was myself. There was Ned Dolejsi. 10:21:00 15 Q. Is that the logo of ProtectMarriage.com or a
10:17:13 16 There was Mark Jansson. And there's the anonymous 10:21:07 16 logo?
10:17:18 17 person. 10:21:08 17 (Ms. Piepmeier enters the room.)
10:17:19 18 Q. What was the last name? 10:21:16 18 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say that it's a formal
10:17:20 19 A. I said anonymous. 10:21:19 19 logo, no.
10:17:23 20 Q. Yourself, Ned Dolejsi, Mr. Jansson? 10:21:21 20 MS. STEWART: Q Has ProtectMarriage.com --
10:17:27 21 A. Yes. 10:21:26 21 A. Thank-you.
10:17:29 22 Q. And then an anonymous person? 10:21:26 22 Q. -- does it have a logo that it has adopted?
10:17:33 23 A. A person who chooses to remain confidential. 10:21:39 23 A. There was a logo that was used during the
10:17:40 24 Q. Did you form an entity that is -- did that ad 10:21:42 24 campaign. So when you refer to ProtectMarriage.com, it
10:17:46 25 hoc committee then form an entity? 10:21:48 25 does not have a formal logo.

Page 55 Page 57
10:17:48 1 A. Yes. 10:21:52 1 Q. Was there a logo that it used on its website?
10:17:48 2 Q. And what is that entity? 10:22:04 2 MS. MOSS: Just by point of clarification,
10:17:51 3 A. The primarily formed ballot measure committee 10:22:05 3 objection. When you're referring to
10:17:55 4 of ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. 10:22:09 4 ProtectMarriage.com, are you referring to -- I guess
10:17:58 5 Q. And what is the form of that entity, if you 10:22:12 5 what specifically are you referring to? Is it a
10:18:01 6 know? 10:22:16 6 shorthand for Yes on 8 or --
10:18:02 7 A. When you say "form" -- 10:22:19 7 MS. STEWART: You're getting to my other line of
10:18:04 8 Q. I mean the legal organization. 10:22:21 8 questioning, which I diverted from. So let me go back
10:18:06 9 A. Again, I would -- the best I can do is a 10:22:24 9 to that and then we'll go back to the logo.
10:18:09 10 ballot measure committee. 10:22:27 10 As I mentioned earlier, sometimes it's not a linear
10:18:19 11 Q. Is -- what is the title of that ballot measure 10:22:31 11 process, this deposition business.
10:18:28 12 committee? 10:22:33 12 Q. Do you see the first paragraph of this
10:18:31 13 A. ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. 10:22:35 13 document where it says "ProtectMarriage.com is a growing
10:18:33 14 Q. Is ProtectMarriage.com used in any sense 10:22:38 14 broad-based coalition of organizations, churches and
10:18:39 15 that's broader than that ballot measure committee? 10:22:42 15 individuals who believe that marriage's foremost purpose
10:18:47 16 A. As you know, there are now -- there is now a 10:22:47 16 is raising of healthy children in a family with a mom
10:18:56 17 (c)(3) and (c)(4), ProtectMarriage.com Education 10:22:50 17 and a dad"?
10:19:01 18 Foundation and ProtectMarriage.com Action Fund. 10:22:51 18 A. Yes.
10:19:04 19 Q. Do you sometimes use ProtectMarriage.com to 10:22:52 19 Q. Is that language that was on
10:19:06 20 describe a coalition of entities? 10:22:54 20 ProtectMarriage.com's website at some point in time?
10:19:16 21 A. I think that there are a number of entities 10:23:00 21 A. Apparently, this was printed off of its
10:19:19 22 that would say that they align with the general purposes 10:23:02 22 website, and so I would imagine so.
10:19:32 23 of ProtectMarriage.com. 10:23:05 23 Q. And is it accurate that the title
10:19:36 24 MS. STEWART: I'm going to have marked as 10:23:08 24 "ProtectMarriage.com" was used to refer to a broad-based
10:19:38 25 Exhibit 1. 10:23:13 25 coalition of organizations and people?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page7 of 51
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Page 58 Page 60
10:23:19 1 A. I would say that ProtectMarriage.com was 10:27:24 1 a generally directed purpose, not an entity.
10:23:24 2 used -- I would say "yes," and definitely say a 10:27:33 2 Q. Was it a coalition?
10:23:40 3 broad-based coalition -- loose -- loosely. 10:27:39 3 A. Only to the extent that people aligned with a
10:23:46 4 Q. And when you say "loosely," what do you mean? 10:27:42 4 generally directed purpose.
10:23:49 5 A. It's a loosely-formed coalition. 10:27:46 5 Q. Do you recall who was part of that coalition
10:23:52 6 Q. And who -- what were the organizations that 10:27:55 6 prior to the 2008?
10:24:00 7 were part of that loosely-based coalition? 10:27:57 7 A. Prior to the forming of the ballot measure
10:24:04 8 MS. MOSS: I'm going to object to the extent 10:27:58 8 committee, as it reads here, it's a broad-based
10:24:06 9 that -- two grounds: One, I still don't think it's 10:28:06 9 coalition of organizations, churches and individuals,
10:24:13 10 clear exactly which -- 10:28:08 10 and so there was no list. There was no -- there was no
10:24:13 11 THE WITNESS: I agree. 10:28:16 11 entity.
10:24:14 12 MS. MOSS: -- entity, ProtectMarriage.com entity 10:28:17 12 Q. Was there a website?
10:24:15 13 that you're referring to. But secondly, to the extent 10:28:20 13 A. Apparently, this came off of a website and
10:24:18 14 you understand or believe -- understand what entity 10:28:24 14 it's copyright '05.
10:24:23 15 she's referring to, if it's the Yes on 8 committee, if 10:28:26 15 Q. And did you have anything to do with that
10:24:28 16 they were affiliated with organizations and that's 10:28:28 16 website prior to 2008?
10:24:31 17 publicly known, you can disclose that. If there was any 10:28:37 17 A. I did not have anything to do with the
10:24:35 18 private affiliations that are not publicly known, I 10:28:39 18 creation of the website, no.
10:24:39 19 instruct you not to answer. 10:28:42 19 Q. Do you know who did?
10:24:40 20 THE WITNESS: And I interpret your question to 10:28:48 20 A. There has been a -- a changing relatively
10:24:42 21 refer to the Yes on 8 campaign. And there were people 10:28:57 21 fluid group of individuals who attempted to keep the
10:24:46 22 that would go on to the website and sign on endorsing 10:29:07 22 public informed of what was going on legally with
10:24:50 23 it. And that's how loose and how broad-based we 10:29:12 23 marriage.
10:24:55 24 interpreted the coalition to be. 10:29:15 24 Q. But do you know who created the
10:24:58 25 MS. STEWART: Q And so when the website here 10:29:22 25 ProtectMarriage.com website that existed before 2008?

Page 59 Page 61
10:25:07 1 refers to a broad-based coalition of organizations, 10:29:31 1 A. I go not know who is responsible for its
10:25:09 2 churches and individuals, was that coalition formed 10:29:33 2 creation.
10:25:18 3 solely by people signing on to the website? 10:29:34 3 Q. Was it someone who worked for the California
10:25:21 4 A. Well, actually, as I see at the bottom of 10:29:36 4 Family Council?
10:25:24 5 this, it says "2005." So this may be -- if it's 2005, 10:29:37 5 A. No.
10:25:31 6 it obviously came before the formation of the ballot 10:29:37 6 Q. And I believe you said that California Renewal
10:25:36 7 measure committee. 10:29:42 7 had no employees; correct?
10:25:41 8 And I don't know even then whether -- well, 10:29:43 8 A. Correct.
10:25:43 9 there's a page on the left it says "Endorsement" so I 10:29:46 9 Q. So you have no idea, as you sit here, who was
10:25:47 10 guess there was opportunity for people to align with 10:29:49 10 responsible for creating the ProtectMarriage.com website
10:25:51 11 this general cause. 10:29:53 11 before 2008?
10:25:53 12 Q. So let me go back to 2005 then. 10:29:54 12 A. Well, I have some idea in that I've referred
10:25:56 13 And ask you: Was -- was there an entity to 10:29:58 13 to a fluid committee of people. But I do not -- I do
10:26:03 14 your knowledge called ProtectMarriage.com in 2005? 10:30:03 14 not know precisely who pulled this trigger.
10:26:10 15 A. No, not an entity. There have been times 10:30:08 15 Q. If you look at the bottom of Exhibit 1,
10:26:20 16 over -- there have been -- ProtectMarriage.com has been 10:30:10 16 there's a copyright designation it says "Copyright 2005
10:26:26 17 more a general -- general purpose of -- for the benefit 10:30:16 17 ProtectMarriage.com."
10:26:38 18 of traditional marriage. And there have been -- and 10:30:17 18 Do you see that?
10:26:45 19 prior to the Yes on 8 campaign, there was not an 10:30:18 19 A. Yes.
10:26:51 20 official entity. 10:30:18 20 Q. And then it also says "After all rights
10:26:54 21 Q. Was there something other than an official 10:30:23 21 reserved," it says "ProtectMarriage.com, a project of
10:26:58 22 entity that you understood ProtectMarriage.com to refer 10:30:29 22 California Renewal."
10:27:04 23 to before -- let's say before 2008? 10:30:29 23 Do you see that?
10:27:12 24 A. I think that I understood ProtectMarriage.com 10:30:30 24 A. Yes.
10:27:17 25 prior to the ballot measure committee to be, again, a -- 10:30:31 25 Q. Was there a project of California Renewal in

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page8 of 51
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
Page 62 Page 64
10:30:36 1 2005 that was called ProtectMarriage.com? 10:37:44 1 A. Okay.
10:30:44 2 A. There was a -- I believe that would have been 10:37:44 2 Q. And that's what this document suggests at the
10:30:49 3 an earlier iteration of a ballot measure committee. 10:37:46 3 top of it; do you see that --
10:30:56 4 Q. So there was an earlier ballot measure 10:37:48 4 A. Yes.
10:30:59 5 committee formed by or with the authority of the board 10:37:48 5 Q. -- ProtectMarriage.com is a growing --
10:31:04 6 of California Renewal? 10:37:51 6 A. Yes.
10:31:05 7 A. With the approval, yes. 10:37:51 7 Q. -- broad-based coalition of organizations,
10:31:08 8 Q. And were you on that ballot measure committee 10:37:54 8 churches, et cetera.
10:31:11 9 as well? 10:37:58 9 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to take a look a
10:31:12 10 A. No. 10:38:00 10 at an exhibit that would be marked 2.
10:31:13 11 Q. Do you know who was? 10:38:02 11 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 2 was
10:31:19 12 MS. MOSS: Again, I'm going to instruct you not to 10:38:15 12 Marked for identification.)
10:31:20 13 answer -- well, you can answer to the extent whoever the 10:38:18 13 MS. STEWART: Q And ask you if you recognize this
10:31:23 14 membership was public, whoever the volunteers were that 10:38:24 14 document.
10:31:27 15 were public. 10:38:33 15 A. Yes.
10:31:28 16 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether they were public 10:38:34 16 Q. And can you tell me what it is.
10:31:29 17 or not. 10:38:36 17 A. This came from the earlier ballot measure
10:31:33 18 MS. MOSS: If you'd like, we can confer and see if 10:38:44 18 committee of '05. And on that -- on that website then,
10:31:36 19 we know if they were public or not to give you an 10:38:57 19 it did -- it did list endorsements.
10:31:38 20 answer. 10:39:03 20 Q. And is this list -- I think you said earlier
10:31:41 21 MS. STEWART: Sure. 10:39:09 21 that the broad coalition that ProtectMarriage.com was
10:31:43 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record. 10:31. 10:39:15 22 used sometimes to refer to, consisted of people who
10:31:44 23 (Brief break.) 10:39:24 23 signed up on the web to endorse or support --
10:36:10 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. 10:35. 10:39:34 24 A. I think the confusion is that
10:36:15 25 MS. STEWART: Q So Mr. Prentice, were you able to 10:39:37 25 ProtectMarriage.com a ballot measure committee in '05 is

Page 63 Page 65
10:36:18 1 determine whether any of the members of the committee 10:39:42 1 something very different from the ballot measure
10:36:22 2 that formed the ProtectMarriage.com ballot measure 10:39:44 2 committee of ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8.
10:36:29 3 committee in 2005 are public? 10:39:48 3 Q. Well, staying with the one that is reflected
10:36:33 4 A. There was one member who was public as the 10:39:50 4 by the documents that we have here, which is the 2005
10:36:36 5 chairman. 10:39:54 5 ProtectMarriage.com, is Exhibit 2 a list of members or
10:36:37 6 Q. And who was that? 10:40:02 6 some of the members of the coalition that is described
10:36:38 7 A. And that was Peter Henderson. 10:40:06 7 on Exhibit 1?
10:36:41 8 Q. And again, you were not a member of that 10:40:11 8 A. I think what I would take issue with would be
10:36:43 9 committee; is that correct? 10:40:14 9 the term "members." These were folks who agreed with
10:36:45 10 A. Correct. 10:40:20 10 the general direction, purpose of that ballot measure
10:36:46 11 Q. Were you at the time that committee was formed 10:40:25 11 committee and went on themselves and placed themselves
10:36:51 12 the executive director of California Renewal? 10:40:28 12 on as an endorser.
10:36:56 13 A. Yes. 10:40:32 13 Q. But when the ProtectMarriage website referred
10:36:58 14 Q. And that ProtectMarriage.com ballot measure 10:40:36 14 to a coalition of organizations, churches and
10:37:03 15 committee was a project of California Renewal; correct? 10:40:39 15 individuals, was it referring, at least in part, to the
10:37:08 16 A. Yes. 10:40:46 16 entities and people listed on Exhibit 2?
10:37:09 17 Q. And you said I think earlier that it was a -- 10:40:49 17 MS. MOSS: Objection. Lack of foundation.
10:37:17 18 that the name "ProtectMarriage.com" was used also 10:41:00 18 MS. STEWART: Q You can still answer the question.
10:37:24 19 besides the official ballot committee to describe a 10:41:03 19 A. I choose not to.
10:37:27 20 coalition of groups and people; correct? 10:41:05 20 MS. STEWART: You can't.
10:37:31 21 A. Yes. 10:41:06 21 MS. MOSS: You can't choose not to.
10:37:32 22 Q. And -- 10:41:06 22 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
10:37:35 23 A. I'm sorry, did you say official group? 10:41:07 23 MS. STEWART: She instructs --
10:37:38 24 Q. No, I just said a group. A coalition is what 10:41:08 24 MS. MOSS: I would object that there's a lack of
10:37:43 25 I said. 10:41:12 25 foundation for you to necessarily know. But if you

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page9 of 51
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Page 66 Page 68
10:41:14 1 do -- so if you know, you can answer the question. I'm 10:44:32 1 California Renewal, I think there are specific IDs that
10:41:17 2 not instructing you not to answer. 10:44:36 2 go with them.
10:41:24 3 THE WITNESS: You'll need to repeat the question, 10:44:37 3 Could you specify which --
10:41:25 4 please. 10:44:39 4 MS. STEWART: Let me use the date since I think
10:41:30 5 MS. STEWART: Can you read it back. 10:44:39 5 it's a little less cumbersome.
10:41:32 6 (Record read.) 10:44:43 6 MS. MOSS: That would be fine.
10:41:51 7 THE WITNESS: And again, that would be essentially 10:44:43 7 MS. STEWART: Q So are you saying that
10:41:54 8 before my time and my knowledge. And so forgive me for 10:44:45 8 Peter Henderson was the chairman of the 2005
10:42:01 9 misunderstanding. Again, what this reads in Exhibit 1 10:44:49 9 California -- I'm sorry -- the 2005 ProtectMarriage.com
10:42:12 10 of '05 is, indeed, that it's a growing broad-based 10:44:53 10 project of California Renewal?
10:42:17 11 coalition. I think it speaks for itself that those who 10:44:55 11 A. The 2005 ProtectMarriage.com ballot measure --
10:42:24 12 signed on as endorsers claim to align with the general 10:45:00 12 Q. Is there --
10:42:31 13 purpose of the measure. 10:45:01 13 A. -- committee.
10:42:34 14 MS. STEWART: Q So when you say before your time, 10:45:02 14 Q. -- between the project and the ballot measure?
10:42:36 15 I'm trying to understand that. 10:45:06 15 A. Well, this would go to my lack of legal
10:42:38 16 You were the executive director of California 10:45:08 16 intellect. And that would be that I believe though the
10:42:40 17 Renewal in 2005; correct? 10:45:16 17 ballot measure committee is a project of California
10:42:42 18 A. Yes. 10:45:19 18 Renewal, it simply went to the board of California
10:42:42 19 Q. And ProtectMarriage.com was a project of 10:45:25 19 Renewal to ask for its use for the ballot measure
10:42:45 20 California Renewal; correct? 10:45:29 20 committee.
10:42:48 21 A. Correct. 10:45:32 21 Q. Did Mr. Henderson have any responsibility for
10:42:52 22 Q. Are you saying that you didn't have knowledge 10:45:34 22 the website of ProtectMarriage.com at the time?
10:42:54 23 of the operations of that project of California Renewal? 10:45:38 23 A. I don't -- I'll -- I don't know.
10:42:58 24 A. I was not involved on a day-to-day basis, 10:45:44 24 Q. What was the ballot measure that was the
10:43:03 25 correct. 10:45:47 25 subject of ProtectMarriage.com in 2005?

Page 67 Page 69
10:43:04 1 Q. Were you involved on any basis? 10:45:52 1 A. The -- it was again recognizing the need to
10:43:07 2 A. I was informed because we were -- it was a 10:46:00 2 protect traditional marriage in California law.
10:43:15 3 project of California Renewal. I had a responsibility 10:46:05 3 Q. Was it different in any way from the 2008
10:43:18 4 to inform the board of directors who had given authority 10:46:06 4 ballot measure that became known as Proposition 8?
10:43:22 5 to use California Renewal for this purpose. 10:46:12 5 A. I believe so.
10:43:26 6 Q. And as part of that responsibility, did you 10:46:12 6 Q. How was it different?
10:43:29 7 familiarize yourself with the activities of 10:46:14 7 A. I believe that the -- the --
10:43:32 8 ProtectMarriage.com? 10:46:25 8 MS. MOSS: You can answer the question, but I'm
10:43:34 9 A. I was -- I was kept informed of the general 10:46:27 9 just going to insert an objection to the extent that
10:43:38 10 activities. 10:46:30 10 calls for a legal conclusion. But you can offer your --
10:43:39 11 Q. Okay. 10:46:35 11 THE WITNESS: I do not have -- I do not have the
10:43:40 12 And who kept you informed. 10:46:37 12 difference before me.
10:43:42 13 A. Peter Henderson. 10:46:40 13 MS. STEWART: Q So are you saying you don't
10:43:43 14 Q. And was Peter Henderson an employee of 10:46:41 14 remember.
10:43:50 15 California Family Council? 10:46:41 15 A. I don't I don't recall the specific language.
10:43:52 16 A. Yes, he was. 10:46:44 16 Q. Do you recall generally in lay persons terms
10:43:52 17 Q. And was he the one primarily responsible for 10:46:48 17 how the measure was different in the 2005 measure from
10:43:55 18 the ProtectMarriage.com project of California Renewal? 10:46:53 18 Proposition 8?
10:44:00 19 A. As I stated earlier, Peter was the chairman of 10:46:55 19 A. The -- there was some discussion of -- yes,
10:44:06 20 a separate and distinct committee of the '05 ballot 10:47:03 20 within the language there was discussion of where --
10:44:13 21 measure. 10:47:07 21 let's see -- of domestic partnerships.
10:44:16 22 Q. He was the chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com 10:47:14 22 Q. And what was your understanding as to what the
10:44:21 23 project of California Renewal? 10:47:18 23 measure would do with respect to domestic partnerships?
10:44:25 24 MS. MOSS: Can you -- there's -- I think since 10:47:21 24 MS. MOSS: I'll object to the extent you're asking
10:44:28 25 there's different ProtectMarriage.com projects of 10:47:23 25 for a legal understanding.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page10 of 51
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Page 70 Page 72
10:47:25 1 MS. STEWART: I'm not. I'm asking for his 10:50:41 1 THE WITNESS: And I'll restate that I was aware of
10:47:27 2 understanding. 10:50:45 2 what the language stated.
10:47:29 3 THE WITNESS: I think that the measure clarified 10:50:46 3 MS. STEWART: Q Did you have an understanding as
10:47:32 4 that there was a legal differentiation between domestic 10:50:48 4 to the effect of that language, a lay person's
10:47:37 5 partnerships and marriage. 10:50:53 5 understanding in 2005?
10:47:39 6 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at 10:50:54 6 A. I had an understanding that this language
10:47:41 7 Exhibit 3. 10:51:02 7 would be highly contested.
10:47:41 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 3 was marked 10:51:07 8 Q. Did you have an understanding of what it would
10:47:52 9 For identification.) 10:51:09 9 mean if it was passed?
10:47:53 10 MS. STEWART: Q Do you recognize this document? 10:51:12 10 A. Well, I -- when you ask that question, I -- we
10:48:33 11 A. I'm familiar with it. 10:51:15 11 had an understanding of what it may mean.
10:48:35 12 Q. Is this the ballot measure that was the 10:51:19 12 Q. And what was that understanding?
10:48:45 13 responsibility of ProtectMarriage.com the 2005 ballot 10:51:20 13 A. It may mean one of two things: It may mean
10:48:48 14 measure committee? 10:51:24 14 that it would, as it states here, on its face, bar
10:48:53 15 A. It appears so. 10:51:28 15 domestic partnerships from being valid or recognized as
10:48:55 16 Q. And does this refresh your recollection as to 10:51:31 16 legal unions. On the other hand, it may very well mean
10:48:59 17 what that ballot measure would have done had it taken 10:51:36 17 it would not -- it would not hold up in court.
10:49:02 18 effect? 10:51:44 18 Q. So in other words, it could be challenged is
10:49:03 19 A. Yes, it does. 10:51:46 19 what you're saying?
10:49:04 20 Q. And can you tell me what that is? 10:51:48 20 A. Correct.
10:49:06 21 A. Well, the language states that the marriage 10:51:49 21 Q. But if it held up, it would mean that there
10:49:11 22 between a man and a woman would be the only legal union 10:51:51 22 would be no more domestic partnerships --
10:49:14 23 valid or recognized in California. 10:51:55 23 A. As it said on its face, yes.
10:49:16 24 Q. And it would bar domestic partnerships from 10:52:10 24 Q. Thank-you.
10:49:18 25 being recognized as valid legal unions in California; is 10:52:11 25 So earlier you were -- we got bogged down a

Page 71 Page 73
10:49:22 1 that correct? 10:52:18 1 little bit in some confusion about the name
10:49:23 2 MS. MOSS: Objection. Calls for a legal 10:52:21 2 ProtectMarriage.com.
10:49:24 3 conclusion. 10:52:22 3 So we've now I think, if I understand your
10:49:28 4 THE WITNESS: That's what it states. 10:52:25 4 answers correctly, established that there was an entity
10:49:30 5 MS. STEWART: Q Were you aware at the time that 10:52:33 5 and a coalition that used the title
10:49:32 6 the ballot measure that ProtectMarriage.com was 10:52:35 6 "ProtectMarriage.com" in 2005; is that fair?
10:49:37 7 responsible for would have eliminated legal recognition 10:52:40 7 A. There was a ballot measure committee in 2005
10:49:43 8 for domestic relationships? 10:52:46 8 that used ProtectMarriage.com.
10:49:48 9 MS. MOSS: Objection. Assumes legal facts not in 10:52:48 9 Q. And there was also a coalition that used that
10:49:51 10 evidence. 10:52:51 10 terminology; correct?
10:49:53 11 THE WITNESS: I was aware that this language 10:52:53 11 A. I believe -- I believe I've answered that. I
10:49:57 12 existed from that earlier organization. 10:52:56 12 believe that there was no formal coalition.
10:50:04 13 MS. STEWART: Q And at the time that organization 10:53:00 13 Q. But there was a coalition -- informal?
10:50:07 14 was a project of California Renewal, i.e. in 2005, at 10:53:04 14 A. There were a variety of organizations,
10:50:11 15 that time were you aware that the ballot measure -- that 10:53:08 15 churches and individuals who agreed with the general
10:50:16 16 it was promoting would eliminate domestic partnerships? 10:53:14 16 direction of the ballot measure committee.
10:50:22 17 MS. MOSS: Objection. Assumes legal facts not in 10:53:16 17 Q. And was there an effort to circulate the
10:50:25 18 evidence. 10:53:26 18 measure that we just looked at as Exhibit 3 for
10:50:27 19 THE WITNESS: I can only say that I was aware of 10:53:31 19 signatures in 2005?
10:50:29 20 what the language stated. 10:53:33 20 A. To my knowledge, yes.
10:50:30 21 MS. STEWART: Q So you were aware that the 10:53:35 21 Q. And was -- did that effort fail?
10:50:33 22 amendment that was being proposed would bar domestic 10:53:39 22 A. Yes.
10:50:36 23 partnerships from being valid or recognized as legal 10:53:42 23 Q. Do you know why it failed?
10:50:39 24 unions in California? 10:53:49 24 A. I don't know the specific reason why it
10:50:40 25 MS. MOSS: Same objection. 10:53:52 25 failed. I know it didn't receive enough signatures.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page11 of 51
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Page 74 Page 76
10:53:55 1 Q. Was there a difficulty raising the funds to 10:57:51 1 MS. STEWART: Can you read back his last answer.
10:53:59 2 get those signatures? 10:58:12 2 (Record read.)
10:54:00 3 A. I'm aware as far as the funding was very 10:58:12 3 MS. STEWART: Q So I want to refer to that
10:54:05 4 limited. 10:58:14 4 coalition that you just mentioned as the
10:54:16 5 Q. Who did the fundraising for that effort? 10:58:16 5 "ProtectMarriage.com coalition." To distinguish it from
10:54:21 6 MS. MOSS: To the extent that's publically known, 10:58:19 6 the "ProtectMarriage.com official ballot measure
10:54:25 7 you can respond. To the extent it would require you to 10:58:23 7 committee."
10:54:28 8 reveal somebody whose association with that ballot 10:58:25 8 Do you understand that distinction?
10:54:33 9 measure committee is not known, I would direct you not 10:58:26 9 A. Yes.
10:54:36 10 to answer. 10:58:28 10 Q. And I'm doing that so that we don't keep
10:54:36 11 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware. 10:58:31 11 getting bogged down in our questioning "Well, which --
10:54:39 12 MS. STEWART: Q You're not aware at all or you're 10:58:35 12 are you referring to the entity, the official entity or
10:54:41 13 not aware of anyone non-public? 10:58:38 13 are you referring more broadly to the coalition?"
10:54:44 14 A. I'm not aware of anyone at all. 10:58:41 14 So do you understand that use of the term?
10:54:55 15 Q. I want to fast forward a little bit to 2008 -- 10:58:43 15 A. I do. I -- however -- I believe I'm still at
10:54:58 16 but before I do, I want to cover the period between the 10:58:49 16 a place with a lack of understanding or a lack of
10:55:05 17 measure we were just talking about, 2005 and 2008, and 10:58:55 17 agreement as to when we refer to a "coalition," you
10:55:09 18 ask you: Was the name "ProtectMarriage.com" used for 10:59:01 18 earlier used the term "member" and there were no such --
10:55:15 19 any purpose, to your knowledge, between when the 2005 10:59:04 19 there was no such entity.
10:55:22 20 measure failed to get enough signatures and 2008? 10:59:08 20 Q. Okay.
10:55:30 21 A. I believe that there had been -- actually, I'm 10:59:10 21 Well, let me ask you this: If you go to
10:55:38 22 not sure. I don't know. 10:59:15 22 ProtectMarriage.com's website today, and I think this
10:55:43 23 Q. Do you -- is it a failure of memory or you 10:59:18 23 was true in 2008 as well, under the heading about
10:55:46 24 really you don't know at all? 10:59:26 24 ProtectMarriage.com it says "ProtectMarriage.com is a
10:55:50 25 A. It could be both. 10:59:30 25 broad-based coalition of California families, community

Page 75 Page 77
10:55:53 1 Q. Okay. 10:59:35 1 leaders, religious leaders, pro family organizations and
10:55:56 2 A. I'm -- I don't have a recollection. 10:59:40 2 individuals from all walks of life who have joined
10:55:58 3 Q. Okay. Fair enough. 10:59:44 3 together to support Proposition 8."
10:56:02 4 In any event, in 2008, the name 10:59:48 4 First of all, is that an accurate statement?
10:56:05 5 "ProtectMarriage.com" was used again; is that correct? 10:59:52 5 A. It's an accurate statement to the degree that
10:56:10 6 A. Correct. 10:59:54 6 we have a an understanding of what "joined together"
10:56:10 7 Q. Can you tell me the purposes for which the 10:59:59 7 means.
10:56:14 8 name "ProtectMarriage.com" was used in 2008? 10:59:59 8 Q. And what does "join together" mean in that
10:56:19 9 A. Well, ProtectMarriage.com was used for the 11:00:02 9 website?
10:56:24 10 ballot measure committee. And then once we received an 11:00:03 10 A. It means that we are like-minded towards the
10:56:32 11 initiative number, Yes on 8 was added to that. 11:00:06 11 definition of marriage.
10:56:39 12 Q. Okay. 11:00:08 12 Q. Does that mean that you work together towards
10:56:40 13 So it was used for the ballot measure 11:00:10 13 the passage of Proposition 8?
10:56:42 14 committee. 11:00:13 14 A. I think it meant that a number of different
10:56:43 15 Was it also used to describe a coalition? 11:00:18 15 organizations, entities, churches worked towards the
10:56:54 16 A. ProtectMarriage.com was -- has been -- during 11:00:24 16 purpose of the passage.
10:57:01 17 the ballot measure of '08, yes. When we would 11:00:26 17 Did we work together? Not always.
10:57:09 18 communicate about the measure, we would talk about the 11:00:29 18 Q. So sometimes you worked together and sometimes
10:57:15 19 loose broad-based coalition. 11:00:30 19 you worked separately; is that fair?
10:57:21 20 Q. For ease of reference, can we refer to that 11:00:33 20 A. Well, actually, most -- those people who would
10:57:32 21 coalition as the "ProtectMarriage.com coalition"? 11:00:38 21 say that they were part of that broad-based coalition
10:57:36 22 A. Well, I -- I think that we haven't defined the 11:00:42 22 were by no means under the authority or the direction of
10:57:39 23 term so that's my hesitancy. So I don't know that I'm 11:00:46 23 the ad hoc executive committee.
10:57:43 24 comfortable saying there is ease to using that term. 11:00:49 24 Q. Fair enough.
10:57:48 25 Q. Well, you just mentioned that -- 11:00:49 25 But they -- when this language -- and I

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page12 of 51
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
Page 78 Page 80
11:00:53 1 apologize, we will have this printed out later -- but 11:09:52 1 was formed. And you said I think 2007.
11:00:57 2 when the language on the website again says "That 11:09:56 2 A. Mid-November, yes.
11:01:00 3 ProtectMarriage.com is a broad-based coalition of 11:09:57 3 Q. And did you play a role in the formation of
11:01:04 4 California families, community leaders, religious 11:10:00 4 that entity?
11:01:07 5 leaders, pro family organizations, and individuals from 11:10:02 5 A. I was a member of the ad hoc executive
11:01:09 6 all walks of life who have joined together to support 11:10:05 6 committee.
11:01:15 7 Proposition 8." 11:10:05 7 Q. And who else was an ad -- a member of that ad
11:01:16 8 So in some sense, did those entities, those 11:10:14 8 hoc executive committee for the 2008 entity?
11:01:21 9 groups, families, religious leaders, et cetera join 11:10:21 9 MS. MOSS: I think that's been asked and answered.
11:01:26 10 together to support Proposition 8? 11:10:21 10 You can answer it again, but the same instruction.
11:01:28 11 A. I would say -- I would not agree with the 11:10:24 11 Don't reveal the one individual who's asked us to keep
11:01:31 12 accuracy of that statement on the website. I would 11:10:28 12 his --
11:01:34 13 have -- I would have taken issue with it and -- 11:10:29 13 THE WITNESS: One individual has asked for
11:01:37 14 (Ms. Piepmeier leaves the room.) 11:10:32 14 confidentiality. And then Mark Jansson, Ned Dolejsi and
11:01:39 15 THE WITNESS: -- and said working towards the 11:10:37 15 myself.
11:01:40 16 passage. And I would have left out "joined together." 11:10:39 16 MS. STEWART: Q Was Mr. Pugno a member of the
11:01:46 17 MS. STEWART: Q So speaking now about 11:10:40 17 executive committee?
11:01:55 18 ProtectMarriage.com the ballot measure committee, the 11:10:42 18 A. No.
11:02:04 19 one that supported Proposition 8, when was that 11:10:42 19 Q. Did the membership of the executive committee
11:02:08 20 committee formed? 11:10:46 20 change at any time?
11:02:11 21 A. To the best of my knowledge, the middle of 11:10:47 21 A. During the campaign? Is that what you're
11:02:16 22 November, '07. 11:10:51 22 asking?
11:02:38 23 Q. Was a website then created by that committee 11:10:53 23 Q. Yes.
11:02:43 24 or for that committee? 11:10:55 24 A. No, not to my knowledge, no.
11:02:47 25 A. There had been a website during that time, 11:10:57 25 Q. So yourself, Ned Dolejsi, Mr. Jansson and

Page 79 Page 81
11:02:52 1 yes. 11:11:04 1 we'll call him Mr. Doe; correct?
11:02:52 2 Q. Did the website that was -- that we saw on 11:11:08 2 A. Correct. Mr. or Ms.
11:02:57 3 Exhibits 1 and 2 earlier remain online into 2008? 11:11:26 3 Q. Fair enough.
11:03:04 4 A. I'm not aware. I don't know. 11:11:28 4 When was that ad hoc committee first convened?
11:03:06 5 Q. Okay. 11:11:31 5 (Ms. Piepmeier enters the room.)
11:03:07 6 But at some point, there was a 11:11:38 6 THE WITNESS: I'm not -- I wouldn't have referred
11:03:10 7 ProtectMarriage.com website that was the -- 11:11:42 7 to that group of people as an ad hoc executive committee
11:03:14 8 A. Oriented towards the ballot measure committee 11:11:47 8 until it was decided to move forward with the ballot
11:03:16 9 of '08. 11:11:53 9 measure. And therefore, I would say sometime in the
11:03:17 10 Q. And you don't know when or how that website 11:12:03 10 middle of '08 -- excuse me -- '07.
11:03:20 11 was created? 11:12:06 11 MS. STEWART: Q And are you saying -- if I
11:03:21 12 A. I -- No, I don't know the specifics. 11:12:10 12 understand your answer correctly, you're saying that it
11:03:27 13 MS. STEWART: I've been informed that the 11:12:13 13 didn't meet as a committee per se, until the middle of
11:03:28 14 videographer needs to change the tape. So I think we 11:12:20 14 2007?
11:03:33 15 should take a short break. 11:12:23 15 A. Well, even then we wouldn't have termed
11:03:36 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This ends the end of tape No. 1, 11:12:26 16 ourselves "the committee."
11:03:39 17 volume 1 of Ronald Prentice. We are off the record at 11:12:27 17 Q. So putting aside what you called yourselves,
11:03:46 18 11:03. 11:12:30 18 when did that group first begin to meet?
11:08:48 19 (Brief break.) 11:12:35 19 A. And I'm sorry, I don't know the any precise
11:09:28 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the beginning of tape 11:12:38 20 date. I would say that it -- that that group of
11:09:31 21 No. 2 in the deposition of Ronald Prentice. Back on the 11:12:46 21 individuals was in discussion anytime March to July,
11:09:34 22 record at 11:09. 11:12:57 22 '07.
11:09:37 23 MS. STEWART: Q All right. I think we just were 11:13:01 23 Q. And then at some point -- and let me rephrase
11:09:40 24 talking about when ProtectMarriage.com the ballot 11:13:07 24 that.
11:09:46 25 measure committee that was responsible for Proposition 8 11:13:08 25 When did the California Renewal board give the

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page13 of 51
29 (Pages 110 to 113)
Page 110 Page 112
12:03:42 1 A. A simulcast is where an event takes place in 12:06:21 1 Q. And McPherson's church you said was The Rock
12:03:46 2 one facility and the event is broadcast into other 12:06:25 2 Church?
12:03:53 3 facilities. 12:06:26 3 A. Correct.
12:03:55 4 Q. At the same time? 12:06:26 4 Q. And where is that?
12:03:55 5 A. Yes. 12:06:28 5 A. Point Loma-San Diego.
12:03:56 6 Q. Hence the simul part of simulcast? 12:06:31 6 Q. Thank-you. I'm bad with Southern California.
12:04:00 7 A. Yeah. 12:06:37 7 So the Pastors Rapid Response Team put them
12:04:01 8 Q. So you mentioned earlier that there were 12:06:46 8 on.
12:04:04 9 simulcasts done in the effort to pass Prop 8. 12:06:47 9 Were they sponsored by ProtectMarriage.com?
12:04:14 10 Can you describe those events, those simulcast 12:06:50 10 A. You need to tell me what you mean by
12:04:18 11 events. 12:06:51 11 "sponsored."
12:04:19 12 A. Those were put on by Pastors Rapid Response 12:06:54 12 Q. Did ProtectMarriage.com promote them in any
12:04:24 13 Team, and were oriented towards pastors and churches. 12:07:00 13 way?
12:04:34 14 Q. And how many were there? 12:07:10 14 A. I'm not -- I'm not remembering a time. I
12:04:40 15 A. I believe there were three. 12:07:14 15 would imagine we may have -- we may have communicated
12:04:47 16 Q. And did you participate in any way in those 12:07:18 16 that they took place or that they were going to take
12:04:55 17 simulcasts? 12:07:21 17 place. But it wasn't a major part of our communication.
12:04:56 18 A. No. 12:07:27 18 Q. Did ProtectMarriage.com provide funding for
12:04:57 19 Q. Were you present at the -- were they held in 12:07:31 19 them?
12:05:02 20 churches? 12:07:31 20 A. Yes.
12:05:05 21 MS. MOSS: Let me just interject. Obviously, you 12:07:34 21 Q. What level of funding, if you recall, did
12:05:07 22 can only answer what you know, and you can answer that. 12:07:38 22 ProtectMarriage.com provide for the simulcasts?
12:05:09 23 I just want to for the record note a lack of foundation 12:07:43 23 A. We provided for the total funding of the
12:05:12 24 to the extent that he said he didn't. 12:07:46 24 simulcast.
12:05:15 25 MS. STEWART: He can say if he doesn't know -- 12:07:54 25 MS. STEWART: I'm going to suggest we take a lunch

Page 111 Page 113

12:05:17 1 MS. MOSS: If he knows. I just want to preserve 12:07:56 1 break. Is this a good time for you guys?
12:05:19 2 the foundation objection. 12:07:59 2 MS. MOSS: Sure.
12:05:23 3 MS. STEWART: Preserve. 12:08:05 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record at 12:07.
12:05:24 4 MS. MOSS: But you can answer. 12:08:07 4 (Lunch recess.)
12:05:25 5 THE WITNESS: I believe Pastor Garlow's church was 12:08:07 5 (Ms. Piepmeier is absent.)
12:05:28 6 the facility where -- actually, no, I'm wrong. 01:19:03 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:18, and we're back
12:05:32 7 At least one was held at The Rock Church, 01:19:05 7 on the record.
12:05:36 8 Miles McPherson's church. I believe two were held at 01:19:08 8 MS. STEWART: Q Mr. Prentice, do you understand
12:05:39 9 Pastor Garlow's church. And then they were broadcast 01:19:10 9 that you're still under oath?
12:05:43 10 into other churches. 01:19:12 10 A. Yes.
12:05:45 11 MS. STEWART: Q And did you observe them while 01:19:12 11 Q. And that when we take breaks in the
12:05:48 12 they -- well, first of all, were you at the churches 01:19:15 12 deposition, it doesn't mean the oath goes away.
12:05:51 13 when they were being held? 01:19:19 13 You understand that; right?
12:05:52 14 A. No. 01:19:20 14 A. Yes.
12:05:52 15 Q. Did you watch the simulcasts? 01:19:24 15 Q. Did the executive committee for
12:05:56 16 A. No. 01:19:36 16 ProtectMarriage.com have responsibility to coordinate
12:05:56 17 Q. Did you watch them ever after they were held? 01:19:43 17 with the organizations, churches and individuals that
12:05:59 18 A. One portion of one. 01:19:47 18 made up the ProtectMarriage coalition?
12:06:02 19 Q. And Pastor Garlow's church, which church is 01:19:54 19 A. By referring to executive committee of
12:06:06 20 that? 01:19:57 20 ProtectMarriage.com, you're referring to the committee
12:06:07 21 A. Skyline Westling Church. 01:20:00 21 that was formed for the campaign of '08?
12:06:13 22 Q. And where is it located? 01:20:04 22 Q. Yes.
12:06:16 23 A. El Cajon, California. 01:20:04 23 A. Did we have responsibility to communicate
12:06:18 24 Q. Is that near San Diego? 01:20:06 24 with --
12:06:19 25 A. San Diego, eastern San Diego. 01:20:07 25 Q. Right.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page14 of 51
30 (Pages 114 to 117)
Page 114 Page 116
01:20:07 1 Was that one of the responsibilities of the 01:24:02 1 "coordinating." But if you understand it, you can
01:20:09 2 executive committee? 01:24:05 2 answer.
01:20:10 3 A. It was one of our strategies. 01:24:05 3 THE WITNESS: I don't well enough.
01:20:12 4 Q. And were you personally involved in that 01:24:55 4 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at an
01:20:18 5 effort of coordinating with the organizations churches 01:25:02 5 exhibit that will be marked 6.
01:20:22 6 and individuals that made up the coalition? 01:25:04 6 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 6 was
01:20:28 7 A. I participated in communicating to churches 01:25:28 7 Marked for identification.)
01:20:36 8 and pastors. 01:25:43 8 MS. STEWART: Q Take a moment, if you need to, to
01:20:49 9 Q. Did anyone -- did any of the consultants that 01:25:45 9 look at the document. Because I'm going to ask you if
01:21:31 10 ProtectMarriage.com retained for the Prop 8 campaign 01:25:48 10 you recognize it and can tell me what it is.
01:21:39 11 also participate in coordinating with the organizations, 01:26:13 11 (Pause in the proceedings.)
01:21:42 12 churches and individuals that made up the 01:27:08 12 THE WITNESS: Okay.
01:21:46 13 ProtectMarriage coalition? 01:27:10 13 MS. STEWART: Q Do you recognize this as the
01:21:59 14 A. To my knowledge, no. 01:27:12 14 income tax return for 2006 for the California Family
01:22:01 15 Q. Not even Shubert-Flint? 01:27:16 15 Council Foundation?
01:22:04 16 A. Well, I continue to go back to the idea of 01:27:18 16 A. Yes.
01:22:07 17 coordinating. I think they were invited as I mentioned, 01:27:19 17 Q. Is the California Family Council Foundation
01:22:09 18 but they didn't put those together. 01:27:23 18 the entity that we were talking about earlier today that
01:22:19 19 Q. Well, I'm not specifically -- I'm not 01:27:27 19 we referred to as the California Family Council? Are
01:22:21 20 referring to some specific -- from the nature of your 01:27:30 20 there two entities or is it one?
01:22:24 21 answer from what you said, I want to be clear. I'm not 01:27:32 21 A. It is the same entity.
01:22:29 22 referring to a conference call in particular. 01:27:34 22 Q. Thank-you.
01:22:31 23 I'm just asking in general, did any of the 01:27:35 23 And is it part of your responsibility -- or
01:22:35 24 consultants -- you know, did you charge them with some 01:27:39 24 let me ask more specifically.
01:22:40 25 responsibility to coordinate with organizations and 01:27:41 25 In 2006, was it part of your responsibility to

Page 115 Page 117

01:22:45 1 churches and individuals that made up the coalition, the 01:27:44 1 see that the tax returns for the entity were prepared
01:22:49 2 broad ProtectMarriage coalition? 01:27:51 2 and filed?
01:22:51 3 MS. MOSS: I'll object to the term vague -- the 01:27:52 3 A. Yes, ultimately.
01:22:55 4 term "coordination" is vague. 01:27:54 4 Q. And if you look at page 9 of this document, is
01:22:57 5 THE WITNESS: I am struggling with it. 01:27:58 5 that your signature on the document?
01:22:59 6 MS. STEWART: Q Well, you did communicate with the 01:28:05 6 A. Yes.
01:23:03 7 churches and organizations and individuals that made up 01:28:32 7 MS. STEWART: Now, I'm going to ask you to take a
01:23:05 8 the coalition; correct? 01:28:35 8 look --
01:23:12 9 A. As an individual or as a committee? 01:28:48 9 (Ms. Piepmeier enters the room.)
01:23:14 10 Q. As a committee. 01:28:49 10 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 7 was
01:23:15 11 A. We certainly communicated with numerous 01:28:49 11 Marked for identification.)
01:23:19 12 groups. But I think that the manner in which you're 01:28:57 12 MS. STEWART: So I'm going to hand you Exhibit 7.
01:23:26 13 posing the question seems to be an all or nothing. 01:30:21 13 Let me know when you've had a chance to review
01:23:30 14 That's, kind of, how I'm interpreting it. 01:30:24 14 it.
01:23:34 15 Q. All or nothing how? 01:30:25 15 A. Okay.
01:23:37 16 A. You asked about Shubert-Flint -- 01:30:25 16 Q. And I'm going to ask you if this is the 2007
01:23:39 17 Q. Right. 01:30:29 17 tax return for the California Family Council?
01:23:40 18 A. -- did they communicate through this and that 01:30:33 18 A. Yes.
01:23:43 19 and that and that. And the answer would be no, not to 01:30:52 19 MS. STEWART: Now, I'm going to ask you to look at
01:23:47 20 all of those groups. 01:30:54 20 Exhibit 8.
01:23:48 21 Q. But I guess what I'm asking is did they share 01:30:54 21 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 8 was
01:23:50 22 in the responsibility of coordinating with the 01:31:04 22 Marked for identification.)
01:23:55 23 organizations and churches and individuals that made up 01:31:16 23 MS. STEWART: Q And my question for this one is
01:23:58 24 the ProtectMarriage coalition? 01:31:18 24 going to be whether this is the tax return for 2005 for
01:24:01 25 MS. MOSS: Same objection to the term 01:31:31 25 California Renewal.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page15 of 51
51 (Pages 198 to 201)
Page 198 Page 200
04:28:34 1 Q. Well, it states that ProtectMarriage.com is 04:32:03 1 gathered -- I see -- were gathered in 2005. And that
04:28:37 2 now moving forward with another attempt to qualify a 04:32:08 2 was the measure that didn't make it onto the ballot; is
04:28:40 3 ballot measure. 04:32:12 3 that what you're saying?
04:28:41 4 That would seem to indicate that the document 04:32:13 4 A. Correct.
04:28:43 5 was prepared and circulated before Proposition 8 had 04:32:13 5 Q. And now it says in the next paragraph that
04:28:49 6 actually qualified for the ballot would it not? 04:32:15 6 "ProtectMarriage.com is moving forward with another
04:28:52 7 A. Yes. 04:32:19 7 attempt to qualify a ballot measure."
04:28:53 8 However, the ProtectMarriage.com that's 04:32:22 8 Is it your understanding that that refers to
04:28:56 9 referenced here is not the same ProtectMarriage.com that 04:32:24 9 what eventually became Proposition 8?
04:29:05 10 registered as a ballot measure committee. 04:32:27 10 A. Yes.
04:29:08 11 Q. And how do you know that? 04:32:56 11 Q. Look at the middle panel on the second page of
04:29:10 12 A. Well, because even members on this coalition 04:33:00 12 the document in the last piece of text in the bullet
04:29:14 13 were not members -- were not participating in -- were 04:33:05 13 point. It says "In mid-2008, the California Supreme
04:29:23 14 not actively participating in -- in the passage of 04:33:09 14 Court will decide whether the definition of marriage as
04:29:27 15 Prop 8. 04:33:13 15 only between a man and a woman, Proposition 22, is
04:29:28 16 Q. Okay. 04:33:16 16 constitutionally protected."
04:29:29 17 So were not actively participating in the 04:33:18 17 Do you see that?
04:29:32 18 passage of Prop 8 at what time period? 04:33:18 18 A. Yes.
04:29:35 19 A. During the campaign. 04:33:19 19 Q. So obviously this document was prepared before
04:29:36 20 Q. So when you said, "during the campaign," do 04:33:21 20 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in May
04:29:38 21 you mean after the measure had qualified for the ballot? 04:33:24 21 of 2008; correct?
04:29:51 22 A. I -- I don't know. I don't know precisely the 04:33:26 22 A. Correct.
04:29:55 23 timeline of this. 04:33:27 23 Q. And was there a coalition of organizations
04:29:56 24 Q. In -- in 2008 when this brochure appears to 04:33:34 24 that were in someway moving forward as of sometime in
04:30:07 25 have been produced, you were the -- I'm forgetting -- 04:33:49 25 the middle of 2008 or early 2008 to qualify another

Page 199 Page 201

04:30:13 1 executive director of the California Family Council? 04:33:54 1 measure for the ballot?
04:30:18 2 MS. MOSS: Object to the extent I don't think it's 04:33:57 2 MS. MOSS: Object to the form of the question. I
04:30:19 3 been established when this brochure was, in fact, 04:33:58 3 think again to the extent that there's been some
04:30:23 4 created. Whether it was -- 04:34:01 4 disagreement about exactly what coalition means, to the
04:30:26 5 MS. STEWART: Q Let me just ask this: Let me go 04:34:05 5 extent you understand that term, you may answer the
04:30:38 6 back to the second page and look at that right-hand 04:34:07 6 question.
04:30:44 7 panel again. And the paragraph above the one that's got 04:34:12 7 THE WITNESS: Well, clearly, the -- by referring to
04:30:48 8 a lot of bold-faced type, it says "The ProtectMarriage 04:34:19 8 this last bullet point in mid-2008, the timing of this
04:30:53 9 Coalition's volunteer effort gathered nearly 300,000 04:34:28 9 appears to have been either just before or during the
04:30:56 10 signatures through church communications." 04:34:39 10 petition-gathering phase.
04:30:58 11 Do you see that? 04:34:40 11 MS. STEWART: Q Fair enough.
04:30:58 12 A. Uh-huh. 04:34:43 12 And was there -- the third panel says
04:31:00 13 Q. Is that true that a coalition that called 04:34:51 13 "ProtectMarriage.com is now moving" -- the third panel
04:31:06 14 itself "ProtectMarriage" used volunteers to gather 04:34:54 14 on the second page -- "ProtectMarriage.com is now moving
04:31:10 15 300,000 signatures? 04:34:57 15 forward with another attempt to qualify a ballot
04:31:12 16 A. I would probably take issue with the fact that 04:35:00 16 measure."
04:31:15 17 it would be the ProtectMarriage coalition. I would say 04:35:00 17 Do you see that?
04:31:19 18 that there were a number of groups who participated -- 04:35:00 18 A. Yes.
04:31:25 19 churches and otherwise -- who participated in attempting 04:35:01 19 Q. And is it your understanding that there was
04:31:32 20 to gather signatures. 04:35:04 20 some kind of coalition or group -- of group in the first
04:31:33 21 Q. And when did the coalition succeed in 04:35:11 21 half of 2008 that were working to qualify -- to get the
04:31:43 22 gathering 300,000 signatures? 04:35:15 22 signatures to qualify what became Prop 8?
04:31:46 23 A. I believe this refers to the -- the attempt in 04:35:20 23 A. I don't believe that there's any change in the
04:31:51 24 2005. 04:35:25 24 definition that we have attempted to establish. And
04:31:57 25 Q. If that's -- so the 300,000 signatures were 04:35:28 25 that is that this was a loose broad-based coalition, not

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page16 of 51
52 (Pages 202 to 205)
Page 202 Page 204
04:35:36 1 taking orders from any authoritative group. And these 04:38:28 1 that received it.
04:35:49 2 entities were like-minded about the passage of such a 04:38:32 2 Q. And I apologize, again, if I -- there's a lot
04:35:55 3 measure, but -- but that's -- that's the extent of the 04:38:37 3 of entities here, and so I'm not sure what I've asked
04:36:01 4 relationship. 04:38:41 4 about and what I haven't. I'm trying to keep track.
04:36:02 5 Q. Okay. 04:38:45 5 But when did the official ballot measure
04:36:02 6 So without changing that non-authoritative 04:38:48 6 committee for Proposition 8 actually form?
04:36:07 7 informal coalition -- definition of coalition, were the 04:38:52 7 A. The ballot committee formed the -- I'm doing
04:36:10 8 groups listed on the first page of this brochure moving 04:39:01 8 the math here. I believe it was --
04:36:17 9 forward with an attempt to qualify Proposition 8 for the 04:39:06 9 MS. MOSS: That actually has been asked and
04:36:19 10 ballot? 04:39:08 10 answered earlier.
04:36:21 11 A. Individually, independently. 04:39:10 11 THE WITNESS: I thought so.
04:36:24 12 Q. And one of those entities was the California 04:39:11 12 MS. MOSS: His testimony earlier was in
04:36:27 13 Family Council? 04:39:14 13 mid-November, 2007.
04:36:28 14 A. Correct. 04:39:15 14 THE WITNESS: Thank-you.
04:36:28 15 Q. And another was Focus on the Family? 04:39:16 15 MS. STEWART: Q So why would you describe
04:36:32 16 A. Yes. 04:39:19 16 ProtectMarriage.com as a coalition in a brochure if a
04:36:33 17 Q. And another was Concerned Women for America? 04:39:36 17 coalition of groups working to put a measure on the
04:36:38 18 A. I'm not aware of any activity that they were 04:39:39 18 ballot if -- strike that.
04:36:40 19 accomplishing in this timeline. 04:39:52 19 At the time this brochure was prepared by the
04:36:42 20 Q. Do you know why they would have been listed on 04:39:55 20 California Family Council, there had actually been a
04:36:45 21 a California Family Council brochure as being part of 04:40:01 21 ballot measure committee formed; is that right?
04:36:49 22 the effort if they were not doing anything? 04:40:04 22 A. I don't think that's been established in terms
04:36:52 23 A. I think there was -- I believe that this piece 04:40:05 23 of the timeline of the creation of this (indicating).
04:36:57 24 was created at the request of a -- a church that wanted 04:40:10 24 Q. Let me tell you that the title of the document
04:37:04 25 information. And that that church asked that we might 04:40:13 25 in the document production has a date on -- in the Bates

Page 203 Page 205

04:37:09 1 list numerous groups that had expressed interest in its 04:40:29 1 number, and it's February 20, 2008.
04:37:14 2 passage. 04:40:32 2 Now, I don't know what that means because I
04:37:14 3 Q. Okay. 04:40:35 3 don't know how those numbers were put on there because
04:37:15 4 Would you have listed a group to be described 04:40:41 4 your counsel produced the documents in a digital form.
04:37:25 5 as being involved or as working on attempting to qualify 04:40:45 5 But does that help you in any way --
04:37:33 6 a ballot measure if it wasn't doing anything? 04:40:48 6 A. No.
04:37:37 7 A. I would have listed a group that was 04:40:50 7 Q. But we know that at some point before the
04:37:38 8 like-minded and whose -- yeah, I -- I would have listed 04:40:54 8 Supreme Court decided and knowing that the court would
04:37:46 9 a group that was like-minded. 04:40:57 9 decide in the middle of 2008, this document was
04:37:48 10 Q. Even if it had not in any way committed to 04:41:00 10 prepared?
04:37:50 11 work on the ballot measure? 04:41:05 11 A. Yes.
04:37:54 12 A. I would have asked each of these groups 04:41:05 12 Q. And we know from the "what you can do" section
04:37:56 13 whether they would allow us to put their name on this. 04:41:11 13 that it was talking about a million signatures being
04:38:00 14 Q. Was that done in connection with preparing 04:41:19 14 needed between now and Easter, 2008.
04:38:00 15 this brochure? 04:41:21 15 Do you see that?
04:38:01 16 A. I believe it was. 04:41:22 16 A. Yes.
04:38:03 17 Q. And were you the one who did it? 04:41:22 17 Q. And what is the period within which you have
04:38:05 18 A. No. 04:41:26 18 to collect signatures for a ballot measure in
04:38:05 19 Q. Do you know who did? 04:41:30 19 California?
04:38:08 20 A. No. 04:41:30 20 A. 150 days.
04:38:09 21 Q. What was the -- to whom did this brochure 04:41:33 21 Q. So would it be fair to say that this document
04:38:13 22 ultimately go? 04:41:36 22 would have had to have been prepared approximately 150
04:38:16 23 A. Again, I'm not -- I'm not able to answer that. 04:41:46 23 days before Easter of 2008?
04:38:21 24 I expressed how -- how I think it came to be developed 04:41:49 24 A. Yes.
04:38:24 25 and for what purpose. But I don't know the population 04:41:49 25 Q. Thank-you.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page17 of 51
57 (Pages 222 to 225)
Page 222 Page 224
05:17:17 1 sometimes and with little Cs other times, was that a 05:21:10 1 and individuals from all walks of life who have joined
05:17:20 2 practice in your communications? 05:21:13 2 together to support Proposition 8."
05:17:25 3 A. I'm sorry, I don't recall. 05:21:16 3 Do you see that?
05:17:37 4 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at a 05:21:16 4 A. Yes.
05:17:40 5 document labeled Exhibit 28. 05:21:17 5 Q. So Isn't it fair to say that the campaign
05:18:02 6 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 28 was 05:21:20 6 frequently referred to ProtectMarriage.com in its
05:18:02 7 Marked for identification.) 05:21:24 7 communications as the broad-based coalition that you
05:18:38 8 MS. STEWART: Q Is this a press release that was 05:21:27 8 were talking about?
05:18:40 9 issued by ProtectMarriage.com? 05:21:35 9 MS. MOSS: I'm sorry, could you clarify? When he
05:18:43 10 A. Well, yes. 05:21:37 10 was talking about here or --
05:18:46 11 Q. Who's Chip White? 05:21:40 11 MS. STEWART: Q Isn't it true that
05:18:48 12 A. Chip White was a contractor in our 05:21:44 12 ProtectMarriage.com in its communications with the
05:18:51 13 communications room. 05:21:48 13 public frequently referred to ProtectMarriage.com as a
05:18:52 14 Q. And in the third paragraph, last sentence says 05:21:52 14 broad-based coalition of California families, community
05:19:00 15 "Our coalition has no plans to seek any changes in that 05:21:55 15 leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations,
05:19:04 16 law, that law I think referring to Proposition 8." 05:21:58 16 and individuals?
05:19:08 17 Do you see that? 05:22:03 17 A. I don't -- I couldn't stipulate to frequently.
05:19:09 18 A. Yes. 05:22:07 18 Q. Did this footer, if you will, appear on many
05:19:11 19 Q. What is the reference to "our coalition," what 05:22:13 19 releases issued by ProtectMarriage.com?
05:19:13 20 does that mean? 05:22:17 20 A. I'm not aware.
05:19:16 21 A. It's -- in my opinion, it's a misstatement and 05:22:18 21 Q. Okay.
05:19:21 22 should have said "the executive committee." 05:22:18 22 Did it appear on the organization's website?
05:19:25 23 Q. Why do you say that? 05:22:29 23 A. I -- I would need to look through here. But
05:19:27 24 A. Because we -- we did not speak on behalf of 05:22:32 24 it strikes me that we've already seen it from a website
05:19:31 25 people who participated cooperatively in the campaign. 05:22:36 25 piece.

Page 223 Page 225

05:19:35 1 Q. So you did not speak on behalf of the 05:22:37 1 Q. How are voters to know which use you were
05:19:37 2 coalition of organizations that supported Proposition 8? 05:22:40 2 making of the term "ProtectMarriage.com" when you use
05:19:43 3 A. Well, again, you're asking me if we spoke on 05:22:43 3 that term in public communications?
05:19:45 4 behalf of a loose broadly-based group of organizations 05:22:53 4 A. How -- how are voters to know -- sorry.
05:19:54 5 that did many things on -- by their own will. 05:22:59 5 Q. I'm a voter. I receive a communication from
05:19:58 6 Q. And yes, I am. 05:23:04 6 ProtectMarriage.com talking about the efforts of
05:20:00 7 A. And the answer is no. 05:23:09 7 ProtectMarriage.com.
05:20:01 8 Q. Okay. 05:23:11 8 How am I as a voter to know whether that
05:20:02 9 I'd like you to go back and take a look at 05:23:16 9 communication is referring to the broad-based coalition
05:20:05 10 Exhibit I think it's 22. 05:23:19 10 described on this document or just the executive
05:20:24 11 A. The sign. 05:23:27 11 committee of the primarily formed ballot committee?
05:20:25 12 Q. 25, I'm sorry. 25. 05:23:32 12 A. Within these two documents, I see the Yes on
05:20:37 13 Would you look at the second page of that 05:23:36 13 Proposition 8 campaign which refers to the committee
05:20:39 14 document. I think you testified earlier that this was a 05:23:39 14 itself. I see -- I believe there was another one that
05:20:45 15 press release issued by ProtectMarriage.com. And you 05:23:46 15 referred to it in a different way on the same page, I'm
05:20:51 16 see on the second page there are references to a number 05:23:49 16 not finding it right now, however.
05:20:53 17 of entities -- 05:23:53 17 And so on document 25, Yes on Proposition 8
05:20:56 18 A. Yes. 05:24:01 18 ProtectMarriage.com campaign, that's -- that's the
05:20:56 19 Q. -- in bold. And the last one is 05:24:06 19 difficulty I'm having as we discuss this in that we may
05:20:59 20 ProtectMarriage.com. 05:24:11 20 refer to the campaign in general. And many
05:20:59 21 Do you see that? 05:24:16 21 organizations who make reference to the passage of
05:21:00 22 A. Yes. 05:24:25 22 Prop 8. But then there's -- there's a very clear
05:21:00 23 Q. And it says "ProtectMarriage.com is a 05:24:29 23 campaign committee that's headed up by a executive
05:21:04 24 broad-based coalition of California families, community 05:24:35 24 committee.
05:21:07 25 leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations, 05:24:35 25 Q. Did you expect the voters in reviewing

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page18 of 51
58 (Pages 226 to 229)
Page 226 Page 228
05:24:38 1 communications that were from -- that referred to 05:29:47 1 A. I don't have any memory of this.
05:24:44 2 ProtectMarriage.com to make a distinction between the 05:29:50 2 Q. You testified earlier that you did participate
05:24:46 3 coalition that's mentioned on Exhibit 25 and the 05:29:54 3 in some conference calls organized by the Pastors Rapid
05:25:05 4 ProtectMarriage campaign executive committee? 05:29:59 4 Response Team; correct?
05:25:10 5 A. Did I expect the voters to be able to make a 05:30:00 5 A. Yes.
05:25:12 6 distinction between what -- 05:30:01 6 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt -- well, let
05:25:14 7 Q. Between -- in reviewing communications that 05:30:04 7 me focus your attention on the third page of this
05:25:16 8 they received from ProtectMarriage.com that referred to 05:30:09 8 document, which appears to be some, sort of, perhaps
05:25:20 9 ProtectMarriage.com, did you expect voters to 05:30:13 9 agenda, it's not entirely clear, for a conference call
05:25:24 10 distinguish between the executive committee or the 05:30:20 10 it has a July 30, 2008 date. And on the third page,
05:25:28 11 primarily formed ballot committee on the one hand, and 05:30:25 11 Item 5 it says "How to Educate your State."
05:25:31 12 the broad coalition that you've described on -- or that 05:30:30 12 Do you see that?
05:25:35 13 is described on Exhibit 25 in the last paragraph? 05:30:30 13 A. Yes.
05:25:42 14 A. Well, I can't speak for everyone who wrote on 05:30:31 14 Q. And it lists Tony Perkins with a website
05:25:45 15 behalf of the campaign committee. But I think that 05:30:35 15 www.FRC.org.
05:25:49 16 there were very clearly incidents where we were very 05:30:37 16 Do you see that?
05:25:54 17 specific about the ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 campaign 05:30:39 17 A. Yes.
05:26:00 18 committee. 05:30:40 18 Q. And underneath that your name and
05:26:00 19 Q. What were you the chairman of? 05:30:42 19 www.CaliforniaFamily.org.
05:26:04 20 A. I was the chairman of the ad hoc executive 05:30:46 20 Do you see?
05:26:07 21 committee. 05:30:47 21 A. Yes.
05:26:07 22 Q. Were you also the chairman of ProtectMarriage 05:30:47 22 Q. And underneath that Frank Shubert,
05:26:12 23 in the broader sense of that term? 05:30:48 23 Shubert-Flint Public Affairs, Sacramento.
05:26:15 24 A. Define the broader sense of the term. 05:30:52 24 Do you see that?
05:26:17 25 Q. The coalition described at the bottom of 05:30:53 25 A. Yes.

Page 227 Page 229

05:26:20 1 Exhibit 25. 05:30:53 1 Q. Now, July 30th of 2008 was after the
05:26:23 2 A. No, because there was no -- there was no 05:30:59 2 Proposition 8 had qualified for the ballot; correct?
05:26:26 3 organization as such. 05:31:02 3 A. Yes.
05:26:28 4 Q. Look back at Exhibit 26, if you would. 05:31:02 4 Q. So it was during the campaign itself?
05:26:41 5 Do you see at the top it has a photograph of 05:31:05 5 A. Yes.
05:26:43 6 you? 05:31:05 6 Q. And do you recall participating in a
05:26:45 7 A. Yes. 05:31:15 7 conference call with -- organized by the Pastors Rapid
05:26:45 8 Q. And underneath it says "Ron Prentice, 05:31:20 8 Response Team in which you spoke about the topic of how
05:26:48 9 coalition chairman"? 05:31:23 9 to educate your State?
05:26:49 10 A. Yes. 05:31:25 10 A. No.
05:26:50 11 Q. Does that suggest that you were the chairman 05:31:27 11 Q. Do you recall participating in a conference
05:26:53 12 of the broad-based coalition that is referred to in so 05:31:29 12 call organized by the Pastors Rapid Response Team in
05:26:57 13 many of the communications from ProtectMarriage.com? 05:31:33 13 which you spoke at the -- in a part of the conference
05:27:10 14 A. I would say wrongly so, yes. 05:31:42 14 call at which Tony Perkins and Frank Shubert also spoke?
05:27:32 15 MS. STEWART: I'm going to give you what we'll mark 05:31:50 15 A. Yes. However, there's no evidence that I
05:27:54 16 as 29. 05:31:54 16 actually fulfilled this duty having never seen this, and
05:27:55 17 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 29 was 05:31:59 17 there were other times.
05:28:10 18 Marked for identification.) 05:32:00 18 Q. Okay.
05:28:10 19 MS. STEWART: Q Take a minute to look at it and 05:32:00 19 But you recall speaking with those two
05:28:13 20 tell me if you have ever seen this document before. 05:32:03 20 individuals at conference calls?
05:28:51 21 (Pause in the proceedings.) 05:32:05 21 A. I recall a -- you know, one or more webinar
05:29:18 22 THE WITNESS: I've never seen this document before. 05:32:11 22 conference calls where those gentlemen also spoke.
05:29:21 23 MS. STEWART: Q In any event, do you recall 05:32:16 23 Q. And when you participated in webinars --
05:29:23 24 participating in a conference call organized by the 05:32:18 24 webinar conference calls organized by the Pastors Rapid
05:29:26 25 Pastors Rapid Response Team on or about July 30th, 2008? 05:32:26 25 Response Team, did you participate for the entire call?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page19 of 51
66 (Pages 258 to 261)
Page 258 Page 260
06:43:13 1 umbrella? 06:46:59 1 the press release for ProtectMarriage.com is broad-based
06:43:15 2 A. I don't believe it was ever described under 06:47:07 2 coalition of California families, community leaders,
06:43:17 3 the umbrella. 06:47:11 3 religious leaders, pro-family organizations and
06:43:20 4 Q. Was the Mormon Church one of the churches, 06:47:14 4 individuals from all walks of life."
06:43:28 5 organizations, individuals described as part of the 06:47:17 5 I recognize that as not your phrasing that you
06:43:35 6 ProtectMarriage.com coalition? 06:47:21 6 drafted. But within the description that they have
06:43:43 7 A. I don't believe it was by the committee. 06:47:25 7 given, would you consider Focus on the Family to be part
06:43:46 8 Q. You don't believe it was described that way by 06:47:28 8 of that group?
06:43:49 9 the committee? 06:47:44 9 A. If we are defining coalition as a loose
06:43:49 10 A. Yes. 06:47:47 10 association of people walking in the same direction.
06:43:50 11 Q. Was -- who's Glenn Stanton? 06:48:19 11 Q. Using your definition of "coalition" that you
06:43:55 12 A. An employee at Focus on the Family. 06:48:23 12 just gave, a loose association of people walking in the
06:43:58 13 Q. What's his position with Focus on the Family? 06:48:27 13 same direction, and adding to it the direction being to
06:43:59 14 A. I don't know his title. 06:48:30 14 pass Proposition 8, would you consider the National
06:44:02 15 Q. Okay. 06:48:33 15 Organization for Marriage to be part of that coalition?
06:44:03 16 Do you know what his function is? 06:48:47 16 A. Yes.
06:44:07 17 A. Research. 06:48:51 17 Q. How about the Knights of Columbus, would you
06:44:10 18 Q. Was he -- did he play any role in the passage 06:48:53 18 consider them to be part of the coalition?
06:44:18 19 of Proposition 8, to your knowledge? 06:48:55 19 A. Again, the coalition being people who, and
06:44:24 20 MS. MOSS: Lack of foundation. But if you know, 06:49:00 20 organizations that supported the passage of Prop 8?
06:44:25 21 answer. 06:49:07 21 Yes.
06:44:28 22 THE WITNESS: No active role that I'm aware of. 06:49:08 22 Q. And how about Catholics for the Common Good,
06:44:31 23 MS. STEWART: Q Are you aware of him having done 06:49:10 23 were they part of that coalition?
06:44:36 24 public speaking on the issue in California during the 06:49:13 24 A. Yes.
06:44:39 25 campaign period? 06:49:15 25 Q. How about Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com,

Page 259 Page 261

06:44:39 1 A. No. 06:49:17 1 were they part of the coalition?
06:44:42 2 Q. Are you aware that he participated in some of 06:49:22 2 MS. MOSS: Same definition?
06:44:45 3 the simulcasts that you testified about earlier? 06:49:24 3 MS. STEWART: Yes.
06:44:52 4 A. You remind me that his name may have been in 06:49:31 4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
06:44:57 5 the one that you pointed out to me. But I don't recall 06:49:32 5 MS. STEWART: Q And how about the California
06:45:00 6 his involvement. 06:49:34 6 Catholic Conference, were they part of that coalition?
06:45:05 7 Q. Was Focus on the Family one of the churches, 06:49:40 7 A. I think up to now you've talked about
06:45:08 8 organizations and individuals that was described as the 06:49:42 8 activity. And when you name the structure of the
06:45:16 9 coalition -- the ProtectMarriage.com coalition? 06:49:50 9 Catholic Conference, that's an endorsement.
06:45:24 10 MS. MOSS: I'll object to the extent the term 06:50:03 10 Q. I'm a little confused by your answer.
06:45:27 11 "coalition" or the description -- your understanding of 06:50:05 11 Are you saying that the California Catholic
06:45:30 12 coalition, you can answer. 06:50:08 12 Conference didn't play any kind of active role but
06:45:32 13 THE WITNESS: I would again reframe it. I would 06:50:17 13 rather simply endorsed Proposition 8?
06:45:42 14 say that Focus on the Family was described in our -- in 06:50:20 14 A. The California Catholic Conference of Bishops?
06:45:47 15 the committees -- in the campaign committee's 06:50:24 15 Q. Yes.
06:45:51 16 communications as participating for the passage of 06:50:24 16 A. Yes, endorsed Prop 8.
06:45:57 17 Prop 8. 06:50:26 17 Q. And how about the U.S. Conference of Catholic
06:45:58 18 MS. STEWART: Q And earlier we saw an exhibit 06:50:29 18 Bishops, were they a member of coalition as we've been
06:46:05 19 which was a ProtectMarriage.com communication from your 06:50:32 19 using that term in the last few questions?
06:46:10 20 press consultants, as I recall, that described 06:50:39 20 A. Their objective was to participate in the
06:46:15 21 ProtectMarriage.com as a -- I want to get the exact 06:50:43 21 passage of Prop 8.
06:46:21 22 terminology so nobody objects -- 06:50:45 22 Q. So again, my question -- I want to make sure I
06:46:48 23 I'm looking back again at Exhibit 25, which is 06:50:48 23 get the question I asked answered. And sometimes it's,
06:46:52 24 what I was referring to. We looked at this exhibit and 06:50:52 24 kind of, a "yes" or "no" question.
06:46:56 25 the language that was used by the people who prepared 06:50:54 25 Would you consider the U.S. Conference of

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page20 of 51
67 (Pages 262 to 265)
Page 262 Page 264
06:50:58 1 Catholic Bishops to be part of the coalition as we 06:54:17 1 MS. STEWART: -- know.
06:51:03 2 defined it a few minutes ago? 06:54:17 2 MS. MOSS: But even if he knows something, it
06:51:13 3 A. By saying that -- the definition that we used 06:54:21 3 doesn't mean that you've established that he has a basis
06:51:18 4 a few minutes ago talked about activity and action. And 06:54:23 4 for accurate or complete or detailed information.
06:51:22 5 in my clarification regarding the California Catholic 06:54:27 5 MS. STEWART: I'm not suggesting that by my
06:51:25 6 Conference of Bishops, I referred to an endorsement 06:54:29 6 question.
06:51:28 7 versus an activity. And the U.S. Council of Catholic 06:54:29 7 MS. MOSS: Well --
06:51:37 8 Bishops is more of an endorsement than it is an 06:54:30 8 MS. STEWART: Make your objection. That's all
06:51:43 9 activity. 06:54:31 9 right.
06:51:43 10 Q. Okay. 06:54:32 10 Q. So what role did Pacific Justice Institute
06:51:49 11 Are you familiar with a website called 06:54:35 11 play, to your knowledge?
06:51:51 12 MarriageMattersToKids.org? 06:54:36 12 A. Pacific Justice Institute promoted the passage
06:51:54 13 A. No. 06:54:41 13 of Prop 8 on their own website.
06:52:02 14 Q. Did ProtectMarriage.com, the primary ballot 06:54:44 14 Q. Did the American Family Association, to your
06:52:15 15 committee, the narrow ProtectMarriage.com, have a U-Tube 06:54:53 15 knowledge, promote the passage of Proposition 8 on its
06:52:21 16 channel that it used to communicate with voters? 06:54:58 16 own website?
06:52:34 17 A. Not to my knowledge. 06:55:00 17 A. I'm not sure.
06:52:47 18 Q. The Rock Church, Pastor McPherson's church in 06:55:02 18 Q. Did Focus on the Family promote passage of
06:52:52 19 San Diego, is that part of the ProtectMarriage.com 06:55:06 19 Proposition 8 on its website?
06:52:55 20 coalition as we defined it a few minutes ago? 06:55:20 20 A. Yes.
06:53:00 21 A. Actively working to pass Proposition 8? 06:55:22 21 Q. Did the Family -- let me reframe that.
06:53:03 22 Q. Yes. 06:55:35 22 Did the -- I think you testified earlier that
06:53:04 23 A. The Rock Church did so, yes. 06:55:42 23 you did not know whether the Mormon Church had a website
06:53:06 24 Q. And did the Skyline Church also do so? 06:55:45 24 specifically to promote Proposition 8; correct?
06:53:11 25 A. Yes. 06:55:50 25 A. Correct.

Page 263 Page 265

06:53:17 1 Q. And did Pastor Garlow and Pastor McPherson 06:55:50 1 Q. Do you know whether the Mormon Church used any
06:53:23 2 also do so? 06:55:55 2 website to promote passage of Proposition 8?
06:53:25 3 A. As the heads of those churches? 06:55:59 3 A. No, I don't know.
06:53:28 4 Q. Yes. 06:56:02 4 Q. Is the Family Research Council a part of the
06:53:28 5 A. Yes. 06:56:08 5 coalition that we defined earlier, shortly ago that
06:53:30 6 Q. Did -- never mind. 06:56:16 6 works to pass Proposition 8?
06:53:39 7 How about The Pacific Justice Institute, did 06:56:21 7 A. You mean the vague non-descript loose
06:53:43 8 that entity, to your knowledge, play any role in the 06:56:25 8 association that you're referring to as the coalition?
06:53:48 9 passage of Proposition 8? 06:56:28 9 Q. Yes.
06:53:52 10 A. Yes. 06:56:32 10 A. Family Research Council participated in the
06:53:52 11 Q. What role did The Pacific Justice Institute 06:56:35 11 promotion of the passage of Proposition 8.
06:53:56 12 play? 06:56:38 12 Q. And not only am I using it that way, but
06:53:57 13 MS. MOSS: Lack of foundation. But to the extent 06:56:42 13 ProtectMarriage.com in its communications has sometimes
06:53:59 14 you know, you can answer. 06:56:46 14 used it that way; correct?
06:54:00 15 MS. STEWART: You know what, I'd stipulate that you 06:56:48 15 A. I don't know that that wording has ever been
06:54:02 16 can preserve that objection for every question if you 06:56:51 16 used.
06:54:06 17 want -- 06:56:52 17 Q. Well, the Exhibit 25 that we've gone back to a
06:54:06 18 MS. MOSS: It's not for every question. I want it 06:56:55 18 few times uses the phrase "coalition" referring to a
06:54:09 19 to be clear on the record that you're asking him areas 06:57:02 19 broad-based coalition of California families, community
06:54:11 20 that he may have limited knowledge. But I want it to be 06:57:06 20 leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organization and
06:54:13 21 clear for the record he -- 06:57:09 21 individuals from all walks of life who have joined
06:54:13 22 MS. STEWART: I'm saying "to your knowledge." 06:57:13 22 together to support Proposition 8." That's the
06:54:15 23 MS. MOSS: -- established -- 06:57:17 23 coalition I'm referring to, that description.
06:54:15 24 MS. STEWART: Obviously, if he doesn't know -- 06:57:24 24 Do you understand that?
06:54:16 25 MS. MOSS: Well -- 06:57:26 25 A. I understand that you're saying that, yes.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page21 of 51
68 (Pages 266 to 269)
Page 266 Page 268
06:57:29 1 Q. Was the Family Research Council a part of that 07:01:01 1 that coalition?
06:57:32 2 coalition? 07:01:11 2 THE WITNESS: Can I?
06:57:37 3 A. I would probably go back to take issue with 07:01:13 3 MS. MOSS: Yes.
06:57:43 4 what I'm understanding to be your interpretation of this 07:01:54 4 (Pause in the proceedings.)
06:57:47 5 coalition. My sense is that you -- my sense is that 07:01:58 5 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
06:57:58 6 you're inferring that it's something monolithic and that 07:02:00 6 (Record read.)
06:58:02 7 the committee is authoritarian. 07:02:24 7 THE WITNESS: As I understand the definition that
06:58:04 8 Q. I'm not at all. I'm not inferring anything of 07:02:26 8 you're using for "coalition," no.
06:58:07 9 the sort. I'm taking the language used by 07:02:29 9 MS. STEWART: Q And was Advocates for Faith and
06:58:10 10 ProtectMarriage.com in its press release and in which -- 07:02:31 10 Freedom a part of that coalition?
06:58:14 11 A. This is -- I see what you're saying. 07:02:34 11 A. No.
06:58:17 12 Q. -- without any other adjectives or descriptors 07:02:35 12 Q. And how about the Western Center for Law and
06:58:21 13 of how it functions. But rather a -- I'm using the term 07:02:37 13 Policy?
06:58:27 14 "coalition" or "The ProtectMarriage.com coalition" to 07:02:38 14 A. No.
06:58:30 15 refer to a broad-based coalition of California families, 07:02:40 15 Q. And how about Fieldstead and Company?
06:58:34 16 community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family 07:02:44 16 A. No.
06:58:38 17 organizations and individuals from all walks of life who 07:02:54 17 Q. How about the Concerned Women for America?
06:58:40 18 have joined together to support Proposition 8." That's 07:02:57 18 A. No.
06:58:44 19 it. That's the definition. Okay? 07:02:57 19 MS. STEWART: Duly noted, thank-you, Mr. Pugno.
06:58:46 20 A. Okay. 07:03:22 20 We will stop and give everybody a rest until
06:58:46 21 Q. Can we have that understanding that that's how 07:03:25 21 morning.
06:58:49 22 I'm using the word in my question? 07:03:27 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of tape No. 5
06:58:52 23 A. Well, actually, I would prefer that we could 07:03:29 23 in volume 1. And we're off the record at 7:03.
06:58:55 24 understand that it's a vague non-descript loose 07:03:34 24 COURT REPORTER: For the record, who would like a
06:59:00 25 assimilation of groups attempting to pass Proposition 8. 07:03:35 25 copy?

Page 267 Page 269

06:59:11 1 MS. STEWART: Can you read that back. 07:03:45 1 MS. MOSS: Yes.
06:59:13 2 (Record read.) 07:03:47 2 (Whereupon, the deposition adjourned.
06:59:49 3 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever referred to the 07:03:47 3 At 7:03 p.m.)
06:59:51 4 coalition of groups that worked to pass Proposition 8 in 07:03:47 4
06:59:57 5 the way you just stated a minute, that is as a vague, 07:03:47 5
07:00:03 6 non-descript, assimilation of groups attempting to pass 07:03:47 6 _________________________
07:00:07 7 Proposition 8? RONALD PRENTICE
07:00:08 8 A. No. 7
07:00:09 9 Q. I would prefer to stick to the description 8
07:00:13 10 that ProtectMarriage.com has used on its own materials 9
07:00:16 11 rather than come up with something completely different,
10
07:00:19 12 if you don't mind.
11
07:00:21 13
12
And it's my understanding that that
13
07:00:22 14 description is still on ProtectMarriage.com's website
14
07:00:25 15 today. And it's the same language that's in this
15
07:00:29 16 Exhibit 25, a broad-based coalition of California
16
07:00:34 17 families, community leaders, religious leaders,
17
07:00:38 18 pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks
18
07:00:40 19 of life who have joined together to support
19
07:00:43 20 Proposition 8.
20
07:00:45 21 So that's how I'm using the term coalition in 21
07:00:48 22 my question. And you can say "yes" or "no" and if it 22
07:00:51 23 doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. 23
07:00:53 24 So with that understanding of the term 24
07:00:55 25 "coalition," was the Family Research Council apart of 25

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page22 of 51
69 (Pages 270 to 273)
Page 270 Page 272
1 DEPOSITION OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE 1 ERRATA SHEET

2 2

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 3 PAGE LINE CHANGE

4 ) Ss. 4 ____ ____ _____________________________________

5 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 5 ____ ____ _____________________________________

6 6 ____ ____ _____________________________________

7 ____ ____ _____________________________________
7 I LESLIE CASTRO, CSR, hereby certify:
8 ____ ____ _____________________________________
8 I am a duly qualified Shorthand Reporter in
9 ____ ____ _____________________________________
9 the State of California, holder of Certificate Number
10 ____ ____ _____________________________________
10 8876 issued by the Court Reporter's Board of California
11 ____ ____ _____________________________________
11 and which is in full force and effect. (Fed R. Civ. P.
12 ____ ____ _____________________________________
12 28(a)).
13 ____ ____ _____________________________________
13 I am authorized to administer oaths of
14 ____ ____ _____________________________________
14 affirmations pursuant to California Code of Civil
15 ____ ____ _____________________________________
15 Procedure, Section 2093(b), and prior to being examined, 16 ____ ____ _____________________________________
16 the deponent was first duly sworn by me. (Fed. R. Civ. 17 ____ ____ _____________________________________
17 P. 28(a), 30(f) (1)). 18 ____ ____ _____________________________________
18 I am not a relative or employee or attorney or 19 ____ ____ _____________________________________
19 counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or 20 _
20 employee of such attorney or counsel, nor am I 21 I, RONALD PRENTICE, have made the following changes
21 financially interested in this action. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 to my deposition taken in the matter of PERRY, ET AL.
22 28). 23 vs. SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL. taken on DECEMBER 17, 2009.
23 I am the deposition officer that 24 DATE:______________ ________________________________
24 stenographically recorded the testimony in the foregoing RONALD PRENTICE
25 deposition and the foregoing transcript is a true record 25

Page 271 Page 273

1 of the testimony given by the deponent. (Fed. R. Civ. 1 CERTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2 P. 30(f) (1)). 2
3 Before completion of the deposition, review of 3
4 the transcript [ ] was [X ] was not requested. If 4 I, RONALD PRENTICE, hereby declare that I have read
5 requested, any changes made by the deponent (and 5 the foregoing testimony, and the same is true and a
6 provided to the reporter) during the period allowed, are 6 correct transcription of my said testimony except as I
7 appended hereto. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)). 7 have corrected.
8 8
9
9
10
10
11 ________________________
11
Signature
12 Dated: 28th of December, 2009.
12
13
13
14
14
15
15 ________________________
16 _________________________
Date
17 LESLIE CASTRO, CSR 16
State of California 17
18 CSR License No. 8876 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page23 of 51
70 (Page 274)
Page 274
BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES
COURT REPORTING SERVICE
41 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 1605
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 982-4849

January 4, 2010
Ronald Prentice
c/o Nicole J. Moss, Esq.
Cooper & Kirk
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Perry, et al. vs.
Schwarzenegger, et al.

Dear Mr. Prentice:

You are hereby notified that pursuant to the California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019(E), your deposition
is available for your review within 35 days from the
date of this letter.

If you are represented by an attorney in this matter

contact your attorney before contacting this office.
Do not ask that we send you the original deposition.
State law does not allow us to do so.

Yours very truly,

Leslie Castro, CSR

Bonnie L. Wagner & Associates

CC: Original Transcript

All Counsel
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page24 of 51

EXHIBIT B
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page25 of 51

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

---oOo---

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

Deposition of

RONALD PRENTICE

Volume I

Thursday, December 17, 2009

REPORTED BY: LESLIE CASTRO, CSR #8876

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

Court Reporting Services
41 Sutter Street, Suite 1605
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page26 of 51
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
Page 82 Page 84
11:13:13 1 go ahead to -- let me back up. 11:17:15 1 those functions?
11:13:22 2 Did the California Renewal board ask the 11:17:16 2 A. Yes.
11:13:28 3 individuals you mentioned to serve on a committee at 11:17:19 3 Q. Did the executive committee oversee any aspect
11:13:33 4 some point in time? 11:17:22 4 of the campaign after the measure was qualified for the
11:13:35 5 A. I apologize that I don't have knowledge of the 11:17:27 5 ballot?
11:13:39 6 timing of the minutes of the California Renewal board I 11:17:31 6 A. The executive committee met and received
11:13:46 7 would say that I lack a definite date as to when that 11:17:34 7 reports and gave and supervised the primary vendors that
11:13:54 8 took place. 11:17:42 8 were selected, yes.
11:13:55 9 Q. But it did take place? 11:17:45 9 Q. So is it fair to say that the first job that
11:13:57 10 A. In terms of asking those specific individuals? 11:17:52 10 the executive committee had was to get a measure
11:13:59 11 Q. Yes. 11:17:56 11 qualified for the ballot?
11:13:59 12 A. I think it was more -- I was given the 11:17:58 12 A. Yes.
11:14:01 13 authority to move forward with the ballot measure being 11:18:00 13 Q. First big job anyway?
11:14:12 14 a project of California Renewal. 11:18:01 14 A. Uh-huh.
11:14:17 15 Q. And did you request the other members -- the 11:18:02 15 Q. And how did the executive committee do that?
11:14:20 16 people who became the members of the executive committee 11:18:11 16 A. Through communication, through informing the
11:14:23 17 to serve in that capacity? 11:18:14 17 general population of the -- of title and summary and
11:14:28 18 A. It's an odd -- it's an odd thing to try to 11:18:24 18 petitions. By working with different networks within
11:14:33 19 describe because we can talk about an ad hoc executive 11:18:32 19 the State, whether if be individuals who would contact
11:14:36 20 committee and even that we wouldn't have referred to 11:18:38 20 us and say "We want to help with petitions," and we
11:14:44 21 ourselves as "members." We were -- we were n an 11:18:43 21 would just attempt to make it something better than
11:14:50 22 association of individuals who by our discussions 11:18:48 22 chaos in getting those petitions out.
11:14:57 23 recognized the need or the desire to move forward. 11:18:51 23 Q. And when you say "networks within the State,"
11:15:03 24 Q. All right. 11:18:54 24 what networks?
11:15:04 25 A. Sorry. 11:18:56 25 A. They were -- there again, there were -- there

Page 83 Page 85
11:15:04 1 Q. You said California Renewal -- 11:19:03 1 were local networks of people who would say we're part
11:15:10 2 MS. STEWART: Can you read back, like, two answers 11:19:10 2 of this church or we're part of -- we're a group of
11:15:13 3 ago. 11:19:16 3 pastors in this area. Or -- that's how it all came to
11:15:31 4 (Record read.) 11:19:23 4 be. They weren't established organizations or entities,
11:15:35 5 MS. STEWART: Q When you were given the authority 11:19:26 5 they were just, once again, loosely associated people
11:15:37 6 to move forward with the ballot measure being a project, 11:19:30 6 who were like-minded in this general direction.
11:15:39 7 California Renewal, did you go to Mr. Dolejsi and 11:19:38 7 Q. You said that you were -- strike that.
11:15:44 8 Mr. Jansson and Mr. or Ms. Doe and ask them to assist 11:20:01 8 How did you -- did you raise money to do paid
11:15:50 9 you in that endeavor in some way? 11:20:08 9 signature gathering for the ballot measure?
11:15:53 10 A. There was no -- there was no official moment 11:20:13 10 MS. MOSS: Did you ask did or how?
11:15:56 11 in time when I went to any one of them and said, "Will 11:20:15 11 MS. STEWART: Did.
11:15:58 12 you assist me?" There was dialogue. And as a group of 11:20:16 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, we participated in that.
11:16:08 13 individuals, we said, "Let's move forward." 11:20:18 13 MS. STEWART: Q And where did the primary
11:16:11 14 Q. And when did you decide to move forward as a 11:20:23 14 donations come from for the signature gathering?
11:16:13 15 group of individuals? 11:20:41 15 A. Well, I think it's a matter of public record
11:16:17 16 A. I -- I have attempted to answer that and -- 11:20:44 16 that there were a number of different organizations that
11:16:23 17 Q. You can say you don't remember. 11:20:47 17 contributed during the petition gathering. National
11:16:26 18 A. I don't recall beyond middle of '07. 11:20:51 18 Organization for Marriage was one, Focus on the Family
11:16:28 19 Q. And what was the function of the executive 11:20:54 19 was another I believe were primary during --
11:16:32 20 committee? 11:21:02 20 Q. Did the church of Jesus Christ of the
11:16:40 21 A. To identify the strategic plan for the ballot 11:21:03 21 Latter-Day Saints help fund the petition-gathering
11:16:48 22 measure. To give consideration to the selection of 11:21:10 22 effort?
11:16:56 23 vendors that would be necessary. And to identify a 11:21:14 23 A. No.
11:17:03 24 fundraising plan. 11:21:14 24 Q. Any other organizations that you can think of
11:17:11 25 Q. And did the executive committee carry out 11:21:15 25 that were significant donors, more than $25,000 for the

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page27 of 51
42 (Pages 162 to 165)
Page 162 Page 164
03:05:41 1 the executive committee for the Prop 8 campaign. 03:09:17 1 executive committee had people of each of those three
03:05:46 2 Do you recall that? 03:09:21 2 faith groups?
03:05:47 3 A. (Witness nods head.) 03:09:24 3 MS. MOSS: Objection to the form of the question.
03:05:48 4 Q. And you indicated that the group that became 03:09:26 4 You can answer.
03:05:59 5 that committee had been meeting and talking for sometime 03:09:30 5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
03:06:02 6 before it became a real committee. 03:09:34 6 MS. STEWART: Q Did you ask any of the other
03:06:05 7 Do you recall that testimony? 03:09:42 7 members of the committee to participate in the
03:06:06 8 A. Yes. 03:09:50 8 discussions that led up to forming of the committee?
03:06:11 9 Q. How did the group of people who became the 03:09:54 9 A. No.
03:06:14 10 executive committee come together? 03:09:56 10 Q. Did you ask any of the members of the
03:06:32 11 A. I can't answer specifically how they came 03:09:58 11 committee to serve on the committee?
03:06:34 12 together. I can -- I can only speak to like-minded 03:10:02 12 A. No.
03:06:41 13 perspective. 03:10:26 13 Q. Did Mr. Dolejsi make an effort to involve
03:06:42 14 Q. Let me ask it this way: The executive 03:10:41 14 other Catholics in the campaign to support
03:06:52 15 committee had a representative of the Church of the 03:10:47 15 Proposition 8?
03:06:53 16 Latter-Day Saints; is that correct? 03:10:48 16 MS. MOSS: I'm going to object to both the form of
03:07:00 17 MS. MOSS: Objection. Facts not in evidence. 03:10:51 17 the question and to the extent you understand what
03:07:02 18 THE WITNESS: That's not, as she said, in evidence. 03:10:53 18 "efforts" -- if you understand what "effort" means, you
03:07:06 19 MS. STEWART: Q Was Mr. Jansson a representative 03:10:56 19 can answer.
03:07:09 20 of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints 03:10:56 20 And to the extent you understand that, I would ask
03:07:15 21 on the executive committee? 03:10:59 21 you to limit your response to actions and activities
03:07:34 22 MS. MOSS: You can answer. 03:11:02 22 that you know Mr. Dolejsi took that are public.
03:07:35 23 THE WITNESS: No. 03:11:10 23 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any his actions and
03:07:37 24 MS. STEWART: Q He is a member of that church is 03:11:14 24 activities that were public.
03:07:40 25 he not? 03:11:32 25 MS. STEWART: Q Did Mr. -- what was the

Page 163 Page 165

03:07:41 1 A. Yes. 03:12:24 1 involvement of The Church of Jesus Christ of the
03:07:42 2 Q. And was there a member of the executive 03:12:31 2 Latter-Day Saints in the Proposition 8 campaign.
03:07:48 3 committee who represented the Catholic Church? 03:12:36 3 MS. MOSS: Object to the form of the question to
03:08:00 4 A. Specific to your literal question, no. 03:12:38 4 the term "involvement." It's overly broad. But to the
03:08:03 5 Q. Were there members of -- a member or members 03:12:42 5 extent you understand that, you can answer.
03:08:06 6 of the executive committee who were Catholic? 03:12:45 6 THE WITNESS: I would appreciate it being
03:08:11 7 A. Yes. 03:12:47 7 clarified -- defined.
03:08:11 8 Q. And were there any members of the committee 03:12:48 8 MS. STEWART: Q What did The Church of Jesus
03:08:17 9 who were Evangelical? 03:12:49 9 Christ of the Latter-Day Saints do to support the effort
03:08:25 10 A. Yes. 03:12:57 10 to get Proposition 8 passed?
03:08:26 11 Q. Who were the members of the committee or 03:13:01 11 A. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day
03:08:30 12 members who were Catholic? 03:13:01 12 Saints endorsed the initiative.
03:08:32 13 A. Ned Dolejsi. 03:13:08 13 Q. Did The Church of Jesus Christ of the
03:08:34 14 Q. And was Mr. Doe or Ms. Doe a Catholic also? 03:13:09 14 Latter-Day Saints -- can we call it the Mormon Church
03:08:41 15 A. I don't think that's public and that I need to 03:13:16 15 just for brevity?
03:08:44 16 answer it. 03:13:18 16 A. Sure.
03:08:47 17 MS. MOSS: I was going to direct you not to answer 03:13:18 17 Q. Did the Mormon Church do more than endorse
03:08:49 18 it to the extent -- I don't know if it's public or not. 03:13:23 18 Proposition 8?
03:08:54 19 MS. STEWART: I inferred your objection. 03:13:25 19 MS. MOSS: Lack of foundation. But if you know,
03:08:56 20 MS. MOSS: I figured, but for the record. 03:13:27 20 you can answer.
03:09:01 21 MS. STEWART: Q Who was the Evangelical member of 03:13:28 21 THE WITNESS: We've already referred to the LDS
03:09:05 22 the executive committee? 03:13:33 22 Church contributing $190,000 primarily of in-kind, I
03:09:07 23 MS. STEWART: To the extent that's public. 03:13:38 23 believe. And that's what I'm -- that's what I'm aware
03:09:09 24 THE WITNESS: Me. 03:13:41 24 of.
03:09:10 25 MS. STEWART: Q Was it a coincidence that the 03:13:44 25 MS. STEWART: Q Do you recall that you went and

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page28 of 51
43 (Pages 166 to 169)
Page 166 Page 168
03:13:46 1 met with the leaders of the Mormon Church about 03:17:19 1 central to the Creator's plan for his children?
03:13:50 2 Proposition 8? 03:17:24 2 A. I don't recall that.
03:13:53 3 MS. MOSS: If this is -- if this is something that 03:17:26 3 Q. Do you recall that the letter that -- do you
03:13:57 4 you did that's public, you can answer. If -- if it's 03:17:30 4 recall that the Mormon Church wrote a letter to its
03:14:02 5 not, then I would direct you not to answer the question. 03:17:34 5 constituency asking members of the church to do all they
03:14:07 6 THE WITNESS: I think it's public so I'll say. 03:17:39 6 can to support the amendment?
03:14:12 7 Yes, we did meet with some of the leadership. 03:17:43 7 MS. MOSS: Objection. Lack of foundation. If you
03:14:16 8 MS. STEWART: Q And did the leader invite you to 03:17:44 8 know, you can answer.
03:14:18 9 come and speak to them about Proposition 8, the leader 03:17:47 9 THE WITNESS: I -- I was never privy to the letter.
03:14:21 10 of the Mormon Church? 03:17:52 10 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at a
03:14:25 11 A. Yes. 03:17:53 11 document that we will mark Exhibit 13.
03:14:26 12 Q. And what was the purpose of your meeting with 03:17:58 12 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 13 was
03:14:33 13 them? 03:18:10 13 Marked for identification.)
03:14:35 14 A. This was -- this was prior to their 03:18:54 14 MS. STEWART: Q First of all, can you tell me what
03:14:41 15 endorsement and to answer questions. 03:18:56 15 this document is?
03:14:50 16 Q. And was this prior to the Proposition 8 03:19:06 16 A. I can't -- I can't verify that it's accurate,
03:15:05 17 qualifying for the ballot? 03:19:12 17 but I can verify that it appears to be a printout of an
03:15:08 18 A. No. 03:19:16 18 E-mail.
03:15:13 19 Q. Did the -- well, when was it? 03:19:17 19 Q. An E-mail sent out by ProtectMarriage.com?
03:15:22 20 A. I don't know the date. 03:19:23 20 A. Yes.
03:15:22 21 Q. But it was, in any event -- 03:19:24 21 Q. And you see that the subject line says
03:15:25 22 A. Yes. 03:19:27 22 "Protect marriage newsletter"?
03:15:25 23 Q. -- after the ballot measure had qualified? 03:19:30 23 A. Yes.
03:15:29 24 And have you described the Mormon Church 03:19:31 24 Q. Did ProtectMarriage.com send out newsletters
03:15:36 25 involvement in the campaign as them being the foot 03:19:36 25 in this form on a periodic basis as part of the

Page 167 Page 169

03:15:43 1 soldiers? 03:19:40 1 Proposition 8 campaign?
03:15:47 2 A. I don't know that I've publicly described them 03:19:46 2 A. Yes.
03:15:49 3 that way. 03:19:47 3 Q. And is that the form that the newsletters
03:15:52 4 Q. Were they the foot soldiers for the campaign? 03:19:52 4 typically took? Did they look like this in, sort of,
03:15:56 5 MS. MOSS: I'm going to object both to the form of 03:19:55 5 look and feel?
03:15:57 6 the question and to the extent it's calling for him to 03:20:03 6 A. I -- I don't recall.
03:16:02 7 comment on something he said that is potentially not 03:20:05 7 Q. Do you see the language on the second page
03:16:06 8 public. 03:20:08 8 under the heading "LDS Church Takes Active Role in
03:16:11 9 MS. STEWART: Q Did the Mormon Church take an 03:20:14 9 Supporting Prop 8"?
03:16:15 10 official stand on Proposition 8? 03:20:16 10 A. Yes.
03:16:19 11 A. Yes. 03:20:16 11 Q. Is that heading accurate? Do you know that
03:16:20 12 Q. And was their official stand communicated to 03:20:18 12 the LDS Church took an active role in supporting Prop 8?
03:16:26 13 their church leaders worldwide and particularly in 03:20:24 13 A. I would have phrased it differently.
03:16:30 14 California? 03:20:31 14 Q. How would you have phrased it?
03:16:32 15 MS. MOSS: Objection. Lack of foundation. If you 03:20:36 15 A. I probably would have -- based on my
03:16:34 16 know, you can answer. 03:20:40 16 understanding of the decision by the leadership of the
03:16:41 17 THE WITNESS: In California. 03:20:46 17 LDS Church, I would have stated that they endorsed
03:16:44 18 MS. STEWART: Q You know that it was disseminated 03:20:52 18 Proposition 8.
03:16:48 19 in California? 03:20:54 19 Q. And isn't it true, Mr. Prentice, that the LDS,
03:16:48 20 A. Yes. 03:20:59 20 the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, got
03:16:55 21 Q. Do you recall that the church leadership wrote 03:21:06 21 involved in Proposition 22?
03:17:06 22 that the church's teachings and position on this moral 03:21:13 22 MS. MOSS: Objection. Lack of foundation. If you
03:17:10 23 issue are unequivocal. Marriage is between a man and a 03:21:15 23 know, you can respond.
03:17:15 24 woman -- I'm sorry -- marriage between a man and a woman 03:21:15 24 THE WITNESS: I believe that's public knowledge.
03:17:18 25 is ordained of God. And the formation of families is 03:21:18 25 MS. STEWART: Q And isn't it true that they were

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page29 of 51
44 (Pages 170 to 173)
Page 170 Page 172
03:21:18 1 also -- 03:23:46 1 connection with Proposition 8 that the LDS were
03:21:17 2 A. I should back up. 03:23:50 2 significant in the battle both in terms of finances and
03:21:19 3 When you say "the LDS Church," you're 03:23:53 3 foot soldiers?
03:21:21 4 referring to -- tell me, if you would, how you're 03:23:56 4 MS. MOSS: Object to the extent there's a lack of
03:21:27 5 referring to it? 03:23:58 5 foundation. And he's already testified he doesn't know
03:21:29 6 Q. The church and its members got involved in 03:24:03 6 the particular religious faith of the donors. If you
03:21:32 7 Proposition 22; isn't that correct? 03:24:12 7 think of more, you can add to it.
03:21:36 8 A. I believe that the church endorsed it and its 03:24:15 8 THE WITNESS: I really don't.
03:21:43 9 members got involved. 03:24:17 9 MS. STEWART: Q You don't know?
03:21:44 10 Q. And they were significant in the 03:24:18 10 A. I don't have anything more to add other than
03:21:47 11 Proposition 22 battle; is that correct? 03:24:20 11 what I've already stated.
03:21:50 12 MS. MOSS: Objection to the term "significant." If 03:24:21 12 Q. But you didn't answer my question. Either you
03:21:54 13 you understand it, you can answer. 03:24:23 13 know or don't know. It's a "yes" or "no" question.
03:22:02 14 THE WITNESS: Define "significant," if you would. 03:24:26 14 Isn't it true that in Proposition 8, the LDS
03:22:04 15 MS. STEWART: Q Do you know what the word 03:24:30 15 were significant in the battle both in finances and foot
03:22:05 16 "significant" means? 03:24:35 16 solders?
03:22:07 17 A. Depending upon the context, certainly. What 03:24:35 17 A. I continue to take issue with the vague
03:22:10 18 is your context? 03:24:38 18 generalization of the LDS. I have attempted to
03:22:12 19 Q. I am saying they played a significant role, an 03:24:41 19 stipulate that the LDS leadership has endorsed it. And
03:22:16 20 important role. 03:24:45 20 Mormans in California were active in participation in
03:22:17 21 A. Important role? Yes. 03:24:49 21 giving.
03:22:19 22 Q. And did they play a significant role in 03:24:49 22 Q. And so they both the church and its member
03:22:24 23 Proposition 8? 03:24:53 23 collectively both gave money and time; is that true?
03:22:27 24 MS. MOSS: Same objection to the form of the 03:25:02 24 MS. MOSS: Objection. I think the fact on what
03:22:29 25 question. 03:25:06 25 they gave I think was an in-kind contribution --

Page 171 Page 173

03:22:32 1 THE WITNESS: Members of the LDS Church played an 03:25:10 1 MS. STEWART: The church gave.
03:22:35 2 important role. 03:25:11 2 MS. MOSS: That the church gave.
03:22:36 3 MS. STEWART: Q And they did so both in terms of 03:25:13 3 MS. STEWART: Q Did the church members, to your
03:22:38 4 money; correct? They did so in terms of money? 03:25:14 4 knowledge, donate significant amounts of money to the
03:22:42 5 MS. MOSS: Objection. Lack of foundation. 03:25:18 5 Proposition 8 campaign?
03:22:48 6 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't know the degree to 03:25:20 6 A. To my knowledge, yes.
03:22:49 7 which donations are public, specific to any particular 03:25:22 7 Q. And significant amounts of money?
03:22:57 8 religious denomination. 03:25:24 8 MS. MOSS: I'm going to --
03:23:00 9 MS. STEWART: Q Do you recall saying at The Church 03:25:26 9 THE WITNESS: I don't know the percentage.
03:23:02 10 on the Hill event that the LDS got involved in Prop 22, 03:25:54 10 MS. STEWART: Q I'm going to ask you to take a
03:23:07 11 and they were significant in the battle both in finances 03:25:55 11 look at the paragraph under the heading "LDS Church
03:23:10 12 and foot soldiers? 03:25:59 12 Takes Active Role in Supporting Prop 8."
03:23:11 13 A. No. 03:26:04 13 First of all, I want to go back. You said
03:23:12 14 Q. Do you believe that to be true that they were 03:26:06 14 that you would have worded it differently when I asked
03:23:14 15 significant in the battle both in finances and foot 03:26:08 15 you about the heading itself.
03:23:18 16 solders? 03:26:10 16 A. Uh-huh.
03:23:19 17 A. Of Prop 22? 03:26:11 17 Q. But my question is do you disagree with the
03:23:20 18 Q. Yes. 03:26:13 18 statement that the LDS Church took an active role in
03:23:21 19 MS. MOSS: Object to the form of the question to 03:26:18 19 supporting Proposition 8?
03:23:22 20 the term "foot soldiers" being undefined. But if you 03:26:25 20 A. The reason that I take issue with this title
03:23:27 21 understand, you can answer. 03:26:29 21 is because it lumps two groups together: One of
03:23:28 22 THE WITNESS: To -- as I would define "foot 03:26:35 22 leadership and one of grassroots Californians.
03:23:36 23 soldiers" being people who would be willing to be active 03:26:39 23 Q. But this is a ProtectMarriage.com
03:23:40 24 in the cause, yes. 03:26:42 24 communication; correct?
03:23:41 25 MS. STEWART: Q And wasn't it equally true in 03:26:43 25 A. Correct.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page30 of 51
45 (Pages 174 to 177)
Page 174 Page 176
03:26:43 1 Q. Is it misleading in your view? 03:29:51 1 A. I -- I knew of Pastor Garlow's desire to
03:26:49 2 A. It doesn't state it as clearly as I would have 03:29:57 2 connect with the pastor community.
03:26:52 3 liked. 03:29:59 3 Q. And is it true that "The Call" in June was the
03:26:59 4 Q. Is it true that as the second paragraph says 03:30:07 4 first of a series of pastor meetings, as the letter
03:27:00 5 that the LDS Church rarely takes an official stand on 03:30:11 5 indicates, in the -- as the newsletter indicates in the
03:27:05 6 political issues? 03:30:14 6 next paragraph.
03:27:11 7 A. Yes. 03:30:17 7 A. And is it true?
03:27:13 8 Q. And is it true that in this case the first 03:30:20 8 Q. Yes.
03:27:17 9 presidency sent a letter to church leaders in 03:30:21 9 A. If the meetings are the webinars that we've
03:27:22 10 California, at least, regarding -- supporting 03:30:23 10 already discussed, yes.
03:27:28 11 Proposition 8? 03:30:26 11 Q. And did the pastor meetings serve to kick off
03:27:30 12 A. I believe that it's true that it was sent to 03:30:32 12 an aggressive grassroots campaign amongst churches of
03:27:33 13 California's leaders. 03:30:38 13 varying denominations?
03:27:35 14 Q. Were you ever shown or told any part of the 03:30:47 14 A. The pastor meeting that Jim Garlow put
03:27:38 15 content of that letter? 03:30:50 15 together was the first of several. That's -- that's as
03:27:39 16 A. No. No. 03:31:03 16 much as I know.
03:27:51 17 Q. I want you to look at the third page of this 03:31:04 17 Q. Did the pastor meetings result in a
03:27:53 18 document where it has a heading "Pastor's committee 03:31:08 18 development of a grassroots campaign?
03:28:02 19 continues push to organize churches." 03:31:20 19 A. I'm -- I'm struggling for -- allow me a
03:28:04 20 Do you see that? 03:31:32 20 minute, if you would.
03:28:05 21 A. Yes. 03:31:43 21 To answer your question, all that I can say is
03:28:05 22 Q. Were you -- well, first of all, do you have an 03:31:46 22 that this served to kick off Jim Garlow's aggressive
03:28:08 23 understanding of what this newsletter means by the 03:31:56 23 campaign amongst churches.
03:28:14 24 reference to pastor's committee? 03:31:58 24 Q. And what do you know about Jim Garlow's
03:28:20 25 A. No. 03:32:01 25 aggressive campaign amongst churches?

Page 175 Page 177

03:28:23 1 Q. So when it says "Pastor's committee continues 03:32:05 1 A. Only what we've already addressed, webinars.
03:28:29 2 push to organize churches," do you have any 03:32:08 2 Q. You don't know what results those webinars had
03:28:33 3 understanding of what that's referring to? 03:32:11 3 in terms of pastors going out --
03:28:35 4 A. No. 03:32:13 4 A. No.
03:28:35 5 Q. And underneath that it says "On June 17th, 03:32:13 5 Q. -- into their church communities?
03:28:39 6 2008, Jim Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Church in 03:32:15 6 A. No, I don't.
03:28:45 7 San Diego, released an invitation letter to the State's 03:32:16 7 Q. Is it true that the Yes on 8 campaign was the
03:28:48 8 pastor community asking them to participate in a 03:32:21 8 largest grassroots campaign in California history?
03:28:51 9 state-wide conference call for pastors." 03:32:25 9 A. I believe so.
03:28:53 10 Do you see that? 03:32:27 10 Q. Okay.
03:28:54 11 A. Yes. 03:32:28 11 And who was responsible for the grassroots
03:28:54 12 Q. Were you aware of that when it was happening? 03:32:34 12 parts of the Yes on 8 effort?
03:29:04 13 A. After the fact. 03:32:38 13 MS. MOSS: To the extent that's public, which I
03:29:06 14 Q. Okay. 03:32:41 14 don't believe it is, but to the extent it is, you can
03:29:06 15 And were you aware -- when you say "after the 03:32:43 15 answer. If not, I direct you not to answer under First
03:29:09 16 fact," how far after the fact? 03:32:48 16 Amendment grounds.
03:29:11 17 A. I -- I don't know. 03:32:49 17 THE WITNESS: I choose not to answer.
03:29:17 18 Q. When did you first become aware that 03:32:50 18 MS. STEWART: Q Were the pastors and the churches
03:29:19 19 Pastor Garlow was inviting pastors to participate in 03:32:52 19 in part responsible for the grassroots effort?
03:29:29 20 conference calls? 03:32:56 20 A. Are you asking if they participated?
03:29:29 21 A. Well, again, I'm not sure of the date that I 03:32:58 21 Q. Yes.
03:29:31 22 became aware of this letter. It was shortly after the 03:32:58 22 A. They participated in the grassroots efforts.
03:29:38 23 letter went out would be. 03:33:00 23 Q. Were there others that participated in the
03:29:41 24 Q. And so sometime in later in June in 2008, you 03:33:02 24 grassroots effort?
03:29:45 25 knew that Pastor Garlow was making those efforts? 03:33:05 25 A. I don't believe that they were public.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page31 of 51

EXHIBIT C
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page32 of 51

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

---oOo---

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

Deposition of

RONALD PRENTICE

Volume I

Thursday, December 17, 2009

REPORTED BY: LESLIE CASTRO, CSR #8876

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

Court Reporting Services
41 Sutter Street, Suite 1605
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page33 of 51
27 (Pages 102 to 105)
Page 102 Page 104
11:49:48 1 second page under the heading "IProtectMarriage.com 11:53:02 1 MS. MOSS: Did you work with them, and I think
11:49:55 2 targets the youth vote, the facts about the Prop 8 11:53:05 2 whether, you know, he's already explained that he's got
11:49:59 3 campaign." 11:53:09 3 some confusion over what in conjunction with means and
11:50:00 4 Do you see that. 11:53:13 4 now you're asking did they work together. So I think
11:50:01 5 A. Yes. 11:53:15 5 you're getting at how did they original themselves.
11:50:01 6 Q. And it says in the first paragraph under that 11:53:18 6 I don't know what they did or didn't do, but I
11:50:04 7 heading "In conjunction with the Pastors Rapid Response 11:53:20 7 think if they had a private non-public relationship,
11:50:08 8 Network, we recently launched a website targeting the 11:53:26 8 then he does not have to acknowledge that. But there
11:50:11 9 youth vote in California. At the IProtectMarriage.com 11:53:31 9 may be something public.
11:50:16 10 website young people in California can learn about the 11:53:33 10 THE WITNESS: Well, I would -- I would -- it's not
11:50:19 11 important issues involved in Proposition 8 and can sign 11:53:38 11 a simple "yes" or "no". The actual answer is when you
11:50:20 12 up to help." 11:53:42 12 phrase it did we work with, we were invited by
11:50:21 13 Do you see that language? 11:53:46 13 Jim Garlow, one or another a member of the executive
11:50:22 14 A. Yes. 11:53:53 14 committee or Shubert and Flint to give updates to this
11:50:23 15 Q. Is it true that in conjunction with the 11:54:00 15 network that Jim Garlow created and oftentimes did so
11:50:26 16 Pastors Rapid Response Network, the ProtectMarriage.com 11:54:03 16 (indicating).
11:50:34 17 launched the website known as IProtectMarriage.com? 11:54:05 17 MS. STEWART: Q When you say this network, you
11:50:42 18 A. To the degree that it states it here, I would 11:54:05 18 mean the Pastors Rapid Response Team?
11:50:44 19 say it appears to be true. It was -- it wasn't under my 11:54:10 19 A. Rapid Response Network is what he called it.
11:50:51 20 primary supervision. 11:54:13 20 Q. Got it.
11:50:53 21 Q. But do you dispute the accuracy of that 11:54:15 21 And you were invited by them to give updates
11:50:58 22 statement? 11:54:19 22 about the campaign itself?
11:51:03 23 A. Well, I guess the accuracy would hinge on the 11:54:22 23 A. Yes.
11:51:06 24 term "conjunction." There -- the Pastors Rapid Response 11:54:23 24 Q. And did they keep the executive committee or
11:51:13 25 Network acted for the passage of Prop 8. And whether 11:54:29 25 yourself appraised of their efforts in connection with

Page 103 Page 105

11:51:21 1 they or IProtectMarriage.com really sought approval from 11:54:35 1 passing Proposition 8?
11:51:27 2 the executive committee, it would not necessarily always 11:54:46 2 A. Yes, to some degree.
11:51:36 3 be accurate. 11:55:51 3 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at a
11:51:38 4 Q. So what's the Pastors Rapid Response Network? 11:55:52 4 document that we'll mark as Exhibit 5.
11:51:42 5 A. The Pastors Rapid Response Network was an 11:56:08 5 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 5 was marked for
11:51:47 6 informal entity started by Pastor Jim Garlow in 11:56:08 6 identification.)
11:51:53 7 San Diego. 11:56:16 7 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever seen this document
11:51:58 8 Q. And when was that entity created? 11:56:18 8 before?
11:52:01 9 A. Well, again, it's informal, so I'm not aware 11:56:19 9 A. No.
11:52:05 10 that it is -- it has any standing. But I don't know 11:56:21 10 Q. Have you heard of something called "The
11:52:11 11 when it was created in Jim Garlow's head. 11:56:25 11 Pastors Rapid Response Team?
11:52:15 12 Q. Who else is on it, as far as you know? 11:56:28 12 A. Yes.
11:52:21 13 A. Jim Garlow leads it. That's all I know. 11:56:29 13 Q. And I think earlier we saw a document that
11:52:24 14 Q. Is Miles McPherson involved in it? 11:56:33 14 referred to the Pastors Rapid Response Network.
11:52:27 15 A. I don't -- I don't know and I don't believe 11:56:37 15 Is it your understanding that that's the same
11:52:30 16 so. 11:56:39 16 group or entity?
11:52:31 17 Q. And did ProtectMarriage.com work with the 11:56:40 17 A. That's my understanding, yes.
11:52:37 18 pastors rapid response network on any efforts that 11:56:42 18 Q. And does this document -- I recognize that you
11:52:43 19 related to the passage of Proposition 8? 11:56:45 19 haven't seen it before, but does looking at it refresh
11:52:46 20 MS. MOSS: To the extent that -- I don't know if 11:56:50 20 your recollection in any way as to who was part of the
11:52:50 21 you did or not. But the instruction is going to be to 11:56:57 21 pastors rapid response Team?
11:52:52 22 the extent you did, if it's public, you can respond. If 11:57:02 22 A. It doesn't refresh my recollection because I
11:52:55 23 it's private, I'm going to instruct you not to answer. 11:57:05 23 was never aware that there was a true team.
11:52:58 24 MS. STEWART: Well, Nikki, it's a "yes" or "no" 11:57:11 24 Q. Well, you knew there was some sort of informal
11:53:00 25 question. 11:57:17 25 entity, I think Is What you called it; correct?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page34 of 51
28 (Pages 106 to 109)
Page 106 Page 108
11:57:20 1 A. Uh-huh. 12:00:32 1 communicate with voters by conference calls?
11:57:20 2 Q. Does it refresh your recollection as to who 12:00:45 2 A. There may have been -- there -- there were
11:57:22 3 was a part of that informal entity? 12:00:50 3 fundraising calls, if that's what you mean. That's the
11:57:26 4 A. The only person that I knew was a part of it 12:00:54 4 only thing that comes to mind where major donors or
11:57:30 5 was Jim Garlow. 12:01:00 5 potential major donors were brought together for
11:57:32 6 Q. You did know, did you not that Miles McPherson 12:01:02 6 conference calls.
11:57:36 7 created or had created for him or for his under his 12:01:03 7 Q. Were there conference calls with pastors?
11:57:46 8 supervision the IProtectMarriage.com website? 12:01:08 8 A. That were sponsored directly by the campaign?
11:57:50 9 A. Yes. 12:01:13 9 Q. Well, let's start there, yeah.
11:58:10 10 Q. I'm going to go back. 12:01:18 10 A. The only conference calls I'm familiar with
11:58:12 11 We were talking earlier about how the campaign 12:01:20 11 pastors came through Jim Garlow and his Pastors Rapid
11:58:17 12 communicated with actual and potential voters. 12:01:29 12 Response Team.
11:58:21 13 Do you recall that discussion? 12:01:31 13 Q. And when you say "came through," explain what
11:58:22 14 A. Yes. 12:01:35 14 you mean by that.
11:58:23 15 Q. And we went through a number of ways, and I 12:01:36 15 A. Created, developed and implemented through
11:58:25 16 want to circle back because I'm not sure if we covered 12:01:38 16 him.
11:58:29 17 them all. 12:01:38 17 Q. So there were conference calls that
11:58:30 18 So you mentioned as ways that the campaign 12:01:41 18 Pastor Garlow -- he's a pastor; correct?
11:58:33 19 communicated with voters or potential voters -- and can 12:01:43 19 A. Correct.
11:58:38 20 I just for shorthand say "voters" to mean potential 12:01:44 20 Q. -- organized --
11:58:43 21 voters as well. 12:01:47 21 A. Correct.
11:58:44 22 A. Yes. 12:01:47 22 Q. -- through the Pastors Rapid Response Team?
11:58:45 23 Q. Would that be acceptable do you understand 12:01:54 23 And were you part of those conference calls?
11:58:46 24 that? 12:01:56 24 A. Some. I was invited to participate in some.
11:58:47 25 A. Uh-huh. 12:02:05 25 Q. Were other members of the executive committee

Page 107 Page 109

11:58:47 1 Q. You have to answer audibly. 12:02:08 1 participants in those conference calls?
11:58:49 2 A. Yes. Sorry. 12:02:15 2 A. Let's see. I'm -- I don't know for sure.
11:58:51 3 Q. So in communicating with voters the campaign 12:02:22 3 Q. Were Shubert and Flint participants in those
11:58:56 4 used T.V. ads. You said radio ads, E-mail blasts, 12:02:28 4 conference calls?
11:59:00 5 direct mail rallies, town hall meetings, a primary 12:02:28 5 A. They were invited to participate in some as
11:59:08 6 website and you mentioned two other websites 12:02:31 6 well.
11:59:12 7 IProtectMarriage.com and ProtectMarriage.com and that's 12:02:31 7 Q. Were any of your other -- when I say you, I
11:59:18 8 where I got diverted. 12:02:35 8 mean ProtectMarriage.com -- consultants involved in
11:59:21 9 So I want to ask: Are there other ways 12:02:38 9 those conference calls?
11:59:23 10 besides those that the campaign communicated with 12:02:42 10 A. I believe one conference call. Gary Lawrence
11:59:27 11 voters? 12:02:45 11 from Lawrence Research was invited to participate.
11:59:28 12 A. Yes. As you state that, I'm reminded of door 12:02:52 12 Q. And any other ProtectMarriage.com consultants
11:59:32 13 hangers. And I'm reminded of brochures that were 12:02:56 13 that you recall were -- who were involved in those
11:59:36 14 distributed, and I'm reminded of yard signs and bumper 12:02:59 14 conference calls?
11:59:42 15 stickers. 12:03:00 15 A. I vaguely recall and could be inaccurate in
11:59:50 16 Q. How about press releases? 12:03:05 16 whether Steve Linder was -- participated in one.
11:59:51 17 A. Yes. 12:03:09 17 Q. Okay. And is that it?
11:59:54 18 Q. And how about press events -- 12:03:12 18 A. To my knowledge.
11:59:58 19 A. Yes. 12:03:15 19 Q. Were there -- we talked about the simulcasts.
11:59:58 20 Q. -- press conferences that sort of thing? 12:03:25 20 Can you tell me about the simulcasts. And
12:00:00 21 A. Yes. 12:03:28 21 I've seen reference to something called simulcasts, and
12:00:03 22 Q. And did the campaign provide articles or other 12:03:32 22 I'm not sure I fully understand what the term means. So
12:00:10 23 content for websites besides its own? 12:03:35 23 can we start there.
12:00:22 24 A. Not to my knowledge, no. 12:03:38 24 Do you know what simulcast means, can you
12:00:28 25 Q. Were there conference calls? Did you 12:03:40 25 explain it to me?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page35 of 51
29 (Pages 110 to 113)
Page 110 Page 112
12:03:42 1 A. A simulcast is where an event takes place in 12:06:21 1 Q. And McPherson's church you said was The Rock
12:03:46 2 one facility and the event is broadcast into other 12:06:25 2 Church?
12:03:53 3 facilities. 12:06:26 3 A. Correct.
12:03:55 4 Q. At the same time? 12:06:26 4 Q. And where is that?
12:03:55 5 A. Yes. 12:06:28 5 A. Point Loma-San Diego.
12:03:56 6 Q. Hence the simul part of simulcast? 12:06:31 6 Q. Thank-you. I'm bad with Southern California.
12:04:00 7 A. Yeah. 12:06:37 7 So the Pastors Rapid Response Team put them
12:04:01 8 Q. So you mentioned earlier that there were 12:06:46 8 on.
12:04:04 9 simulcasts done in the effort to pass Prop 8. 12:06:47 9 Were they sponsored by ProtectMarriage.com?
12:04:14 10 Can you describe those events, those simulcast 12:06:50 10 A. You need to tell me what you mean by
12:04:18 11 events. 12:06:51 11 "sponsored."
12:04:19 12 A. Those were put on by Pastors Rapid Response 12:06:54 12 Q. Did ProtectMarriage.com promote them in any
12:04:24 13 Team, and were oriented towards pastors and churches. 12:07:00 13 way?
12:04:34 14 Q. And how many were there? 12:07:10 14 A. I'm not -- I'm not remembering a time. I
12:04:40 15 A. I believe there were three. 12:07:14 15 would imagine we may have -- we may have communicated
12:04:47 16 Q. And did you participate in any way in those 12:07:18 16 that they took place or that they were going to take
12:04:55 17 simulcasts? 12:07:21 17 place. But it wasn't a major part of our communication.
12:04:56 18 A. No. 12:07:27 18 Q. Did ProtectMarriage.com provide funding for
12:04:57 19 Q. Were you present at the -- were they held in 12:07:31 19 them?
12:05:02 20 churches? 12:07:31 20 A. Yes.
12:05:05 21 MS. MOSS: Let me just interject. Obviously, you 12:07:34 21 Q. What level of funding, if you recall, did
12:05:07 22 can only answer what you know, and you can answer that. 12:07:38 22 ProtectMarriage.com provide for the simulcasts?
12:05:09 23 I just want to for the record note a lack of foundation 12:07:43 23 A. We provided for the total funding of the
12:05:12 24 to the extent that he said he didn't. 12:07:46 24 simulcast.
12:05:15 25 MS. STEWART: He can say if he doesn't know -- 12:07:54 25 MS. STEWART: I'm going to suggest we take a lunch

Page 111 Page 113

12:05:17 1 MS. MOSS: If he knows. I just want to preserve 12:07:56 1 break. Is this a good time for you guys?
12:05:19 2 the foundation objection. 12:07:59 2 MS. MOSS: Sure.
12:05:23 3 MS. STEWART: Preserve. 12:08:05 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record at 12:07.
12:05:24 4 MS. MOSS: But you can answer. 12:08:07 4 (Lunch recess.)
12:05:25 5 THE WITNESS: I believe Pastor Garlow's church was 12:08:07 5 (Ms. Piepmeier is absent.)
12:05:28 6 the facility where -- actually, no, I'm wrong. 01:19:03 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:18, and we're back
12:05:32 7 At least one was held at The Rock Church, 01:19:05 7 on the record.
12:05:36 8 Miles McPherson's church. I believe two were held at 01:19:08 8 MS. STEWART: Q Mr. Prentice, do you understand
12:05:39 9 Pastor Garlow's church. And then they were broadcast 01:19:10 9 that you're still under oath?
12:05:43 10 into other churches. 01:19:12 10 A. Yes.
12:05:45 11 MS. STEWART: Q And did you observe them while 01:19:12 11 Q. And that when we take breaks in the
12:05:48 12 they -- well, first of all, were you at the churches 01:19:15 12 deposition, it doesn't mean the oath goes away.
12:05:51 13 when they were being held? 01:19:19 13 You understand that; right?
12:05:52 14 A. No. 01:19:20 14 A. Yes.
12:05:52 15 Q. Did you watch the simulcasts? 01:19:24 15 Q. Did the executive committee for
12:05:56 16 A. No. 01:19:36 16 ProtectMarriage.com have responsibility to coordinate
12:05:56 17 Q. Did you watch them ever after they were held? 01:19:43 17 with the organizations, churches and individuals that
12:05:59 18 A. One portion of one. 01:19:47 18 made up the ProtectMarriage coalition?
12:06:02 19 Q. And Pastor Garlow's church, which church is 01:19:54 19 A. By referring to executive committee of
12:06:06 20 that? 01:19:57 20 ProtectMarriage.com, you're referring to the committee
12:06:07 21 A. Skyline Westling Church. 01:20:00 21 that was formed for the campaign of '08?
12:06:13 22 Q. And where is it located? 01:20:04 22 Q. Yes.
12:06:16 23 A. El Cajon, California. 01:20:04 23 A. Did we have responsibility to communicate
12:06:18 24 Q. Is that near San Diego? 01:20:06 24 with --
12:06:19 25 A. San Diego, eastern San Diego. 01:20:07 25 Q. Right.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page36 of 51
36 (Pages 138 to 141)
Page 138 Page 140
02:23:21 1 Q. Does that at all refresh your recollection 02:27:02 1 specifically did anybody have webinars or did
02:23:23 2 about what CCN is? 02:27:05 2 ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 have webinars?
02:23:29 3 A. I think we've already addressed that. You 02:27:13 3 MS. STEWART: Q Did anybody have webinars?
02:23:33 4 asked me what Church Communication Network was, and I 02:27:14 4 A. Yes.
02:23:38 5 said they provide simulcasts. 02:27:17 5 Q. What is a webinar?
02:23:40 6 Q. I didn't know the CCN was their initials. I 02:27:18 6 A. Webinar is a communication that goes online
02:23:43 7 hadn't put two and two together, to be honest. 02:27:22 7 and people see it on computers.
02:23:46 8 So CCN is campaign -- wait. I'm sorry. 02:27:24 8 Q. And is it something that you have to, sort of,
02:23:53 9 Is it -- what did you just say? Is it Church 02:27:26 9 be there simultaneously for to participate in it?
02:23:56 10 Communication Network, Inc.? Because that's the thing 02:27:32 10 A. I believe so.
02:23:59 11 that you said -- 02:27:32 11 Q. Is it interactive in some way?
02:24:00 12 A. Yes. 02:27:38 12 A. No.
02:24:00 13 Q. -- simulcasts? 02:27:41 13 Q. And you said there were webinars, tell me what
02:24:04 14 So CCN is Church Communication Network, Inc., 02:27:45 14 you know about those webinars.
02:24:09 15 correct, this has refreshed your recollection about CCN? 02:27:48 15 Let me start with who did webinars in
02:24:13 16 A. I am attributing -- I can only go by you 02:27:53 16 connection with the Prop 8 campaign?
02:24:19 17 having previously mentioned Church Communication Network 02:28:01 17 A. The Pastors Rapid Response Team, not
02:24:24 18 and me now seeing CCN. 02:28:08 18 necessarily in connection with the campaign, put on
02:24:28 19 Q. Okay. Fair enough. 02:28:13 19 webinars.
02:24:34 20 Did you know that these simulcasts were being 02:28:13 20 Q. When you say "not necessarily in connection
02:25:00 21 planned at the time they were, in fact, being planned? 02:28:15 21 with the campaign," you mean -- I'm not sure I follow.
02:25:05 22 A. Yes. 02:28:20 22 Did they have to do with Prop 8?
02:25:06 23 Q. Did you know who the speakers were going to be 02:28:22 23 A. Yes, but I guess we need to clarify whether or
02:25:12 24 at the time they were being planned? 02:28:25 24 not it had to do with the campaign committee.
02:25:14 25 A. No. 02:28:28 25 Q. So you mean -- when you say not necessarily

Page 139 Page 141

02:25:16 1 Q. Did you know what the content would be at the 02:28:32 1 in --
02:25:19 2 time they were being planned? 02:28:32 2 A. Campaign --
02:25:20 3 A. No. 02:28:33 3 Q. -- committee?
02:25:41 4 Q. We were earlier going through the ways in 02:28:34 4 A. Yes.
02:25:44 5 which the ProtectMarriage.com campaign communicated with 02:28:35 5 Q. But they were Prop 8 related?
02:25:50 6 voters. And we covered a lot of things, but I wanted to 02:28:37 6 A. Yes.
02:25:59 7 ask about a couple that we didn't touch on. 02:28:38 7 Q. Did you participate in any of those webinars?
02:26:01 8 You mentioned -- or we may have touched on. 02:28:41 8 A. Yes.
02:26:04 9 You mentioned T.V. ads and radio ads; do you 02:28:42 9 Q. And do you know how many webinars there were?
02:26:09 10 recall that. 02:28:45 10 A. No.
02:26:10 11 A. Uh-huh. Yes. 02:28:46 11 Q. And what -- can you describe what -- well, let
02:26:12 12 Q. And by T.V. ads, did you mean advertisements 02:28:55 12 me ask it this way.
02:26:15 13 that were actually broadcast on television? 02:28:58 13 So a webinar is something where a lot of
02:26:19 14 A. Those that were publicly broadcast, yes. 02:29:02 14 people get online on their computer and watch a
02:26:22 15 Q. Were there also video ads that were prepared 02:29:05 15 presentation that's happening on the computer; is
02:26:26 16 for the Internet only? 02:29:07 16 that --
02:26:29 17 A. No. 02:29:09 17 A. A PowerPoint.
02:26:30 18 Q. Okay. 02:29:13 18 Q. A PowerPoint.
02:26:31 19 So you didn't have ads on your website that 02:29:16 19 And what was your participation in the
02:26:36 20 had not been -- or that were never broadcast; is that 02:29:19 20 webinars that you had anything to do with?
02:26:41 21 correct? 02:29:21 21 A. I was asked to speak and give an update.
02:26:43 22 A. To my knowledge, yes. 02:29:27 22 Q. And how many webinars did you give an update
02:26:44 23 Q. And did you -- were there something called 02:29:29 23 for?
02:26:49 24 webinars as part of the campaign efforts? 02:29:33 24 A. I don't recall.
02:27:00 25 MS. MOSS: Are you asking -- are you asking 02:29:33 25 Q. Was it more than five?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page37 of 51
37 (Pages 142 to 145)
Page 142 Page 144
02:29:34 1 A. I don't believe so. 02:32:52 1 Q. And who ho organized that event?
02:29:36 2 Q. And do you remember who organized the 02:32:55 2 A. A gentleman out of Kansas City.
02:29:38 3 webinars -- you said it was the PRRT? 02:32:58 3 Q. What was his name?
02:29:46 4 A. Yes. 02:32:59 4 A. Lou Engle.
02:29:49 5 Q. And in each instance in which you 02:33:04 5 Q. Did he -- did you know that event was being
02:29:53 6 participated, you provided an update about -- about 02:33:11 6 planned at the time it was being planned?
02:29:57 7 what? 02:33:14 7 A. Yes.
02:29:59 8 A. Oh, whatever I was requested to give an update 02:33:15 8 Q. Did ProtectMarriage.com have any involvement
02:30:04 9 on. It was typically it varied depending upon the 02:33:19 9 whatsoever in "The Call"?
02:30:12 10 webinar. 02:33:22 10 MS. MOSS: To the extent their involvement was
02:30:12 11 Q. And did -- do you know who the audience, if 02:33:24 11 public -- I don't know if they had any involvement --
02:30:16 12 you will, was for those webinars? 02:33:26 12 but if they did and it was public, you can respond. If
02:30:24 13 A. The audience was -- yeah, I would say 02:33:30 13 not, I would direct you not to answer.
02:30:31 14 religious workers. 02:33:33 14 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any public.
02:30:36 15 Q. And when you say "workers," what do you mean? 02:33:36 15 MS. STEWART: Q Did you go to "The Call"?
02:30:38 16 A. It could be lay people. It could be pastors, 02:33:38 16 A. Yes.
02:30:42 17 priests, rabbis. 02:33:39 17 Q. Did you speak at "The Call"?
02:30:44 18 Q. Do you have any idea how many people were -- 02:33:40 18 A. No.
02:30:49 19 do you have any idea of the audience size for those 02:33:44 19 Q. Was "The Call." kind of a modeled after
02:30:53 20 webinars? 02:33:50 20 old-fashioned revival events? Do you know what I'm
02:30:54 21 A. No. 02:33:54 21 talking about?
02:30:56 22 Q. Were the webinars separate from the conference 02:33:55 22 MS. MOSS: Objection. Lack of foundation. If you
02:30:58 23 calls that we talked about earlier? 02:33:57 23 know.
02:31:02 24 A. Remind me of the conference calls. 02:33:59 24 THE WITNESS: I didn't attend any old-fashioned
02:31:04 25 Q. I believe you indicated that there were some 02:34:01 25 revival events so....

Page 143 Page 145

02:31:11 1 conference calls that Pastor Garlow and the PRRT invited 02:34:04 1 MS. STEWART: Q Me neither. I think I read that
02:31:17 2 you to participate in. 02:34:06 2 somewhere about it.
02:31:19 3 A. They were the same. 02:34:11 3 Can you describe what it was like?
02:31:20 4 Q. They were the same. Okay. 02:34:15 4 A. A lot of people in the stands and a lot of
02:31:22 5 So the webinars involve both being online and 02:34:17 5 people on the stage and a lot of people praying.
02:31:28 6 watching something and then hearing something on the 02:34:22 6 Q. And whether were the speakers if you remember?
02:31:32 7 telephone at the same time. 02:34:26 7 A. I remember two: Lou Engle and Jim Garlow.
02:31:37 8 A. Yes. 02:34:30 8 Q. Do you remember an ex-gay, I think that's how
02:31:40 9 Q. Or is it you're hearing it via your computer? 02:34:35 9 she was billed, speaking at that event?
02:31:45 10 A. Both. 02:34:38 10 A. No.
02:31:45 11 Q. As you can see, I'm technologically 02:34:40 11 Q. Do you remember a number of people who claimed
02:31:48 12 challenged. 02:34:42 12 to have once been but ceased to be gay speaking at that
02:31:50 13 Were there -- you mentioned the simulcasts. And I 02:34:53 13 event?
02:31:58 14 think you told me earlier that they were oriented 02:34:53 14 A. No.
02:32:05 15 towards pastors and churches. 02:34:56 15 Q. Did a part of the way the campaign
02:32:06 16 Do I have that right? 02:35:02 16 communicated involve door-to-door precinct walking?
02:32:09 17 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 02:35:07 17 A. Yes.
02:32:11 18 Q. Were there other events during the campaign 02:35:08 18 Q. Did another part of it involve phone banking?
02:32:15 19 that were designed to attract or appeal to the religious 02:35:14 19 A. But I need to back up and say that when you
02:32:23 20 faithful, the faith community? 02:35:20 20 refer to the campaign, I'm understanding this as the
02:32:30 21 A. No. 02:35:22 21 broad-based loose number of people who are doing a great
02:32:32 22 Q. Do you remember an event called "The Call"? 02:35:28 22 degree of this on their own.
02:32:35 23 A. Yes. 02:35:30 23 Q. Fair enough?
02:32:36 24 Q. Can you tell me what that was? 02:35:30 24 A. We understand that.
02:32:42 25 A. That was a prayer event. 02:35:31 25 Q. We do.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page38 of 51
45 (Pages 174 to 177)
Page 174 Page 176
03:26:43 1 Q. Is it misleading in your view? 03:29:51 1 A. I -- I knew of Pastor Garlow's desire to
03:26:49 2 A. It doesn't state it as clearly as I would have 03:29:57 2 connect with the pastor community.
03:26:52 3 liked. 03:29:59 3 Q. And is it true that "The Call" in June was the
03:26:59 4 Q. Is it true that as the second paragraph says 03:30:07 4 first of a series of pastor meetings, as the letter
03:27:00 5 that the LDS Church rarely takes an official stand on 03:30:11 5 indicates, in the -- as the newsletter indicates in the
03:27:05 6 political issues? 03:30:14 6 next paragraph.
03:27:11 7 A. Yes. 03:30:17 7 A. And is it true?
03:27:13 8 Q. And is it true that in this case the first 03:30:20 8 Q. Yes.
03:27:17 9 presidency sent a letter to church leaders in 03:30:21 9 A. If the meetings are the webinars that we've
03:27:22 10 California, at least, regarding -- supporting 03:30:23 10 already discussed, yes.
03:27:28 11 Proposition 8? 03:30:26 11 Q. And did the pastor meetings serve to kick off
03:27:30 12 A. I believe that it's true that it was sent to 03:30:32 12 an aggressive grassroots campaign amongst churches of
03:27:33 13 California's leaders. 03:30:38 13 varying denominations?
03:27:35 14 Q. Were you ever shown or told any part of the 03:30:47 14 A. The pastor meeting that Jim Garlow put
03:27:38 15 content of that letter? 03:30:50 15 together was the first of several. That's -- that's as
03:27:39 16 A. No. No. 03:31:03 16 much as I know.
03:27:51 17 Q. I want you to look at the third page of this 03:31:04 17 Q. Did the pastor meetings result in a
03:27:53 18 document where it has a heading "Pastor's committee 03:31:08 18 development of a grassroots campaign?
03:28:02 19 continues push to organize churches." 03:31:20 19 A. I'm -- I'm struggling for -- allow me a
03:28:04 20 Do you see that? 03:31:32 20 minute, if you would.
03:28:05 21 A. Yes. 03:31:43 21 To answer your question, all that I can say is
03:28:05 22 Q. Were you -- well, first of all, do you have an 03:31:46 22 that this served to kick off Jim Garlow's aggressive
03:28:08 23 understanding of what this newsletter means by the 03:31:56 23 campaign amongst churches.
03:28:14 24 reference to pastor's committee? 03:31:58 24 Q. And what do you know about Jim Garlow's
03:28:20 25 A. No. 03:32:01 25 aggressive campaign amongst churches?

Page 175 Page 177

03:28:23 1 Q. So when it says "Pastor's committee continues 03:32:05 1 A. Only what we've already addressed, webinars.
03:28:29 2 push to organize churches," do you have any 03:32:08 2 Q. You don't know what results those webinars had
03:28:33 3 understanding of what that's referring to? 03:32:11 3 in terms of pastors going out --
03:28:35 4 A. No. 03:32:13 4 A. No.
03:28:35 5 Q. And underneath that it says "On June 17th, 03:32:13 5 Q. -- into their church communities?
03:28:39 6 2008, Jim Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Church in 03:32:15 6 A. No, I don't.
03:28:45 7 San Diego, released an invitation letter to the State's 03:32:16 7 Q. Is it true that the Yes on 8 campaign was the
03:28:48 8 pastor community asking them to participate in a 03:32:21 8 largest grassroots campaign in California history?
03:28:51 9 state-wide conference call for pastors." 03:32:25 9 A. I believe so.
03:28:53 10 Do you see that? 03:32:27 10 Q. Okay.
03:28:54 11 A. Yes. 03:32:28 11 And who was responsible for the grassroots
03:28:54 12 Q. Were you aware of that when it was happening? 03:32:34 12 parts of the Yes on 8 effort?
03:29:04 13 A. After the fact. 03:32:38 13 MS. MOSS: To the extent that's public, which I
03:29:06 14 Q. Okay. 03:32:41 14 don't believe it is, but to the extent it is, you can
03:29:06 15 And were you aware -- when you say "after the 03:32:43 15 answer. If not, I direct you not to answer under First
03:29:09 16 fact," how far after the fact? 03:32:48 16 Amendment grounds.
03:29:11 17 A. I -- I don't know. 03:32:49 17 THE WITNESS: I choose not to answer.
03:29:17 18 Q. When did you first become aware that 03:32:50 18 MS. STEWART: Q Were the pastors and the churches
03:29:19 19 Pastor Garlow was inviting pastors to participate in 03:32:52 19 in part responsible for the grassroots effort?
03:29:29 20 conference calls? 03:32:56 20 A. Are you asking if they participated?
03:29:29 21 A. Well, again, I'm not sure of the date that I 03:32:58 21 Q. Yes.
03:29:31 22 became aware of this letter. It was shortly after the 03:32:58 22 A. They participated in the grassroots efforts.
03:29:38 23 letter went out would be. 03:33:00 23 Q. Were there others that participated in the
03:29:41 24 Q. And so sometime in later in June in 2008, you 03:33:02 24 grassroots effort?
03:29:45 25 knew that Pastor Garlow was making those efforts? 03:33:05 25 A. I don't believe that they were public.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page39 of 51
46 (Pages 178 to 181)
Page 178 Page 180
03:33:07 1 Q. So is your answer -- 03:36:06 1 correct?
03:33:09 2 A. I would choose not to answer. 03:36:07 2 A. Yes.
03:33:11 3 Q. You don't know of any other people or groups 03:36:12 3 Q. Did Mr. Shubert and Flint inform you that they
03:33:18 4 who participated in a grassroots effort in a public way 03:36:25 4 were going to publish that article before they did so?
03:33:22 5 except for the pastors of the churches; is that fair? 03:36:28 5 A. No.
03:33:26 6 A. I don't know of any publicly communicated 03:36:30 6 Q. Did you have an objection to them publishing
03:33:35 7 effort that participated in the grassroots campaign. 03:36:34 7 it?
03:33:40 8 Q. Were the simulcasts a part of a grassroots 03:36:36 8 A. After the fact would I have --
03:33:44 9 campaign? 03:36:40 9 Q. Did you? Did you ever object?
03:33:49 10 A. I guess it would depend upon your definition 03:36:43 10 MS. MOSS: To the extent that it's asking for
03:33:52 11 of "grassroots." 03:36:46 11 internal communications that you had with Mr. Shubert or
03:33:53 12 Q. Well, have you used the phrase "grassroots" to 03:36:49 12 Mr. Flint or you know anybody else, I would instruct you
03:33:56 13 describe the success of the Yes on 8 campaign? 03:36:54 13 not to answer. If you publicly objected, then you can
03:34:00 14 A. I'm sure I have. 03:36:57 14 answer.
03:34:01 15 Q. And have you stated that that campaign was the 03:37:00 15 THE WITNESS: I would take your counsel.
03:34:07 16 largest grassroots effort in California ever? 03:37:03 16 MS. STEWART: Q And is it true -- are you saying
03:34:11 17 A. Yes. 03:37:07 17 that you didn't -- were not aware that they were going
03:34:12 18 Q. And so as you use that term, were the 03:37:09 18 to publish the article before they did?
03:34:18 19 simulcasts a part of an effort to create a grassroots 03:37:13 19 A. I believe I answered that.
03:34:26 20 campaign? 03:37:14 20 Q. And the answer is "yes"?
03:34:27 21 A. Were -- was it my understanding that the 03:37:16 21 A. Yes.
03:34:30 22 simulcasts were part of the grassroots campaign? 03:37:20 22 Q. Were you unhappy about them having published
03:34:33 23 Q. Yes. 03:37:23 23 it when you did find out about it?
03:34:33 24 A. Yes. 03:37:35 24 A. Yes.
03:34:34 25 Q. And Pastor Garlow as least was involved in the 03:37:35 25 Q. And did you express that in any way?

Page 179 Page 181

03:34:40 1 simulcasts; correct? 03:37:40 1 MS. MOSS: The same instruction as earlier. If it
03:34:42 2 A. Yes. 03:37:42 2 was a public expression of your views, you can respond
03:34:43 3 Q. Two of them; right? 03:37:46 3 if it was done --
03:34:45 4 A. Yes. 03:37:47 4 THE WITNESS: It wasn't a public expression of my
03:34:46 5 Q. And Pastor Miles? 03:37:50 5 views.
03:34:51 6 A. McPherson. 03:37:51 6 MS. STEWART: Q And did Mr. Shubert and Flint
03:34:52 7 Q. McPherson was involved in the third simulcast; 03:37:55 7 speak at a conference of the American Political
03:34:56 8 correct? 03:38:01 8 Consultants Association or something along those lines
03:34:58 9 A. I believe so. 03:38:04 9 about Proposition 8 campaign, to your knowledge?
03:34:59 10 Q. Were there other faith leaders involved in the 03:38:08 10 A. I'm not aware of the specific events where
03:35:03 11 simulcasts? 03:38:13 11 they may have spoken about it.
03:35:06 12 A. Though I believe so, I can't name them. 03:38:16 12 Q. Did you hear that they received an award from
03:35:09 13 Q. Isn't it fair to say that a major part of the 03:38:22 13 an organization of Professional Political Consultants
03:35:14 14 Yes on 8 campaign was directed towards churches and 03:38:28 14 for their work on the Prop 8 campaign?
03:35:21 15 people who attended churches? 03:38:30 15 A. Yes.
03:35:29 16 MS. MOSS: If that is something that's been 03:38:30 16 Q. And did you become aware at some point of them
03:35:31 17 publicly stated or acknowledged, you can respond. If 03:38:33 17 speaking at a professional organization about a case
03:35:36 18 not, I'm going to direct you not to respond to that 03:38:44 18 study of the Yes on 8 campaign?
03:35:39 19 characterization of the strategy of the campaign. 03:38:48 19 A. No.
03:35:44 20 THE WITNESS: I'll take that counsel. 03:38:50 20 Q. So to this day, you're not aware of them
03:35:49 21 MS. STEWART: Q I think you testified earlier that 03:38:51 21 having had that -- having made that presentation?
03:35:51 22 you were aware of an article that Mr. Shubert and 03:38:56 22 A. Correct.
03:36:00 23 Mr. Flint wrote about the Yes on 8 campaign? 03:38:57 23 Q. Okay.
03:36:03 24 A. Yes. 03:38:58 24 After they published the article and you
03:36:04 25 Q. And you have seen and read that article; 03:39:01 25 learned about it, did you make any effort to prevent

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page40 of 51
58 (Pages 226 to 229)
Page 226 Page 228
05:24:38 1 communications that were from -- that referred to 05:29:47 1 A. I don't have any memory of this.
05:24:44 2 ProtectMarriage.com to make a distinction between the 05:29:50 2 Q. You testified earlier that you did participate
05:24:46 3 coalition that's mentioned on Exhibit 25 and the 05:29:54 3 in some conference calls organized by the Pastors Rapid
05:25:05 4 ProtectMarriage campaign executive committee? 05:29:59 4 Response Team; correct?
05:25:10 5 A. Did I expect the voters to be able to make a 05:30:00 5 A. Yes.
05:25:12 6 distinction between what -- 05:30:01 6 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt -- well, let
05:25:14 7 Q. Between -- in reviewing communications that 05:30:04 7 me focus your attention on the third page of this
05:25:16 8 they received from ProtectMarriage.com that referred to 05:30:09 8 document, which appears to be some, sort of, perhaps
05:25:20 9 ProtectMarriage.com, did you expect voters to 05:30:13 9 agenda, it's not entirely clear, for a conference call
05:25:24 10 distinguish between the executive committee or the 05:30:20 10 it has a July 30, 2008 date. And on the third page,
05:25:28 11 primarily formed ballot committee on the one hand, and 05:30:25 11 Item 5 it says "How to Educate your State."
05:25:31 12 the broad coalition that you've described on -- or that 05:30:30 12 Do you see that?
05:25:35 13 is described on Exhibit 25 in the last paragraph? 05:30:30 13 A. Yes.
05:25:42 14 A. Well, I can't speak for everyone who wrote on 05:30:31 14 Q. And it lists Tony Perkins with a website
05:25:45 15 behalf of the campaign committee. But I think that 05:30:35 15 www.FRC.org.
05:25:49 16 there were very clearly incidents where we were very 05:30:37 16 Do you see that?
05:25:54 17 specific about the ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 campaign 05:30:39 17 A. Yes.
05:26:00 18 committee. 05:30:40 18 Q. And underneath that your name and
05:26:00 19 Q. What were you the chairman of? 05:30:42 19 www.CaliforniaFamily.org.
05:26:04 20 A. I was the chairman of the ad hoc executive 05:30:46 20 Do you see?
05:26:07 21 committee. 05:30:47 21 A. Yes.
05:26:07 22 Q. Were you also the chairman of ProtectMarriage 05:30:47 22 Q. And underneath that Frank Shubert,
05:26:12 23 in the broader sense of that term? 05:30:48 23 Shubert-Flint Public Affairs, Sacramento.
05:26:15 24 A. Define the broader sense of the term. 05:30:52 24 Do you see that?
05:26:17 25 Q. The coalition described at the bottom of 05:30:53 25 A. Yes.

Page 227 Page 229

05:26:20 1 Exhibit 25. 05:30:53 1 Q. Now, July 30th of 2008 was after the
05:26:23 2 A. No, because there was no -- there was no 05:30:59 2 Proposition 8 had qualified for the ballot; correct?
05:26:26 3 organization as such. 05:31:02 3 A. Yes.
05:26:28 4 Q. Look back at Exhibit 26, if you would. 05:31:02 4 Q. So it was during the campaign itself?
05:26:41 5 Do you see at the top it has a photograph of 05:31:05 5 A. Yes.
05:26:43 6 you? 05:31:05 6 Q. And do you recall participating in a
05:26:45 7 A. Yes. 05:31:15 7 conference call with -- organized by the Pastors Rapid
05:26:45 8 Q. And underneath it says "Ron Prentice, 05:31:20 8 Response Team in which you spoke about the topic of how
05:26:48 9 coalition chairman"? 05:31:23 9 to educate your State?
05:26:49 10 A. Yes. 05:31:25 10 A. No.
05:26:50 11 Q. Does that suggest that you were the chairman 05:31:27 11 Q. Do you recall participating in a conference
05:26:53 12 of the broad-based coalition that is referred to in so 05:31:29 12 call organized by the Pastors Rapid Response Team in
05:26:57 13 many of the communications from ProtectMarriage.com? 05:31:33 13 which you spoke at the -- in a part of the conference
05:27:10 14 A. I would say wrongly so, yes. 05:31:42 14 call at which Tony Perkins and Frank Shubert also spoke?
05:27:32 15 MS. STEWART: I'm going to give you what we'll mark 05:31:50 15 A. Yes. However, there's no evidence that I
05:27:54 16 as 29. 05:31:54 16 actually fulfilled this duty having never seen this, and
05:27:55 17 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 29 was 05:31:59 17 there were other times.
05:28:10 18 Marked for identification.) 05:32:00 18 Q. Okay.
05:28:10 19 MS. STEWART: Q Take a minute to look at it and 05:32:00 19 But you recall speaking with those two
05:28:13 20 tell me if you have ever seen this document before. 05:32:03 20 individuals at conference calls?
05:28:51 21 (Pause in the proceedings.) 05:32:05 21 A. I recall a -- you know, one or more webinar
05:29:18 22 THE WITNESS: I've never seen this document before. 05:32:11 22 conference calls where those gentlemen also spoke.
05:29:21 23 MS. STEWART: Q In any event, do you recall 05:32:16 23 Q. And when you participated in webinars --
05:29:23 24 participating in a conference call organized by the 05:32:18 24 webinar conference calls organized by the Pastors Rapid
05:29:26 25 Pastors Rapid Response Team on or about July 30th, 2008? 05:32:26 25 Response Team, did you participate for the entire call?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page41 of 51
59 (Pages 230 to 233)
Page 230 Page 232
05:32:34 1 A. Not every time, no. 05:35:15 1 Proposition 8, to your knowledge?
05:32:35 2 Q. Sometimes you did and sometimes you did not? 05:35:18 2 MS. MOSS: Objection. Lack of foundation. You can
05:32:37 3 A. When you say "participate," there would -- 05:35:19 3 answer.
05:32:39 4 again, I would speak for two to five minutes at any 05:35:21 4 THE WITNESS: He participated in this webinar,
05:32:42 5 time. 05:35:22 5 apparently.
05:32:43 6 Q. And did you listen to the other presentations 05:35:24 6 MS. STEWART: Q You're not aware of other activity
05:32:46 7 on any of those calls? 05:35:26 7 on his part --
05:32:49 8 A. Yes, I would say inconsistently. 05:35:28 8 A. No.
05:32:52 9 Q. And who's Jack Hibbs, by the way? 05:35:28 9 Q. -- to support Prop 8?
05:32:57 10 A. A pastor of a church. 05:35:31 10 A. No.
05:33:00 11 Q. In Chino Hills? 05:36:00 11 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to take look at
05:33:02 12 A. Correct. 05:36:04 12 Exhibit 30.
05:33:02 13 Q. And who's Chuck LiMondri? 05:36:04 13 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 30 was
05:33:06 14 A. An attorney. 05:36:22 14 Marked for identification.)
05:33:10 15 Q. And who is Maggie Gallagher? 05:36:47 15 THE WITNESS: Okay.
05:33:12 16 A. She's the president of NOM, National 05:36:48 16 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever seen this document
05:33:16 17 Organization for Marriage. 05:36:50 17 before?
05:33:17 18 Q. And I think we talked about Jim Garlow 05:36:50 18 A. No.
05:33:20 19 earlier. And he heads up the Pastors Rapid Response 05:36:51 19 Q. It appears to be some type of postcard or
05:33:26 20 Team; is that right? 05:36:56 20 other mailing item by which people could express support
05:33:27 21 A. Yes. 05:37:03 21 for Proposition 8 and volunteer?
05:33:28 22 Q. Who's Bishop Cordeleone? 05:37:06 22 A. Yes.
05:33:30 23 A. Cordeleone. As it states there, at the time 05:37:06 23 Q. And it has the logo "Catholics for
05:33:34 24 he was an auxiliary bishop of the Catholic -- the 05:37:09 24 ProtectMarriage.com" in a couple of places on each card.
05:33:39 25 Catholic Diocese of San Diego. 05:37:13 25 Do you see that?

Page 231 Page 233

05:33:41 1 Q. And I think we talked about Miles McPherson 05:37:14 1 A. The logo or the term?
05:33:44 2 earlier as the pastor of the Rock Church in San Diego; 05:37:16 2 Q. I'm sorry. The term.
05:33:51 3 correct? 05:37:17 3 A. Yes.
05:33:52 4 A. Yes. 05:37:18 4 Q. And underneath the bottom term, you know,
05:33:59 5 Q. And Tony Perkins at the time was with the 05:37:24 5 "Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com," it says in very
05:34:02 6 Family Research Council; is that correct? 05:37:28 6 small print it says "Paid for by ProtectMarriage.com-Yes
05:34:04 7 A. Yes. 05:37:33 7 on 8, a project of California Renewal."
05:34:05 8 Q. And at the time Frank Shubert was working on 05:37:36 8 Do you see that?
05:34:07 9 the campaign for ProtectMarriage.com; correct? 05:37:37 9 A. Yes.
05:34:13 10 A. I believe so, yes. By July 30th, yes. 05:37:37 10 Q. Are you aware that ProtectMarriage.com funded
05:34:16 11 Q. And Lou Engle who is listed on the last page 05:37:42 11 in part efforts by Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com to
05:34:20 12 of this document, what role did he play in the effort to 05:37:50 12 support Proposition 8?
05:34:26 13 pass Proposition 8, if you know? 05:37:52 13 A. As you present this to me, assuming it is
05:34:29 14 A. Lou Engle? 05:37:56 14 accurate, I am now aware that the campaign committee may
05:34:33 15 MS. MOSS: I'm going to object. Foundation. 05:38:01 15 have paid for these postcards.
05:34:34 16 Answer to the extent you know. 05:38:02 16 Q. Do you know of any other expenditures by the
05:34:38 17 THE WITNESS: It's -- it's been answered. It's -- 05:38:06 17 campaign committee to support Catholic involvement in
05:34:40 18 Lou Engle put together "The Call" event and participated 05:38:12 18 the Yes on 8 campaign?
05:34:52 19 in one or more of these webinars. 05:38:14 19 MS. MOSS: To the extent such expenditures are
05:34:54 20 MS. STEWART: Q And that's the extent of his 05:38:17 20 public, you can answer. To the extent you had internal
05:34:56 21 participation. 05:38:20 21 expenditures that are not public, I would direct you not
05:34:56 22 A. To my knowledge. 05:38:24 22 to answer.
05:35:00 23 Q. And who's Chuck Colson? 05:38:32 23 THE WITNESS: You referred this morning to an
05:35:04 24 A. Chuck Colson is an attorney. 05:38:37 24 expenditure to Bill May, and that's all that I'm
05:35:13 25 Q. And was he active in the effort to pass 05:38:45 25 familiar with.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page42 of 51
60 (Pages 234 to 237)
Page 234 Page 236
05:40:13 1 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at a 05:45:30 1 Jim Garlow during the campaign?
05:40:15 2 document that we will mark as Exhibit 31. 05:45:32 2 A. In E-mail form?
05:40:18 3 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 31 was 05:45:34 3 Q. In any form. I'm not quite sure what form
05:40:32 4 Marked for identification.) 05:45:37 4 this is so....
05:40:54 5 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever seen this document 05:45:49 5 A. Sorry. The answer is "yes" and "no."
05:40:55 6 before? 05:45:52 6 Sometimes yes; sometimes no.
05:41:07 7 A. Yes. 05:45:55 7 Q. I'm noticing something that you alerted me to
05:41:07 8 Q. Can you tell me what it is? 05:45:58 8 earlier which it says at the bottom "If you wish to be
05:41:11 9 A. It began as an E-mail blast from Frank Shubert 05:46:00 9 removed from this mailing list, please click
05:41:22 10 to our E-mail list. And was picked up by Jim Garlow and 05:46:03 10 unsubscribe."
05:41:27 11 forwarded along. 05:46:05 11 A. E-mail.
05:41:59 12 Q. Was it forwarded along by Jim Garlow -- can 05:46:05 12 Q. Which would suggest it's an E-mail; is that
05:42:06 13 you tell -- or do you remember how he forwarded it along 05:46:06 13 right?
05:42:09 14 whether it was by E-mail or some other way? 05:46:07 14 A. That's what it suggests, yeah.
05:42:13 15 A. I -- I'm not sure, no. 05:46:09 15 Q. So you got some E-mails from Jim Garlow but
05:42:25 16 Q. You mentioned earlier that you attended part 05:46:12 16 not necessarily all?
05:42:27 17 of one of the simulcast events? 05:46:14 17 A. Yes.
05:42:30 18 A. I listened to one. 05:46:16 18 Q. So you were on some list that he blasted; is
05:42:31 19 Q. You listened to one. I'm sorry. 05:46:23 19 that fair?
05:42:33 20 Which of the simulcast events did you listen 05:46:24 20 A. Apparently so, yes.
05:42:37 21 to? 05:46:28 21 MS. STEWART: Can we take a short break, like five
05:42:39 22 A. One that was held at Skyline Church. 05:46:31 22 minutes?
05:42:43 23 Q. And two of the three were held there; is that 05:46:33 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 5:46.
05:42:46 24 correct? 05:59:52 24 (Brief break.)
05:42:46 25 A. That's my recollection. 06:00:02 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 5:59.

Page 235 Page 237

05:42:51 1 Q. Do you recall whether it was called "The ABCs 06:00:08 1 MS. STEWART: I want to ask you to look at an
05:42:53 2 of Marriage"? 06:00:11 2 exhibit that we will mark 33.
05:42:54 3 A. No. 06:00:15 3 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 33 was
05:42:57 4 Q. Do you recall the time, the approximate month 06:00:30 4 Marked for identification.)
05:43:02 5 or -- 06:00:30 5 (Mr. Pugno is absent.)
05:43:03 6 A. No. 06:00:37 6 MS. STEWART: Q Earlier we talked about an article
05:43:10 7 Q. Do you recall anything about the content of it 06:00:40 7 that Mr. Shubert and Mr. Flint published about passing
05:43:13 8 at all? 06:00:45 8 Proposition 8. And I think you testified that you had
05:43:16 9 A. I recall seeing Jim Garlow and Lou Engle. 06:00:48 9 seen that article. And I want to ask you if this is
05:43:22 10 That's all. 06:00:51 10 that article.
05:43:40 11 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at a 06:01:08 11 A. Yes.
05:43:43 12 document we'll mark Exhibit 32. 06:01:11 12 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at a
05:43:44 13 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 32 was 06:01:15 13 document that we will mark as 34.
05:44:00 14 Marked for identification.) 06:01:19 14 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 34 was
05:44:30 15 MS. STEWART: Q And I want to just call to your 06:01:39 15 Marked for identification.)
05:44:32 16 attention that it is a two-page document and was 06:01:40 16 (Mr. Pugno enters the room.)
05:44:36 17 double-side copied so there is something on the back as 06:01:54 17 MS. STEWART: Q I'll let you have a minute to look
05:44:40 18 well. 06:01:55 18 at it. I'm going to ask you if you've ever seen this
05:44:51 19 Do you know what this document is? 06:01:58 19 before.
05:44:57 20 A. Hang on. I only know what this document says 06:02:22 20 (Pause in the proceedings.)
05:45:11 21 is what it is. 06:02:27 21 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't.
05:45:14 22 Q. And what can you tell about it from the text 06:02:28 22 MS. STEWART: Q Did you believe that Mr. Shubert
05:45:17 23 of it? 06:02:29 23 and Mr. Flint spoke to a reporter named Kate Kay or a
05:45:19 24 A. It's Jim Garlow promoting "The Call" event. 06:02:46 24 journalist from something called Politics and Advocacy
05:45:22 25 Q. And did you receive letters of this kind from 06:02:51 25 about the Yes on 8 campaign?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page43 of 51

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

---oOo---

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

Deposition of

RONALD PRENTICE

Volume II

Friday, December 18, 2009

REPORTED BY: LESLIE CASTRO, CSR #8876

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

Court Reporting Services
41 Sutter Street, Suite 1605
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page44 of 51
36 (Pages 138 to 141)
Page 138 Page 140
01:40:51 1 MS. MOSS: Object to the form of the question. If 01:44:17 1 I apologize.
01:40:52 2 you can define what you mean by "campaign." 01:44:18 2 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 70 was
01:40:55 3 MS. STEWART: Well, I mean campaign in the very 01:44:35 3 Marked for identification.)
01:40:57 4 broad sense. 01:44:41 4 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever seen that document
01:41:01 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 01:44:43 5 before?
01:41:02 6 MS. STEWART: Q And at the top it also says 01:44:44 6 A. Yes.
01:41:05 7 "Download the new fliers here." And it refers to a 01:44:44 7 Q. Can you tell me what it is.
01:41:09 8 website www.CACatholic.org. 01:44:48 8 A. It's a timeline that leads up to the event
01:41:13 9 Do you see that? 01:44:52 9 called "The Call."
01:41:14 10 A. Yes. 01:44:54 10 Q. Do you know who prepared that timeline?
01:41:15 11 Q. And it appears to be sending people to that 01:45:05 11 A. No.
01:41:19 12 website to get fliers having to do with Proposition 8. 01:45:19 12 MS. STEWART: I'm going to mark -- all right, I
01:41:23 13 Do you see that? 01:45:24 13 lied. This is another one where I only have two.
01:41:24 14 A. Yes. 01:45:28 14 Exhibit 71.
01:41:28 15 Q. Were you familiar with www.CACatholic.org? 01:45:41 15 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 71 was
01:41:36 16 A. Yes. 01:45:41 16 Marked for identification.)
01:41:37 17 Q. Did you know that it was being used to support 01:46:01 17 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever seen this document
01:41:44 18 the Proposition 8 campaign -- 01:46:02 18 before?
01:41:47 19 A. No. 01:46:02 19 A. No.
01:41:47 20 Q. -- broad campaign? 01:46:06 20 Q. Do you see at the bottom that it has three
01:41:50 21 No? 01:46:09 21 websites listed. One of which is
01:41:50 22 A. The broad campaign, no. 01:46:10 22 www.ProtectMarriageCA.com?
01:41:55 23 MS. STEWART: I'll ask you to look at a document 01:46:15 23 A. Yes.
01:41:57 24 that we will mark 69. 01:46:15 24 Q. And I think you told me about that website
01:42:11 25 MS. STEWART: Q And I apologize but I copied this 01:46:17 25 yesterday.

Page 139 Page 141

01:42:14 1 myself so I only have two copies. So let me actually 01:46:18 1 Do you see it has a one for
01:42:22 2 give you the one that I'll have the court reporter mark 01:46:20 2 www.SkylineChurch.com?
01:42:27 3 so I can refer to one. 01:46:23 3 A. Yes.
01:42:29 4 MS. MOSS: You only have two, period? 01:46:24 4 Q. And the other one is www.JimGarlow.com?
01:42:31 5 MS. STEWART: Period. 01:46:29 5 A. Yes.
01:42:32 6 MS. MOSS: No problem. 01:46:29 6 Q. Were you at all familiar with the Skyline
01:42:33 7 MS. STEWART: There's only one or two items like 01:46:31 7 Church website that's on this page?
01:42:35 8 this. 01:46:33 8 A. No.
01:42:44 9 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 69 was 01:46:34 9 Q. How about the Jim Garlow website?
01:42:08 10 Marked for identification.) 01:46:36 10 A. No.
01:42:47 11 MS. STEWART: Q Do you recognize this document, 01:46:55 11 MS. STEWART: I'm going to mark Exhibit 72.
01:42:49 12 have you ever seen it before? 01:47:09 12 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 72 was
01:43:01 13 A. Yes. 01:47:10 13 Marked for identification.)
01:43:01 14 Q. What is it? 01:47:21 14 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever seen that document
01:43:05 15 A. It appears to be a resource list of 01:47:22 15 before?
01:43:09 16 homosexuality resources. 01:47:35 16 A. I don't recall ever having seen it before.
01:43:11 17 Q. And a resource list of whose? 01:47:39 17 Q. Do you ever remember hearing about the 10
01:43:15 18 A. Focus on the Family. 01:47:42 18 declarations for protecting biblical marriage as the
01:43:15 19 Q. Did Focus on the Family use this resource list 01:47:47 19 title refers to in the course of the Prop 8 effort?
01:43:18 20 or something like it when you were working for that 01:47:56 20 A. Yes.
01:43:22 21 organization? 01:47:57 21 Q. Who did you hear about the 10 declarations for
01:43:24 22 A. I don't know. 01:48:00 22 protecting biblical marriage from?
01:44:05 23 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at -- 01:48:05 23 MS. MOSS: To the extent that whomever you heard it
01:44:07 24 this is the other one, and this one is even worse, I 01:48:08 24 from is public, then you can reveal the identity.
01:44:13 25 only have one copy. But it's the only one like this so 01:48:21 25 THE WITNESS: Jim Garlow.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page45 of 51
37 (Pages 142 to 145)
Page 142 Page 144
01:48:23 1 MS. STEWART: Q And this document has a copyright 01:52:22 1 little female symbol in the word marriage.
01:48:27 2 symbol with James Garlow's name on it at the bottom, 01:52:26 2 Do you see that?
01:48:31 3 does it not, of the second page? 01:52:26 3 A. Yes.
01:48:33 4 A. Yes. 01:52:27 4 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
01:48:33 5 Q. And it's dated June 25th, 2008? 01:52:47 5 MS. MOSS: I don't know if it's just my copy, it
01:48:37 6 A. Yes. 01:52:50 6 doesn't appear to be --
01:48:42 7 Q. Did you ever hear of something called the 8 01:52:55 7 MS. STEWART: I know it's, sort of -- I think it
01:48:44 8 for 8 plan in connection with Proposition 8? 01:52:56 8 may have been in booklet form, but this is how it comes
01:48:48 9 A. Yes. 01:53:02 9 off the web. I think it's because they may have laid it
01:48:55 10 Q. Was that also something that was -- that 01:53:06 10 out in a way that it would fold in half. But they're
01:49:02 11 Pastor Garlow talked about when he talked about 01:53:11 11 all that way, it's not just yours.
01:49:05 12 Proposition 8? 01:53:14 12 MS. MOSS: Okay.
01:49:12 13 A. Yes. 01:53:19 13 THE WITNESS: Well, earlier I referred to having
01:49:13 14 Q. Did you ever hear about the ABCs of the 01:53:22 14 seen the document, but I don't believe I have, I've only
01:49:15 15 Proposition 8 amendment? 01:53:26 15 seen that logo (indicating).
01:49:18 16 A. Yes. 01:53:28 16 MS. STEWART: Q So you've seen the logo "God's
01:49:20 17 Q. Was that a phrase -- a phrase that 01:53:31 17 Design for Marriage" but not on this document?
01:49:26 18 Pastor Garlow used in connection with Proposition 8? 01:53:33 18 A. This document doesn't -- I don't recall it.
01:49:29 19 A. Yes. 01:53:35 19 Q. Okay.
01:49:33 20 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you look at 01:53:36 20 Do you see that it says on the cover page "For
01:49:35 21 Exhibit 73. 01:53:39 21 more information, go to www.ProtectMarriage.com?
01:49:36 22 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 73 was 01:53:43 22 A. Yes.
01:49:51 23 Marked for identification.) 01:53:45 23 Q. And also, it says on what I'm going to guess
01:50:09 24 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever seen Exhibit 73 01:53:48 24 it's on the left-hand side what might have been the back
01:50:11 25 before? 01:53:52 25 page of the document if it was a foldover?

Page 143 Page 145

01:50:17 1 A. Yes. 01:53:54 1 A. Yes.
01:50:20 2 Q. Do you recall where you saw it? 01:53:55 2 Q. And underneath it says "Assembled by Pastor
01:50:27 3 A. Yes. 01:53:58 3 Jim Garlow and the staff at Skyline Church."
01:50:27 4 Q. Where did you -- where did you come across 01:54:04 4 Do you see that?
01:50:31 5 this document? 01:54:05 5 A. Yes.
01:50:35 6 A. It was distributed at an event that had to do 01:54:05 6 Q. Do you know whether the logo of "God's Design
01:50:45 7 with a webinar. 01:54:09 7 for Marriage" was used by Pastor Garlow in connection
01:50:47 8 Q. At an event that had to do with a webinar? 01:54:16 8 with the campaign to pass Proposition 8?
01:50:50 9 A. It was at the site where the webinar was cast. 01:54:20 9 MS. MOSS: By "campaign," are you referring to the
01:50:53 10 Q. And were you present at that site at the time? 01:54:22 10 broader campaign?
01:50:56 11 A. Yes. 01:54:24 11 MS. STEWART: Yes.
01:50:57 12 Q. Where was the site of the webinar? 01:54:27 12 THE WITNESS: I recognize it from the time of the
01:51:02 13 A. Skyline Church. 01:54:30 13 Yes on 8 campaign, yes.
01:51:03 14 Q. And in the, sort of, faint background 01:54:33 14 MS. STEWART: Q Do you recognize any of the
01:51:09 15 underneath the lettering, that's the Yes on 8 logo in 01:54:35 15 content of the document even though you haven't seen the
01:51:15 16 the background; right? 01:54:41 16 entire document?
01:51:17 17 A. Yes. 01:55:21 17 A. Yes.
01:51:51 18 MS. STEWART: I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 74. 01:55:22 18 Q. What parts of it do you remember seeing
01:51:52 19 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 74 was 01:55:26 19 before?
01:52:13 20 Marked for identification.) 01:55:32 20 A. Fourth page, page --
01:52:14 21 MS. STEWART: Q This is a document entitled "God's 01:55:34 21 Q. The one that actually says page 4?
01:52:16 22 Design for Marriage." 01:55:37 22 A. Yes. And page 8.
01:52:17 23 Do you see that? 01:55:56 23 Q. Okay.
01:52:19 24 A. Yes. 01:55:56 24 So you saw the part that says "Biblical
01:52:19 25 Q. And it has, like, a little male symbol and a 01:55:59 25 talking points regarding marriage" and -- is that right?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page46 of 51

EXHIBIT D
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page47 of 51

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

---oOo---

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

Deposition of

RONALD PRENTICE

Volume I

Thursday, December 17, 2009

REPORTED BY: LESLIE CASTRO, CSR #8876

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

Court Reporting Services
41 Sutter Street, Suite 1605
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page48 of 51
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Page 98 Page 100
11:42:50 1 that were put -- that were sponsored by the ballot 11:45:49 1 know.
11:42:56 2 measure committee. 11:45:52 2 THE WITNESS: He was not the literal designer and
11:42:57 3 Q. Are you aware of debates that were sponsored 11:45:56 3 creator of the website.
11:42:59 4 by other people? 11:45:58 4 MS. STEWART: Q To your knowledge, was it created
11:43:00 5 A. I'm aware of debates where -- yes. 11:46:00 5 under his supervision?
11:43:10 6 Q. What debates are you aware of? 11:46:04 6 A. Yeah, he participated in its development.
11:43:12 7 A. I'm aware of the Federalists Society holding a 11:46:09 7 Q. And were you aware of its development when
11:43:18 8 debate at Cal Lutheran. I'm aware of -- that actually 11:46:12 8 that was happening?
11:43:27 9 is the one that comes to mind. I'm not sure of any 11:46:15 9 A. I was aware that it was in the works, yes.
11:43:30 10 others. 11:46:19 10 Q. And did Pastor McPherson request approval or
11:43:31 11 Q. Were you present for that debate? 11:46:35 11 permission from you or the executive committee to create
11:43:32 12 A. No. 11:46:40 12 that website?
11:43:33 13 Q. Were there town hall meetings held -- 11:46:46 13 A. I'm trying to -- I'm struggling with the
11:43:35 14 A. Yes. 11:46:53 14 terms. No.
11:43:35 15 Q. -- in support of Proposition 8? 11:46:56 15 Q. Did he ask you or the executive committee
11:43:39 16 A. Yes. 11:47:05 16 whether you would object to him creating that website?
11:43:44 17 Q. Were there events that were simulcast? 11:47:09 17 A. No.
11:43:51 18 A. Yes. 11:47:12 18 Q. What communication did you have with him about
11:43:57 19 Q. Were there communications on websites? 11:47:15 19 that website, if any, before it was created?
11:44:01 20 A. On various websites not associated with the 11:47:19 20 MS. MOSS: I'm going to object to that to the
11:44:04 21 campaign itself? 11:47:21 21 extent it's getting into internal communications or
11:44:06 22 Q. On any websites. 11:47:25 22 private communications that you had with individuals.
11:44:09 23 A. Absolutely. 11:47:28 23 And I'm sorry, and to be clear that's a First Amendment
11:44:10 24 Q. And you said not associated with the campaign 11:47:41 24 objection --
11:44:15 25 itself. 11:47:43 25 THE WITNESS: Thank-you.

Page 99 Page 101

11:44:16 1 Were there websites that were associated with 11:47:43 1 MS. MOSS: -- and I'm instructing you not to
11:44:19 2 the campaign itself? 11:47:46 2 answer.
11:44:21 3 A. There is one primary website. 11:47:48 3 THE WITNESS: Thank-you.
11:44:23 4 Q. What is that? 11:47:56 4 MS. STEWART: Q I'm going to ask you to look at a
11:44:23 5 A. That's ProtectMarriage.com. 11:47:57 5 document that we will mark as Exhibit 4.
11:44:25 6 Q. When you say "one primary website," were there 11:48:02 6 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 4 was
11:44:27 7 secondary websites? 11:48:15 7 Marked for identification.)
11:44:29 8 A. We are aware of two additional websites that 11:48:33 8 MS. STEWART: Q Do you recognize this document?
11:44:34 9 were created without our supervision. One was a 11:48:51 9 A. Yes.
11:44:43 10 IProtectMarriage.com. And another was created by a 11:48:52 10 Q. What is it?
11:44:49 11 group in San Diego ProtectMarriageCA.com. 11:48:54 11 A. Well, it was a communications from the
11:44:58 12 Q. And you said those were created without your 11:49:01 12 ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 that informed those who
11:45:03 13 supervision; is that what you said? 11:49:09 13 received our E-mails about these aspects.
11:45:05 14 A. Yes. 11:49:12 14 Q. And are you saying this was an E-mail
11:45:06 15 Q. Did you -- well, first of all, who created 11:49:16 15 communication?
11:45:12 16 IProtectMarriage.com? 11:49:19 16 A. Yeah, it appears to be so, yes.
11:45:15 17 A. It was primarily formed out of a church in 11:49:22 17 Q. It's not a web page, it's an E-mail, as far as
11:45:19 18 San Diego called The Rock. 11:49:24 18 you can tell?
11:45:20 19 Q. And who was the head of The Rock? 11:49:25 19 A. As far as I can tell.
11:45:23 20 A. The senior pastor is Miles McPherson. 11:49:26 20 Q. And how do you know that, by the way?
11:45:28 21 Q. And when Mr. -- what is his title? 11:49:28 21 A. How do I know it's an E-mail?
11:45:37 22 A. Pastor Miles -- 11:49:30 22 Q. Yes, is there something about --
11:45:38 23 Q. McPherson created that web -- well, did Mr. -- 11:49:33 23 A. Primarily the "unsubscribe" at the bottom.
11:45:43 24 Pastor McPherson create that website? 11:49:36 24 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Thank-you.
11:45:48 25 MS. MOSS: Object. Lack of foundation. But if you 11:49:39 25 I'm going to direct your attention to the

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page49 of 51
27 (Pages 102 to 105)
Page 102 Page 104
11:49:48 1 second page under the heading "IProtectMarriage.com 11:53:02 1 MS. MOSS: Did you work with them, and I think
11:49:55 2 targets the youth vote, the facts about the Prop 8 11:53:05 2 whether, you know, he's already explained that he's got
11:49:59 3 campaign." 11:53:09 3 some confusion over what in conjunction with means and
11:50:00 4 Do you see that. 11:53:13 4 now you're asking did they work together. So I think
11:50:01 5 A. Yes. 11:53:15 5 you're getting at how did they original themselves.
11:50:01 6 Q. And it says in the first paragraph under that 11:53:18 6 I don't know what they did or didn't do, but I
11:50:04 7 heading "In conjunction with the Pastors Rapid Response 11:53:20 7 think if they had a private non-public relationship,
11:50:08 8 Network, we recently launched a website targeting the 11:53:26 8 then he does not have to acknowledge that. But there
11:50:11 9 youth vote in California. At the IProtectMarriage.com 11:53:31 9 may be something public.
11:50:16 10 website young people in California can learn about the 11:53:33 10 THE WITNESS: Well, I would -- I would -- it's not
11:50:19 11 important issues involved in Proposition 8 and can sign 11:53:38 11 a simple "yes" or "no". The actual answer is when you
11:50:20 12 up to help." 11:53:42 12 phrase it did we work with, we were invited by
11:50:21 13 Do you see that language? 11:53:46 13 Jim Garlow, one or another a member of the executive
11:50:22 14 A. Yes. 11:53:53 14 committee or Shubert and Flint to give updates to this
11:50:23 15 Q. Is it true that in conjunction with the 11:54:00 15 network that Jim Garlow created and oftentimes did so
11:50:26 16 Pastors Rapid Response Network, the ProtectMarriage.com 11:54:03 16 (indicating).
11:50:34 17 launched the website known as IProtectMarriage.com? 11:54:05 17 MS. STEWART: Q When you say this network, you
11:50:42 18 A. To the degree that it states it here, I would 11:54:05 18 mean the Pastors Rapid Response Team?
11:50:44 19 say it appears to be true. It was -- it wasn't under my 11:54:10 19 A. Rapid Response Network is what he called it.
11:50:51 20 primary supervision. 11:54:13 20 Q. Got it.
11:50:53 21 Q. But do you dispute the accuracy of that 11:54:15 21 And you were invited by them to give updates
11:50:58 22 statement? 11:54:19 22 about the campaign itself?
11:51:03 23 A. Well, I guess the accuracy would hinge on the 11:54:22 23 A. Yes.
11:51:06 24 term "conjunction." There -- the Pastors Rapid Response 11:54:23 24 Q. And did they keep the executive committee or
11:51:13 25 Network acted for the passage of Prop 8. And whether 11:54:29 25 yourself appraised of their efforts in connection with

Page 103 Page 105

11:51:21 1 they or IProtectMarriage.com really sought approval from 11:54:35 1 passing Proposition 8?
11:51:27 2 the executive committee, it would not necessarily always 11:54:46 2 A. Yes, to some degree.
11:51:36 3 be accurate. 11:55:51 3 MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at a
11:51:38 4 Q. So what's the Pastors Rapid Response Network? 11:55:52 4 document that we'll mark as Exhibit 5.
11:51:42 5 A. The Pastors Rapid Response Network was an 11:56:08 5 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 5 was marked for
11:51:47 6 informal entity started by Pastor Jim Garlow in 11:56:08 6 identification.)
11:51:53 7 San Diego. 11:56:16 7 MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever seen this document
11:51:58 8 Q. And when was that entity created? 11:56:18 8 before?
11:52:01 9 A. Well, again, it's informal, so I'm not aware 11:56:19 9 A. No.
11:52:05 10 that it is -- it has any standing. But I don't know 11:56:21 10 Q. Have you heard of something called "The
11:52:11 11 when it was created in Jim Garlow's head. 11:56:25 11 Pastors Rapid Response Team?
11:52:15 12 Q. Who else is on it, as far as you know? 11:56:28 12 A. Yes.
11:52:21 13 A. Jim Garlow leads it. That's all I know. 11:56:29 13 Q. And I think earlier we saw a document that
11:52:24 14 Q. Is Miles McPherson involved in it? 11:56:33 14 referred to the Pastors Rapid Response Network.
11:52:27 15 A. I don't -- I don't know and I don't believe 11:56:37 15 Is it your understanding that that's the same
11:52:30 16 so. 11:56:39 16 group or entity?
11:52:31 17 Q. And did ProtectMarriage.com work with the 11:56:40 17 A. That's my understanding, yes.
11:52:37 18 pastors rapid response network on any efforts that 11:56:42 18 Q. And does this document -- I recognize that you
11:52:43 19 related to the passage of Proposition 8? 11:56:45 19 haven't seen it before, but does looking at it refresh
11:52:46 20 MS. MOSS: To the extent that -- I don't know if 11:56:50 20 your recollection in any way as to who was part of the
11:52:50 21 you did or not. But the instruction is going to be to 11:56:57 21 pastors rapid response Team?
11:52:52 22 the extent you did, if it's public, you can respond. If 11:57:02 22 A. It doesn't refresh my recollection because I
11:52:55 23 it's private, I'm going to instruct you not to answer. 11:57:05 23 was never aware that there was a true team.
11:52:58 24 MS. STEWART: Well, Nikki, it's a "yes" or "no" 11:57:11 24 Q. Well, you knew there was some sort of informal
11:53:00 25 question. 11:57:17 25 entity, I think Is What you called it; correct?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page50 of 51
28 (Pages 106 to 109)
Page 106 Page 108
11:57:20 1 A. Uh-huh. 12:00:32 1 communicate with voters by conference calls?
11:57:20 2 Q. Does it refresh your recollection as to who 12:00:45 2 A. There may have been -- there -- there were
11:57:22 3 was a part of that informal entity? 12:00:50 3 fundraising calls, if that's what you mean. That's the
11:57:26 4 A. The only person that I knew was a part of it 12:00:54 4 only thing that comes to mind where major donors or
11:57:30 5 was Jim Garlow. 12:01:00 5 potential major donors were brought together for
11:57:32 6 Q. You did know, did you not that Miles McPherson 12:01:02 6 conference calls.
11:57:36 7 created or had created for him or for his under his 12:01:03 7 Q. Were there conference calls with pastors?
11:57:46 8 supervision the IProtectMarriage.com website? 12:01:08 8 A. That were sponsored directly by the campaign?
11:57:50 9 A. Yes. 12:01:13 9 Q. Well, let's start there, yeah.
11:58:10 10 Q. I'm going to go back. 12:01:18 10 A. The only conference calls I'm familiar with
11:58:12 11 We were talking earlier about how the campaign 12:01:20 11 pastors came through Jim Garlow and his Pastors Rapid
11:58:17 12 communicated with actual and potential voters. 12:01:29 12 Response Team.
11:58:21 13 Do you recall that discussion? 12:01:31 13 Q. And when you say "came through," explain what
11:58:22 14 A. Yes. 12:01:35 14 you mean by that.
11:58:23 15 Q. And we went through a number of ways, and I 12:01:36 15 A. Created, developed and implemented through
11:58:25 16 want to circle back because I'm not sure if we covered 12:01:38 16 him.
11:58:29 17 them all. 12:01:38 17 Q. So there were conference calls that
11:58:30 18 So you mentioned as ways that the campaign 12:01:41 18 Pastor Garlow -- he's a pastor; correct?
11:58:33 19 communicated with voters or potential voters -- and can 12:01:43 19 A. Correct.
11:58:38 20 I just for shorthand say "voters" to mean potential 12:01:44 20 Q. -- organized --
11:58:43 21 voters as well. 12:01:47 21 A. Correct.
11:58:44 22 A. Yes. 12:01:47 22 Q. -- through the Pastors Rapid Response Team?
11:58:45 23 Q. Would that be acceptable do you understand 12:01:54 23 And were you part of those conference calls?
11:58:46 24 that? 12:01:56 24 A. Some. I was invited to participate in some.
11:58:47 25 A. Uh-huh. 12:02:05 25 Q. Were other members of the executive committee

Page 107 Page 109

11:58:47 1 Q. You have to answer audibly. 12:02:08 1 participants in those conference calls?
11:58:49 2 A. Yes. Sorry. 12:02:15 2 A. Let's see. I'm -- I don't know for sure.
11:58:51 3 Q. So in communicating with voters the campaign 12:02:22 3 Q. Were Shubert and Flint participants in those
11:58:56 4 used T.V. ads. You said radio ads, E-mail blasts, 12:02:28 4 conference calls?
11:59:00 5 direct mail rallies, town hall meetings, a primary 12:02:28 5 A. They were invited to participate in some as
11:59:08 6 website and you mentioned two other websites 12:02:31 6 well.
11:59:12 7 IProtectMarriage.com and ProtectMarriage.com and that's 12:02:31 7 Q. Were any of your other -- when I say you, I
11:59:18 8 where I got diverted. 12:02:35 8 mean ProtectMarriage.com -- consultants involved in
11:59:21 9 So I want to ask: Are there other ways 12:02:38 9 those conference calls?
11:59:23 10 besides those that the campaign communicated with 12:02:42 10 A. I believe one conference call. Gary Lawrence
11:59:27 11 voters? 12:02:45 11 from Lawrence Research was invited to participate.
11:59:28 12 A. Yes. As you state that, I'm reminded of door 12:02:52 12 Q. And any other ProtectMarriage.com consultants
11:59:32 13 hangers. And I'm reminded of brochures that were 12:02:56 13 that you recall were -- who were involved in those
11:59:36 14 distributed, and I'm reminded of yard signs and bumper 12:02:59 14 conference calls?
11:59:42 15 stickers. 12:03:00 15 A. I vaguely recall and could be inaccurate in
11:59:50 16 Q. How about press releases? 12:03:05 16 whether Steve Linder was -- participated in one.
11:59:51 17 A. Yes. 12:03:09 17 Q. Okay. And is that it?
11:59:54 18 Q. And how about press events -- 12:03:12 18 A. To my knowledge.
11:59:58 19 A. Yes. 12:03:15 19 Q. Were there -- we talked about the simulcasts.
11:59:58 20 Q. -- press conferences that sort of thing? 12:03:25 20 Can you tell me about the simulcasts. And
12:00:00 21 A. Yes. 12:03:28 21 I've seen reference to something called simulcasts, and
12:00:03 22 Q. And did the campaign provide articles or other 12:03:32 22 I'm not sure I fully understand what the term means. So
12:00:10 23 content for websites besides its own? 12:03:35 23 can we start there.
12:00:22 24 A. Not to my knowledge, no. 12:03:38 24 Do you know what simulcast means, can you
12:00:28 25 Q. Were there conference calls? Did you 12:03:40 25 explain it to me?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document494 Filed01/20/10 Page51 of 51
56 (Pages 218 to 221)
Page 218 Page 220
05:10:46 1 Q. And by mail or in some other fashion? 05:14:16 1 language of the first paragraph of this press release;
05:10:53 2 A. Releases would go out usually E-mail -- 05:14:18 2 is that --
05:11:01 3 E-mail. 05:14:20 3 A. I think it's open to interpretation.
05:11:06 4 Q. Do you believe that this release then was 05:14:24 4 Q. And did you encourage your consultants to put
05:11:09 5 E-mailed to potential voters by ProtectMarriage.com? 05:14:32 5 out press releases that were vague?
05:11:13 6 A. You actually prompt the question: I'm not 05:14:38 6 A. No.
05:11:15 7 sure whether this was placed on our website or was 05:14:39 7 Q. Or open to interpretation?
05:11:19 8 released as an E-mail. 05:14:40 8 A. No, we actually --
05:11:20 9 Q. But one of those two ways of communication is 05:14:43 9 MS. MOSS: Well, just -- I think you've answered
05:11:23 10 how you believe it was released? 05:14:47 10 the question --
05:11:25 11 A. Yes. 05:14:48 11 THE WITNESS: No.
05:11:30 12 Q. You see the first paragraph where it says 05:14:49 12 MS. MOSS: -- you didn't encourage it. And beyond
05:11:32 13 "Tapping into a surge of interest in the fall election 05:14:51 13 that, I don't want you to get into your specific
05:11:38 14 among young voters, Prop 8 supporters including campaign 05:14:53 14 discussions with your consultants about the press
05:11:42 15 organizers, a coalition of pastors, youth experts and 05:14:57 15 releases and the strategy for putting them out.
05:11:46 16 leaders have launched IProtectMarriage.com a new website 05:15:02 16 MS. STEWART: Q Do you have an understanding of
05:11:49 17 designed to educate and motivate young people about in 05:15:04 17 the phrase "campaign organizers" in the context of
05:11:51 18 Proposition 8"? 05:15:06 18 Proposition 8?
05:11:53 19 A. Yes. 05:15:07 19 A. No. I think it's open for interpretation.
05:11:53 20 Q. Is that accurate? 05:15:09 20 I'm not precisely sure what Ms. Kerns meant when she
05:11:55 21 A. I think that it was -- it's accurate in terms 05:15:10 21 said that.
05:12:02 22 of Shubert and Flint was aware of this effort. And it 05:15:13 22 Q. Did you ever use the phrase "campaign
05:12:18 23 was cooperative in terms of getting it going. 05:15:15 23 organizers"?
05:12:23 24 Q. So campaign organizers would refer to 05:15:16 24 A. Not to my knowledge.
05:12:28 25 ProtectMarriage.com consultants, is that what you're 05:15:17 25 Q. How did you refer to ProtectMarriage.com and

Page 219 Page 221

05:12:31 1 saying? 05:15:22 1 its consultants when you spoke publicly?
05:12:31 2 A. I can only -- I can't state for -- for sure -- 05:15:30 2 A. I referred to -- it would depend on what I was
05:12:36 3 Q. Okay. 05:15:35 3 intending to communicate. I would refer to Shubert and
05:12:37 4 A. -- what that means. 05:15:41 4 Flint. I would refer to the executive committee. It
05:12:40 5 Q. Is it a fact that ProtectMarriage.com worked 05:15:44 5 would depend.
05:12:44 6 with a coalition of pastors and youth experts and 05:15:45 6 Q. Did you use ProtectMarriage to refer to
05:12:49 7 leaders to launch the IProtectMarriage.com website? 05:15:49 7 anything other than the executive committee in your
05:12:56 8 A. Well, I -- I'm not aware of the -- of who 05:15:51 8 communications?
05:13:13 9 participated in that effort. 05:15:54 9 A. I -- I may have.
05:13:15 10 Q. Would you -- did the campaign generally put 05:16:14 10 Q. Is there any other interpretation you can
05:13:19 11 out press releases that suggested people or entities 05:16:16 11 think of for the phrase "campaign organizers" besides
05:13:25 12 were involved in an effort when it wasn't true? 05:16:20 12 ProtectMarriage.com?
05:13:30 13 MS. MOSS: Well -- 05:16:27 13 A. I could interpret that to mean several things:
05:13:32 14 THE WITNESS: I guess the question would be what 05:16:31 14 It could mean the executive committee; it could mean any
05:13:38 15 was -- go ahead. 05:16:37 15 number of -- of vendors that were contracted; it could
05:13:39 16 MS. MOSS: I'm going to object to the extent that 05:16:43 16 mean grassroots organizers who are volunteers.
05:13:42 17 the question assumes facts in evidence about this 05:16:48 17 Q. So you would refer to volunteers as campaign
05:13:44 18 release that -- that he hasn't foundationally 05:16:51 18 organizers? Is that really a reasonable interpretation
05:13:50 19 established what some of these terms mean or who they're 05:16:59 19 of this document, Mr. Prentice?
05:13:54 20 necessarily referring to. To the extent you can answer 05:17:02 20 MS. MOSS: Objection. I think that's
05:13:57 21 the question -- 05:17:03 21 argumentative. The term "campaign" could mean any
05:14:00 22 THE WITNESS: And I really can't. I don't know 05:17:06 22 things and it's not been defined whether it's small C
05:14:04 23 the -- I don't know what some of these terms mean or who 05:17:08 23 small O, it's not the campaign in big Cs; it's -- so to
05:14:11 24 they are implying. 05:17:14 24 the extent --
05:14:13 25 MS. STEWART: Q So you don't understand the 05:17:15 25 MS. STEWART: Q Did you use campaign with big C

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

(415) 982-4849