Appellants Brief and Appendix Forjone v California 10-822 112910

10-822 United States Court Of Appeals for

The Second Circuit

John Joseph Forjone, Dan Del Plato Jr. Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person Jr. and Christopher Earl Strunk

Plaintiffs,

John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher Earl Strunk, Appellants,

V.

The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ; The States of: CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively; THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR §1012; THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS by its counsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities; The New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of: ERIE, et al. ; and the duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn MARTY MARKOWITZ,

Defendants – Appellees

On Appeal taken from the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of New York February 19, 2010 Order of Lawrence E. Kahn, District Court Judge in Case No. 06 Civ. 1002 and U.S.D.C. for the Western District of New York August 14, 2006 Order of Richard J. Arcara, District Court Judge in Case No. 06 Civ. 0080A ================================================================

APPELLANT BRIEF ================================================================ John-Joseph: Forjone in esse self-represented w/o being an attorney 141 Harris Avenue Lake Luzerne, New York 12846 (585) 721-7673

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse self-represented w/o being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: [email protected]

ii

APPELLANTS John-Joseph: Forjone in esse 141 Harris Avenue Lake Luzerne, New York 12846 (585) 721-7673

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281, Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767

PLAINTIFFS

John-Joseph: Forjone in esse 141 Harris Avenue Lake Luzerne, New York 12846 Dan Del Plato Jr., 50 Chandler Avenue, Batavia, N.Y. 14202 Gabriel Razzano 135 Gordon Place Freeport, NY 11520

Edward M. Person, Jr. 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon, NY 11703 Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281, Brooklyn, New York 11238

APPELLEES –DEFENDANTS: WAN J. KIM U.S. Attorney Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Room 7254--NWB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Representing: The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ; Francine A. Chavez, Esq. NM Attorney General's Office P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504 Representing: the state of NEW MEXICO each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively

Jason T. Contreras, AAG Amanda J. Cochran-McCall, AAG Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division 300 West 15th Street, 11th Floor Austin, Texas 78701 Representing: the state of TEXAS each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General Diana L. Varela , Esq. Assistant Attorney General Attorney for the State of Arizona 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Representing: the state of ARIZONA each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General Joshua J. Hicks Sr. Deputy Attorney General Civil Division 100 North Carson Street Carson City, NV. 89701-4717 Representing: the state of NEVADA each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively

vii

Eric J. Wilson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General the State of Oregon Dept. of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 Representing: the state of OREGON each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively Edmund G. Brown Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-255 26 Representing: the state of CALIFORNIA each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively

ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General of the State of New York Jeffrey M. Dvorin, Esq. Office of Attorney General - Albany The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 And By: Peter B. Sullivan, Esq. NY State Attorney General 107 Delaware Avenue Fl 4 Buffalo, NY 14202 Representing: The SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR §1012 Jeremy A. Colby, Esq. Webster Szanyi, LLP 1400 Liberty Bldg. Buffalo, NY 14202 Representing the Counties of: ALBANY, ORLEANS, GENESEE, CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, TIOGA, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, LIVINGSTON, YATES, SENECA, OSWEGO, HERKIMER, ST. LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA, WASHINGTON, DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON, FULTON,

Joseph F. Reina, Esq. Erie County Dept. of Law 69 Delaware Ave. - Ste 300 Buffalo, NY 14202 Representing: The County of ERIE Michael E. Davis, Esq. Monroe County Dept. of Law 39 West Main St., Rm 307 Rochester, NY 14614 Representing: The County of MONROE Michael P. McCarthy Esq. Onondaga County Dept of Law John H. Mulroy Civic Center 421 Montgomery St., FL 10 Syracuse, NY 13202 Representing: The County of ONONDAGA, Thomas Simeti, Esq. Rockland County, Dept. of Law 11 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956 Representing: The County of ROCKLAND Carol Fumanti Arcuri, Esq. Office of Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Ave. Fl 6 - Rm 600 White Plains, NY 10601 Representing: the County of WESTCHESTER, Aaron J. Marcus, Esq. Broome County Atty's Office 44 Hawley Street POB 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902 Representing: The County of BROOME, Michael G. Reinhardt, Esq. Ontario County Attorney's Office 27 North Main Street -4th Floor Canandaigua, NY 14424-1447 Representing: The County of ONTARIO, John V. Hartwell, Esq. Jefferson County Attorney's Office 175 Arsenal Street Watertown, NY 13601 Representing: The County of JEFFERSON,

viii

Alan R. Peterman, Esq. Hassock & Barclay, LLP One Park Place 300 South State Street P.O. Box 4878 Syracuse, NY 13221-4878 Representing: The County of LEWIS, Tina M. Wayland-Smith, Esq. Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC 60 East State Street Sherrill, NY 13461 Representing: The County of MADISON, Thomas J. Cowley, Esq. Sullivan County Dept of Law County Gov Center 100 North St, POB 5012 Monticello, NY 12701 Representing: the County of SULLIVAN Aven Rennie, Esq. McGavern, McGavern & Grimm, LLP 1100 Rand Building 14 Lafayette Square Buffalo, NY 14203 Representing: The County of NIAGARA Stephen M. Sorrels, Esq. Feldman, Kiefer & Herman, LLP 110 Pearl Street - Suite 400 Buffalo, NY 14202 Representing: The County of COLUMBIA, Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr. Esq. Assistant County Attorney- Suffolk County Attorney’s Office H. Lee Dennison Bldg. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O.B. 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099 Representing: the County of SUFFOLK

Ester Miller, Esq., Assist County Atty. Nassau County Attorney’s Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501 Representing : the County of NASSAU KIMBERLY GALVIN, ESQ., Special Counsel Attorney for The New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street, Albany, NY 12207 (518) 474-6236 Representing : THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS by its counsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities; David W. Kloss , Esq. Kloss & Stenger 69 Delaware Ave Ste 1003 Buffalo, NY 14202 Representing: THE CITY OF NEW YORK and the Borough President of Brooklyn MARTY MARKOWITZ, DEFENDANTS: DUTCHESS, ORANGE, WYOMING, ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CATTARAUGUS, CORTLAND, CHENANGO, OTSEGO, TOMPKINS, WAYNE, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE,

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................…………………….... viii STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION......................……….... 1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT & CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS………………………………………………………. 1 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ................................. 1 INTRODUCTION……………..…………………..……………………………… 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................... 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................…..………………... 8 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..........................................…………………….. 11 Issue 1: WDNY 06-cv-0080 was first filed before NDNY 06-cv-263 ……. 11 Issue 2: Judge Arcara erred by not providing for 28 USC §2284 Panel… 12 Issue 3: Judge Arcara erred by transferring venue to NDNY 04-cv-1193… 13 Issue 4: Judge Kahn erred by dismissing complaint for lack of service…. 14 Issue 5: Kahn, Sharpe, Arcara denied Plaintiffs 1st, 5th, 9th and 10th

amendment rights with related law…………………………. 15 ARGUMENT ………………………………………………………………………. 16 CONCLUSION...........................................…………………............................. 20 JURAT…………………..………........................................................................ 21 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ………………………..………………… 22 APPENDIX with Index 4 pages and exhibits A-1 through A-140.

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

Federal Authorities: Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388…….

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)……………………….. Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007)………………………………………………..

Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715 (1962)……………………………………….

Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33 (1962)………………………………………………….

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) …………………………………….……………………..

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)…………………………………………………………

WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964)………………………………………………..

Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983)………………………………………………………

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1940) ………………………….…………………………..

Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966)……………………………………………………...

Davis v. Bandemer 478 U.S. 109 (1986)……………………………………………………….

United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314 -315 (1941)…………………………………….

Rodriquez v Pataki USDC SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284)

Arbor Hill et al. v. Albany County et al. NDNY 03-cv-502 (NAM) and at 2nd Cir 04-9132 Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 61 n.13 (2d Cir. 1994)

Sysco Corp. v Town of Hempstead, 133 A.D.2d 751, 752… a bonified controversy that needs

settling the complaint … when considered as true, demonstrate the existence of a bona tide

justiciable controversy which should be settled

Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992): “Usual Residence”

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Article I Section 2 – Electors qualification numerous branch of state legislature

Article I Section 8 clause 4 – Rule of Naturalization

Article I Section 4 – State control over suffrage respecting time place and manner

Article I Section 9– …………………………………………………

Article I Section 10 – Powers denied states and or coordinated with Congress…….

Article II Section 1 – State legislature plenary power of election of chief magistrate

ix

Article III Section 2: Judicial oath of duties to State and Federal Law………

Article IV Section 2-1: Citizens of each State enjoy equal privileges and immunities….

Article IV Section 4: Guarantee of Republican form of government……………………..

First Amendment: People right to assemble / petition government to redress grievance ……

Fifth Amendment: no deprivation w/o due process of law………………………………

9th Amendment: certain rights shall not deny/disparage rights retained by People….

10th Amendment: Powers not granted Federal nor prohibited reserved by People....

Fourteenth Amendment: Citizen due process and equal protection……..……………

NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION The amended New York State Constitution Article II Suffrage Section 1 thru 9 …………………………………………..

Article IX – Local Government --People defined………………….……………. NEW YORK STATUTES • NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2

• N.Y. Elec. Law § 3-100 (State BOE responsibility and duty) ……………

• N.Y. Elec. Law §3-104(1) (granting the State Board responsibility

for "statutes governing campaigns, elections and related procedures"…

• N.Y. Elec. Law § 4-138 (Real property Tax levy for election cost) ……… .

• NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Art 1 thru 9……………………………….

• NYS CPLR §312-a

FEDERAL STATUTES • 28 U.S.C. § 1291....................................................…………………..………….

• 28 USC §2284

• 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) 42 USC §1973…………………. ………………

• Civil Rights Act pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985, §1988

• National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg...........

• Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 42 USC §15301

• 13 USC §141, 13 USC §195, and Pub. L. 105–119, title II, § 209 b thru e,

Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2480……………………………………………………..

x

FEDERAL RULES Fed. R. App. Rule 34.........................................................................................…

F.R.C.P. 4

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c), as well as F.R.C.P. 8(a)……………………………

RELATED CASES: USA v. NYS Board of Elections et al.. in NDNY 06-v-263 Barnett v. Dunn et al in CAED 10−cv−02216−FCD−DAD RELATED APPEAL CASES:

2nd Circuit, 07-04211-cv




- 1 -

STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction because the final related decision and orders

from the United States District Court (U.S.D.C.) for the Northern

District of New York (NDNY) on February 19, 2010 by Lawrence E.

Kahn, District Court Judge in Case No. 06 Civ. 1002 (see A-6) and

U.S.D.C. for the Western District of New York (WDNY) August 14, 2006

Order of Richard J. Arcara, District Court Judge in Case No. 06 Civ.

0080A(s) (see A-5) are appealable per 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT & CERTIFICATE OF

INTERESTED PERSONS

This statement is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 26.1. Appellant John-Joseph: Forjone in esse and Appellant

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse are natural persons, not a corporation

and with each being self-represented without either being an attorney.

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellants request oral argument because such argument would

significantly assist this Court in its decision-making process as provided

- 2 -

by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 34 of

the Rules of this Court.

INTRODUCTION

The Clerk of the Second Circuit Court has ordered that the

Appellants Brief and Appendix be filed by November 29, 2010 (see A-1)

pursuant to the Letter clarification by Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue

of the Northern District of New York (see A-3) that the Notice of Appeal

of John-Joseph: Forjone in esse (see A-5) and Amended Notice of Appeal

of Appellant Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (see A–4) be accepted and

duly acted upon by the Clerk of the 2nd Circuit Court.

That the Original Complaint (see A-35) was filed in Buffalo

WDNY on February 6, 2006 as 06-cv-0080A as the Docket records

indicate (see A-10) with the Summonses issued as to Defendants

February 14, 2006 (see A-46) and with service by motion by defendants

a stay was granted on March 29, 2006 by Judge Arcara (see A-65) who

ordered the filing of an Amended Complaint by May 1, 2006, and that

Plaintiffs’ by letter motion to the Court with the Amended Complaint

(see A-68) and application for an Order to Show Cause relief (see A-64)

along with RICO Statement (see A-83) that upon filing thereafter by

- 3 -

Text order of the Court on May 4, 2006 shown at Docket entry item #27

(see A-14) for defendants to answer by June 1, 2006. To which the

Defendant filed various motions and Plaintiffs responded (see A-122) to

the Motions at Docket entry item # 38 (see A-14), and that on May 31,

2006, Strunk requested a special master by letter motion (see A-117);

and on June 9, 2006, Strunk requested a Stay of the response to motion

of several State defendants for Consolidated Response to Motions of

Municipal Defendants to which on June 12, 2006 the Court ordered the

Defendants to respond to the Motion for Special master and

consolidation shown by TEXT order at Docket entry item #75 (see A-15).

Defendants’ filed various separate motions to dismiss and or sanction

and or to transfer venue to the NDNY; and that to wit on August 14,

2006 Judge Arcara ordered a change of venue (see A-6) shown at Docket

entry item #100 to Albany NDNY where Judge Lawrence E. Kahn was

assigned the case no 06-cv-1002 as if related to case Loeber et al. v.

Spargo et al. 04-cv-1193 (herein challenged on appeal) when in fact the

case is related to NDNY 06-cv-263 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.

That where after, NDNY 06-cv-1002 withered as a result of Judge

Kahn’s outrageous complicity with Judge Gary L. Sharpe to favor the

- 4 -

case USA v. NYS Board of Elections NDNY 06-v-263 wit the complaint

filed March 1, 2006 (see A-135), that involves the alleged non-

compliance by the New York state Board of Elections with the deadline

set by the Help America to Vote Act (HAVA), Pub. L. No. 107-252, Title

III, §302, 116 Stat. 1706 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §15301) with the

proceeding Docket record herewith appended starting at A-17.

That with the WDNY 06-cv-0080A venue transfer to a new case

NDNY 06-cv-1002 after August 14, 2006 accomplished (herein

challenged on appeal) then by outrageous subterfuge of both Judge

Kahn and Judge Sharpe involving NDNY 06-cv-263 with a preliminary

injunction ordered on March 23, 2006 (see A-16) without the proper

Municipal parties joined when filed on March 1, 2006, then prevented

substantive due notice in matters of intervention and to be afforded

Plaintiffs in that case until when on December 17, 2009 even

Defendants’ counsel complained to Judge Kahn for inactivity still

denied even a preliminary conference (see A-140) until February 19,

2010 when Judge Kahn decided there had been adequate delay to

dismiss 06-cv-1002 alleging for lack of service of Defendants (see A-16)

which Appellants challenge herein.

- 5 -

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

That Plaintiffs / Appellants are and or were real property owners

in various New York State subdivisions where the residents within

have local municipal governments that under the New York state (NYS)

Constitution Article 9 with related articles and law inter alia have

Home-rule authority over elections paid for locally with funds raised

with the real property tax levy upon Plaintiffs property along with those

similarly situated by authority of NYS Election Law (EL) §4-138. That

the 932 home-rule towns with villages within, and 61 cities within the

respective 57 County Sub-divisions plus the city of New York (NYC)

home-rule territory. That NYC contains five boroughs without Home-

rule and each have two commissioners in a local Board of Elections

controlled by NYC in Manhattan- for ten total commissioners.

That the complaint addresses both the national (interstate) and

local (intrastate) denial of equal protection and substantive due process

matter injuring Plaintiffs along with those similarly situated caused by

the EAC/DOJ’s crude implementation of The Help America to Vote Act

(“HAVA”), Pub. L. No. 107-252, Title III, § 302, 116 Stat. 1706 (codified

at 42 U.S.C. § 15301).

- 6 -

In that HAVA as a Federal pre-emption matter over any state

with a Voter Registration Database that inter alia improves use of the

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §

1973gg) for any state or territory (state) that maintains the integrity of

the interstate and intrastate voter registration database. Proper

enforcement of HAVA / NVRA is to prevent actual vote fraud and

protect the compelling state interest of those states (like Defendant

Oregon) without a database to maintain a valid domiciliary verification

of state citizenship for issuance of a drivers license and or separate

identification therein and prevent interstate database duplication.

That HAVA provides for the reimbursement for new voting

machine equipment and access for the disable for voting1 as well as for

costs by those states that maintain a voter registration database to be

verified with the enumeration equal to that of the respective State’s

Department of Motor Vehicles licensing process; and in HAVA Congress

uses the term Voting Age Population of 18 years of age or older (VAP)

for determining the magnitude of reimbursement to the respective

1 The Handicapped voter has always had the capability of voting with an absentee ballots where they may complete in the privacy of their own home – that raises the question of this portion of the HAVA need.

- 7 -

state. That the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) assisted by the

Department of Justice (DOJ) were to review the accuracy of each state

application for reimbursement, and that Plaintiffs contend was/is

arbitrary and resulted in the capricious approval of reimbursement

payment for State applications no matter whether the VAP was an

actual enumerated amount of the actual Citizens of Voting Age

Population of 18 years of age or older minus those who are civilly dead

(CVAP) juxtaposed to those VAP merely estimated based upon the 2000

/ 2005 Census enumeration that provides a major difference in

reimbursement amount from state to state. Is Major because the

Defendant States complained of are border states with Mexico that do

not control the movement of tourists at will or illegal aliens there, and

because no census has enumerated with any questionnaire to determine

the difference between the legally domiciled Citizen and or resident

alien from an illegal alien. Those tourists at will in any respective state

are not under the full and complete jurisdiction there unless arrested,

and as a result, the HAVA reimbursement varies widely from those

states similarly situated from New York per se.

- 8 -

That New York only applied for HAVA reimbursement based upon

the actual CVAP who are actually part of New York’s Voter

Registration Database, and receives less reimbursement from the EAC

thereby Defendants place a greater burden upon the residents and

Plaintiffs domiciled within a respective NYS local Homerule subdivision

where the real property tax levy imposed with §EL 4-138 is greater as a

result of the unequal interstate HAVA reimbursement.

That within New York as an intrastate matter the HAVA

reimbursement is also disproportionately distributed due to the failure

of some local subdivisions without proper NYS Board of Election

oversight responsibility to maintain the integrity of the respective local

voter registration databases within each subdivision. Plaintiffs along

with those similarly situated are taxed more than other Plaintiffs along

with those similarly situated taxed less because of Defendants acts.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Those Plaintiffs along with those similarly situated are registered

to vote in the respective state subdivision.

- 9 -

2. That only Citizens of voting age who are not civilly dead are

permitted to register to vote and actual vote at elections with federal

candidates.

3. That the only basis to accurately enumerate CVAP or VAP is by

NVRA or “Motor voter”. That enumeration must be done in each

respective State and or subdivision at the Board of Elections and by the

Department of Motor Vehicles identification process that is the basis for

developing an accurate state voter registration database when

combined with other safeguards.

4. That some states use the respective Department of Motor Vehicles

to identify and enumerate tourists at will as a compelling state interest

with other safeguards by Motor Voter and HAVA to prevent fraud.

5. That some states do not pay for elections costs with use of a real

property tax levy done locally by each home-rule entity as done in New

York.

6. That HAVA mandates that of the 110 employee members 55 are the

respective secretary of state of every state is a Federal employee too.

7. That HAVA is not rigorously enforced by the EAC’s Federal / State

employees DOJ to maintain the integrity of the interstate voter

- 10 -

registration database as such aides and abets massive vote fraud along

with illegal sanctuary policies in states in violation of the Immigration

Nationality Act (INA).

8. That Defendant States, respective Secretaries and Municipalities

were properly named because of the massive influence of the illegal

human traffic across the Mexican border in each, more-so on than any

other group of states of the several states as a function of distance and

enforcement; and although NYC is further away because of the

sanctuary policy no less than 1.5 million tourists at will place a burden

upon Plaintiffs along with those similarly situated in and outside NYC.

9. That NYC outrageously maintains an illegal sanctuary of tourists

in order to circumvent the State Constitution mandated per capita debt

ceiling; and whereas, with the 1.5 million plus tourists at will left

unremunerated disproportionately increases the debt burden upon

those local subdivisions outside of NYC. That NYC not only controls the

vote in the state legislature but also sucks the political oxygen out of

the rest of the state to impose unfair portions of shared mandates on

real property owners of the other state Home-rule subdivisions, on top

- 11 -

of the disproportionate HAVA funds reimbursement as an intrastate

injury to plaintiffs with those similarly situated.

10. That Defendant States use sample and statistical methods to

determine the VAP for HAVA reimbursement, whereas NYS BOE only

uses the actual enumerated CVAP who have actually registered

notwithstanding the impact of duplications, the dead, the imposters and

identity theft and interstate duplication that exists due to failure of

local oversight by the Defendant BOE and with local Election Boards

complicity to increase HAVA reimbursement.

11. That this case like NDNY 06-cv-263 is about HAVA not

redistricting as with Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. NDNY 04-cv-1193.

12. That NDNY 06-cv-263 does not include a defendant from outside

NDNY despite the fact that all election matters are conducted locally

not by NYS BOE and that is now reflect years later in the Docket.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Issue 1: WDNY 06-cv-0080A was first filed before NDNY 06-cv-263

That the 06-cv-0080A complaint was filed February 6, 2006 in

WDNY and duly served before March 1, 2006 when the 06-cv-263

- 12 -

complaint (see A-135) was filed in NDNY after threatening letter was

sent on January 10, 2006 to the NYS BOE by Defendant DOJ for HAVA

(see A-133). Moreover, that with identity of proper parties under the

first filed principle 06-cv-0080A properly encompasses every issue and

party that should have been included in the 06-cv-263.

That the USA / EAC with the NYS BOE and subdivisions are

properly a party in the 06-cv-0080A complaint, and as such, NDNY 06-

cv-263 is a flawed case as revealed by hearing transcripts and the still

ongoing District and Appeal matters until this day shown in the Docket.

EAC / DOJ and NYS BOE in effect cross-complained there in

WDNY in NDNY. NYS BOE after January 10, 2006 also failed to give

notice to the New York State sub-divisions that conduct elections and

have responsibility for both the voter registration database and actual

voting. That EAC / DOJ outrageous unequal HAVA reimbursement is

5th Amendment taking done differently statewide and nationwide; and

to NYS subdivisions that conduct elections by NYS EL §4-138 tax levy.

Issue 2: Judge Arcara erred by not providing for 28 USC §2284 Panel Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judge pursuant to creation of a

three judge panel with 42 USC §1973C in compliance with 28 USC

- 13 -

§2284 to hear the Voting Rights Act (VRA) 42 USC 1973-C matter as to

both a statewide and nationwide equal protection injury because each

State secretary and or agent arbitrary change of rules and procedures

in preparation of the HAVA reimbursement application using sampling

/ statistical methods for determining VAP that varies from enumeration

practice and intent required under both the NVRA and HAVA with use

of voter registration and identification of CVAP that requires a directed

verdict with FRCP Rule 65 provisional and final relief with 28 USC

§2201 and §2202 for issues raised as applies to use of 42 USC §1973 –I

(c), §1973– I (d), §1973-J, §1973-N, §1973GG-10 and §15544 as relates

to 42 USC §1983, §1985(3) and §1986 accordingly; and that on an

intrastate basis effects covered counties within New York thereby

requiring a pre-clearance review of how reimbursement is done. That

EAC express duty by NVRA and compelling state interest to use CVAP.

Issue 3: Judge Arcara erred by transferring venue to NDNY 04-cv-1193 That there are neither an identity of issues nor parties between

the two cases, and only to the extent that the proper use of the Article 3

and article 9 provision of the NYS Constitution would rework the state

subdivisions as to both NYC and effective constitutional home-rule in

- 14 -

general it was not done and was not an issue to be litigated in the 06-cv-

0080A complaint; and furthermore 06-cv-0080A complaint absolutely

had no impact whatsoever nor was ever considered directly related by

Judge Kahn who dismissed the Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. case as

insubstantial that was upheld on Appeal by Second Circuit and is

unlike the relationship between 06-cv-0080A and NDNY 06-cv-263.

Issue 4: Judge Kahn erred by dismissing complaint for lack of service. The 06-cv-0080A Summonses and complaint was duly served by

certified return receipt upon all Interstate parties as the respective

Secretary of State are Federal employees of the EAC for due service

between February 18th through the 21st (see A-59), and whose respective

Attorney General (except for California) made an appearance as shown

for; Arizona on A-53, Oregon on A-57, Nevada A-57, Texas on A-62, New

Mexico on A-61, and that delivery was duly made by the USPS upon

both California parties.

That the intrastate defendants within New York by alternative

mail service defined by the NYS CPLR 312-a as per the notice to the

Court by Plaintiff Strunk on February 17, 2006 (see A-45) shown as

docket item #2 (see A-13), then responded to by voluntary waiver of

- 15 -

service by the various New York State sub-divisions thereafter by the

return of the signed waiver form(s) see A-52 through A-62.

Further, Judge Kahn never considered 06-cv-0080A (06-cv-1002)

to be directly related to the Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. case 04-cv-1193

as Judge Kahn dismissed that case for not being substantial (that

certainly may not be said of 06-cv-0080A), and that his order was

upheld on Appeal by Circuit. That 04-CV-1193 is absolutely unlike the

relationship between 06-cv-0080A and 06-cv-263.

Issue 5: Kahn, Sharpe, Arcara denied Plaintiffs 1st, 5th, 9th, 10th amendment rights with related law All District Judges were very aware of the DOJ intent to file a

complaint against the NYS BOE when DOJ wrote a letter (see A-138)

warning to the Defendant NYS BOE on January 10, 2006 for failure to

comply with the HAVA deadline. All Judges refused to correct the

defects in 06-cv-263 in order to protect plaintiffs’ rights that continue to

be damages that toll until this day.

That as a result of the shenanigans between Judges Kahn and

Sharpe to deny intervention into 06-cv-263 and to suppress plaintiffs’

rights under 06-cv-1002 there were cross complaints were filed in 06-cv-

- 16 -

263 that include some of the same Defendant state subdivision having

appeared in 06-cv-0080 and carried over to 06-cv-1002 who then

intervened in 06-cv-263 because the DOJ had failed to name those

parties or even make an effort to provide due notice as shown by

inadequacy of the hubristic lame decisions and orders issued by Judge

Sharpe and now on appeal as shown in the Docket from A-17 thru A-33.

ARGUMENT

• HAVA Section 402(a) and NVRA 1973gg (9) provide a complaint

procedure to be followed by the EAC and U.S. District Court for

Plaintiff standing

• Pub. L. 105–119, title II, § 209 b thru e, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2480

grants Plaintiff standing to challenge any estimated VAP and that

mandates only an enumerated CVAP by the actual voter registration

database with HAVA may be used by Defendants et al.

• That a Judge may not preempt a voluntary express waiver of service

• Each Secretary of State of 55 States and Territories are EAC

employees with HAVA §213, state and federal fiduciary duties.

- 17 -

• Secretary of States as Federal Employees of EAC and State

employees without strict use of VAP with CVAP definition breach

fiduciary duty

• New York State uses only those VAP in the Voter Registration

Database for HAVA reimbursement may not be estimated to obtain

EAC funds.

• The 42 USC 1973gg (NVRA) Federal preemption over every voter

registration database mandates that the compelling state interest to

determine the domicile of a VAP in the respective state to issue a

driver’s license be used for the voter registration database too.

• EAC payment to states and territories with estimated VAP w/o

CVAP enumeration violates the express mandate of HAVA to

maintain the integrity of the State(s) Voter Registration Database(s),

otherwise is equity denial by 14th Amendment State action under

color of state law.

- 18 -

• That standing is provided for by Congress under census related law

in that census tracks were utilized by the various state in

interpreting the sample of statistically estimated VAP for making

the HAVA reimbursement application that Plaintiffs challenge and

demand an enumerated VAP for the reimbursement application with

HAVA - not a sample or statistical count is not an enumeration.

Therefore, statistical samples are an abuse of discretion that

intentionally creates a false claim by the arbitrary use of VAP

instead of CVAP that are in fact not enumerated as required by

HAVA and related law; and as a result since the various states were

using the census tracks for the statistical calculation rather than

actual enumeration means the controlling legal authority provided

by Congress is 13 USC §141, 13 USC §195 and Pub. L. 105–119, title

II, § 209 b thru e, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2480 quote:

(b) Any person aggrieved by the use of any statistical method in violation of the Constitution or any provision of law (other than this Act), in connection with the 2000 or any later decennial census, to determine the population for purposes of the apportionment or redistricting of Members in Congress, may in a civil action obtain declaratory, injunctive, and any other appropriate relief against the use of such method.

(c) For purposes of this section-- (1) the use of any statistical method as part of a dress rehearsal or other simulation of a census in preparation for the use of such

- 19 -

method, in a decennial census, to determine the population for purposes of the apportionment or redistricting of Members in Congress shall be considered the use of such method in connection with that census; and (2) the report ordered by title VIII of Public Law 105-18 and the Census 2000 Operational Plan shall be deemed to constitute final agency action regarding the use of statistical methods in the 2000 decennial census, thus making the question of their use in such census sufficiently concrete and final to now be reviewable in a judicial proceeding.

(d) For purposes of this section, an aggrieved person (described in subsection (b)) includes-- (1) any resident of a State whose congressional representation or district could be changed as a result of the use of a statistical method challenged in the civil action; (2) any Representative or Senator in Congress; and (3) either House of Congress.

(e)(1) Any action brought under this section shall be heard and determined by a district court of three judges in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. The chief judge of the United States court of appeals for each circuit shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with the avoidance of unnecessary delay, consolidate, for all purposes, in one district court within that circuit, all actions pending in that circuit under this section. Any party to an action under this section shall be precluded from seeking any consolidation of that action other than is provided in this paragraph. In selecting the district court in which to consolidate such actions, the chief judge shall consider the convenience of the parties and witnesses and efficient conduct of such actions. Any final order or injunction of a United States district court that is issued pursuant to an action brought under this section shall be reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 days after such order is entered; and the jurisdictional statement shall be filed within 30 days after such order is entered. No stay of an order issued pursuant to an action brought under this section may be issued by a single Justice of the Supreme Court.

- 20 -

(2) It shall be the duty of a United States district court hearing an action brought under this section and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any such matter.

CONCLUSION

That were Judge Arcara aware of the related case NDNY 06-cv-

263 filed March 1, 2006 as Appellants contend then the Judge did not

mention it in either his order March 29, 2006 issued six days after the

preliminary injunction issued by Judge Sharpe on March 23, 2006, or

the August 14, 2006 order to transfer venue, therefore both are flawed

and must be taken into consideration by this court for remand there.

That Judge Kahn and Sharpe have played fast and furious with

the rules and responsibility of their honorable office must be sanctioned.

That Appellants request a remand to WDNY before Judge Arcara

or to NDNY as Judge Sharpe who is very aware of the reimbursement

issues raised in both cases- it does not belong before Judge Kahn; and

as an alternative that this honorable court should hear the matter as

new in that there are ongoing appeals before this court that the issues

herein impact. That Plaintiffs / Appellants are entitled to other and

different relief, as the Court deems necessary for justice to be done.

I , John Joseph Forjone in esse, make this appellant brief under

penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC $1746. The same is true to my . own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on

information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true.

The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon,infomation

and belief are as follows: 31+' parties, books and records, and personal

knowledge.

' Dated: November 29th, 2010 Lake Luzerne, New York /S/

John-Joseph: Forjone in esse self-represented w/o being an attorney 141 Harris Avenue Lake Luzerne, .New York 12846 .

Phone: (585) 721-7673

I , Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, make this appella& brief under

penalty of perjlxy pursuant to 28 USC $1746. The same is true to my

own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on

information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true.

The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information

and belief are as follows: 3d parties, books and records, and personal

knowledge.

Dated: November 29th, 2010 Brooklyn, New York

Christopher-Earl: Stmnk in esse self-represented w/o being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845)'901-6767 email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO FED. R APP. P.

32(A) (7) (C) FOR CASE NUMBER NO. 10-822

I certify that: Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32 (a)(7)(C), the foregoing

Appellant brief is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or

more and contains 4,382 words within the 14,000 words allowable.

The Appellant Filing of November 29,2010 are respectfully submitted

and certified to be true under penalty of pe jury,

Dated: Novembe 12-32010 Brooklyn, New York

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767

John Forjone 141 Harris Avenue

Lake Luzerne, New York, 12846 Telephone (585) 721-7673

e-mail [email protected]

December 1, 2010 By Mail Hon. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: Forjone v. State of California, No. 10-822 Dear Ms. Wolfe, I Have included an original signature for insertion in to the above named case. Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully submitted, --/s/-- John-Joseph: Forjone in esse self-represented w/o being an attorney

I , John Joseph Forjone in esse, make this appellant brief under

penalty of pe jury pursuant to 28 USC $1746. The same is true to my


information and belief, and as to those matters I beIieve it h be true.


and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal

knowledge. A

Dated: ~ovember&2010 Lake Luzerne, New York

141 Harris Avenue Lake Luzerne, New York 12846 Phone: (585) 721-7673

I , Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, make this appellant brief under

penalty of pe jury pursuant to 28 USC $1746. The same is true to my


information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be tmte.


and belief are as follows: 3 r d parties, books and records, and personal

knowledge.

Dated: November , 2010 Brooklyn, New York

Christopher-Eark Stmnk in esse self-represeated w/o being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: [email protected]

United States Court Of Appeals for The Second Circuit

John Joseph Fo jone, Dan Del Plato Jr. Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person Jr. and Christopher Earl Strunk

Plaintiffs,

John-Joseph FoSjone, Christopher Earl Strunk, Appellants,

v.

The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the Attorney ~ ~ n e r a l ALBERT0 GONZALEZ; The States of: CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively; THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR 91012; THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS by its counsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities; The New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of: ERIE, et al. ; and the duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn MARTY MARKOWITZ,

Defendants - Appellees

On Appeal taken from the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of New York February 19,2010 Order of Lawrence E. Kahn, District Court Judge in Case No. 06 Civ. 1002 and U.S.D.C. for the Western District of New York August 14,2006 Order of Richard J. Arcara, District Court Judge in Case No. 06 Civ. 0080A

APPELLANTS' APPENDIX

JohnJoseph: Fodone in esse Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse self-represented w/o being an attorney self-represented w/o being an attorney 141 Harris Avenue 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281 Lake Luzerne, New York 12846 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (585) 721-7673 (845) 901-6767 email: [email protected]

Date Item # Description Page

ii

Appendix Index

Date Item # Description Page Circuit Docket and Appearance List A-1 Letter From Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue A-3 Amended Notice of Appeal A-4 Notice of Appeal A-5

1/10/06 DOJ Letter to NYS BOE re HAVA Compliance A-133 3/01/06 Complaint USA v NYS BOE NDNY 06-cv-263 A-135 8/14/06 Order to transfer Venue A-6 2/19/10 Decision and Order to Dismiss A-7

WDNY Docket for 06-cv-0080A A-9 3/23/06 Order for Preliminary Injunction by Judge

Sharpe in USA v. NYS BOE NDNY 06-cv-263 A-16 NDNY Docket for 06-cv-263 A-17

2/6/2006 1 COMPLAINT against The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, The United States Election Assistance Commission by Thomas R. Wilkey, the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, The Secretary of the State of New York, The New York State Board of Elections by its counsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities, The New York State municipalities by each corporation counsel of: Erie, Monroe, Onondaga, Albany, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, Westchester, The City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Niagara, Orleans, Gene, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 19792)

A-35

2/10/06

Forjone Letter to Court requesting release of Summonses including two charts of EAC / HAVA disbursement of funds A-43

2/17/06

Strunk Letter of Judicial Notice to Court of CPLR 312-a Personal Service by Mail Upon Municipalities of Summons and Complaint A-45

3/31/06

Envelope copy of the Texas AG improper Notification to non-Plaintiff

A-62


iii

2/14/2006 Summons Issued as to The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, The United States Election Assistance Commission by Thomas R. Wilkey, the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, The Secretary of the State of New York, The New York State Board of Elections by its counsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities, The New York State municipalities by each corporation counsel of: Erie, Monroe, Onondaga, Albany, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, Westchester, The City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Niagara, Orleans, Gene, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (DLC) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

A-43 2/21/2006 2 LETTER to serve the summons and complaint

by fax by Christopher Earl Strunk. Title of document changed from a Motion to a Letter pursuant to Pro Se Dept (S). Modified on 2/28/2006 (DLC). (Entered: 02/23/2006) A-45

2/27/2006 3 Letter from Christopher Earl Strunk, dated 2/17/06, to Chief Judge reference serving of summons and complaints. (DLC) (Entered: 02/28/2006) A-45

3/24/06

Defendant Appearances by written response with waiver of services from Municipalities A-52

4/04/06

Katherine B. Van Allen Certificate of Service by Certified Mail with return receipt A-59

3/03/06

New Mexico FRCP Rule 11 Sanction Notification Warning to Plaintiffs to withdraw complaint as to New Mexico A-61

3/13/2006 4 MOTION to Dismiss or change venue or order more definite statement by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012.(Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

3/13/2006 8 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint,,,, Emergency Stay Motion by County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren.(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)


iv

3/29/2006 24 ORDER, that plaintiffs' must file an amended complaint. Join Parties/Amend Pleadings due by 5/1/2006. Further, that plaintiffs must show cause, in writing why this action should not be dismissed or transferred to the Northern District of NY, and why sanctions should not be imposed against them. Show Cause Response due by 5/1/2006. FURTHER, that any and all further proceedings in this action, including, but not limited to, the pending motions filed by certain defendants, any further responses to the complaint by defendants, and service of the summons and complaint on any defendants who have not been served to date, are STAYED pending further order or directions from the Court.Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 3/28/06. (DLC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

A-65

5/01/06 Forjone / Strunk Cover Letter to Court for

Order to Show Cause w/ Amended Complaint , RICO Statement, supporting declarations w/ Exhibits Notice to serve by E-MAIL A-64

Forjone / Strunk Notice of service of OSC w E-MAIL and w/ Cover letter FAX notification

A-63 5/01/06 Amended Complaint A-67 5/01/06 RICO Statement pursuant to L. Rule 5.1(h) A-83

5/2/2006 26 RESPONSE to 24 Order to Show Cause filed by John Joseph Forjone : The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People's equity in Bottom, Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5(DLC) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

A-101 and A-104

5/4/2006 27 TEXT ORDER - defendants shall file a reply to plaintiff's response to the order to show cause on or before June 1, 2006 . Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 5/4/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 05/04/2006)

5/8/2006 28 MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012.(Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2006)


v

5/17/2006 38 RESPONSE DECLARATION to 28 MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint filed by John Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: #1 (Exhibits 1-7) #2 (Exhibits 8-10) #3 (Exhibits 11-12) #4 (Exhibits 13-15).(DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006) A-122

6/1/2006 66 MOTION to Dismiss by the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.(Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

5/31/2006 73 Strunk Letter Motion to the Court using FRCVP Rule 9 Pleading Special Matters, Rules 13 Counterclaim and Rule 11 Sanction Cross-Claim related to Rule 14(b) Third Party Practice stay pending special master determination; and for consolidation of plaintiffs’ response to subdivisions and separately to various states. A-117

7/18/2006 97 MOTION for Leave to make a consolidated reply of expanded length with exhibits by Christopher Earl Strunk.(DLC) (Entered: 07/18/2006) A-121

7/18/2006 98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Christopher Earl Strunk re 97 MOTION for Leave to make a consolidated reply of expanded length with exhibits. (DLC) (Entered: 07/18/2006) A-120

7/14/2006

Strunk Consolidated Reply to Defendants Response to the Remark Request for a special master, stay and consolidated response to Defendants’ MTD the Amended Complaint A-122

8/14/2006 100 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Change Venue. Clerk of Court to transfer case to Northern District of New York . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 8/14/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 08/14/2006) A-6

09/12/06

The Honorable Robert K. Dornan Letter to The Honorable Julie Finley US Ambassador to the OSCE re HAVA and NVRA Voter Database A-138

12/17/09

Jeremy Colby, Esq. Letter to Judge Kahn requesting a conference in NDNY 06-cv-1002 denied by J. Kahn without prejudice on 12/30/09. A-140

~ ~ ~ ~ ? W r a p r * " . R a * d O l b k

u- -**rrrm-

WWWO u W r s r - o r - . . l w d - d - ~ L H U R.-Err--0-

4 0 7 W ~ ~ 4 - F ~ P n n n 1

*

-Bmy 1CIPh6r**,h.rd-

-* I-- Iw tH 1- 1- I

1- DM-

Case 1 :06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 139 Filed 0711 5/10 Page 1 of 3

July 14,2010

Christopher-Earl S d 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -28 1 Brooklyn, NY 1 1238

RE: 1:06cv-1002&1:04-cv-1193

Dear Mr. Stnmk,

I have reviewed your letters dated June 17,2010 and June 29,2010, Dkt Nos. 137 and 138 filed in 1 :06-cw1002, and Dkt. Nos. 128 ad 129 filed in 1 :Wv-1193, wherein you are having issues with the filing of the appeals in the above-captioned cases.

The document you have attached as an "Amended Notice of Appeal" was properly filed as a "Notice of Appealn on March 8,2010, in the 1 :06-cv-1002 on behalf of John-Joseph Forjone @kt. No. 135) as the filed document is signed only by plaintiff John-Joseph Forjone on March 4, 20 10. I am enclosing a certified copy of docket no. 135 for your reference.

The document you have now attached is an altered copy of the original filed document @kt. No. 135) and has been changed to an "Amended Notice of Appealn and signed by you on March 15,2010, but has not been received by the Court as there is not a new Filed stamp mark on the document after March 15,2010; therefore, the appeals that were received by the Albany Clerk's Oftice, have been properly docketed.

I am directing the Clerk to file the Amended Notice of Appeal on your behalf as of June 22,2010, which is the receipt of the document by the Clerk's Office.

/ Chief U.S. ~istript Judge & ‘"..

- - Case 1 :ma1 002-LEK-RFT Document 139 ~ i r ~ / % / l ~"~~gfe+of!3- - -

593 V t d & l t A w m #281 BmokJya Ncrr Yak 1 1238 Phwa: (845) 901-6767 --

Case 1 :06-~41002-LEK-RRI' Document 1 35

U.S. DISlRCT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT N.D. OF N.Y.

Em the FILED NORTHERN DIS*CT OF NEW YORK MAR 0 8 2010

Jo~-J~EPH IwuuNE, et d, 1 .AWRENCE K B ~ E ~ B usrn 1 ALBANY

Plaintif@) 1

v. ) 1 ) Case NO. l:M-CV-1002

STATE OF CAWFORNIA, et d, 1

NotiaeishasbygivunthatJobJosq% F ~ m t b s a b o v e n a m e d a s a h Q s b y ~ . totbe~Sta~es~ofAppealsforthe~Cirouitfioartbcfiaslj~orderand

DiamissalinallintatlocubDlymd~d~fiom~amlevery~ttrcre~f enberrclintfiis action on Febnrary 19,2010 by USDJ Khan. 1 hae by Appeal all ~ 1 o c u t a r y and firral O&ZS

fiam eacb evay part thsrsof in the Find Order Ficd Febmay 19,201 0.

141 ~A~ Lake tuzane, Ntw York 12846 e-mail j o ~ ~ . c a r m 585-721-7673

h i - omnatim FWWIW - 5 d S

IT I8 SO ORDERED. - HONORABLE RICHARD J ARCARA CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATED: Au0ll.C 14 . ZOO0

5

C

,

C s s e l S B c v b l w b m m m 1 3 3 FBedLWlWlO P a p l d l 0

UHIW!nAWLlmRKTcOURT NOR7HBRN MSnUCr OF NEW YORK

J ' m W a = m ~ d d .

P k h a

v I ~ - l o m ~

S T A l ' E o P ~ a J - UWllMCBItMnr I J N n E D ! n A r e s m N M j E -

~ E k d a ~ @ a N a 1)blboWeranDiaiaoClYIlYatnmrIiq

v a k r ~ ~ d . l o b ~ ~ ~ o f I b N . b . l l V ~ ~ k & 4 2

U.SC Il973c&anq,dIkik@An*rbVmAcL41USCf ISMldseq p V A 3

A m a p * ~ ~ * p m ~ l t R . ~ . o m . o f * ~ ~ m d s d

b v o b s r ~ ~ C V A P ) C ~ m s l . l e r d & u m d ~ X ~ ( h a ~

l k c i l b a * . b ~ m m d ~ l o d ~ h h ~ d

dard.i3ldbiWhykk&&cbsAAVA P h h & f % h ~ b ~ a ~ o f I k

~ ~ ~ ~ - A U @ I C O A I ~ U . $ . C ~ I % I ~ = ~ & F &

~ ~ h a a ~ a 3 1 u a c # r n . a ~ A t a ~ ~ N a 2 6 ) r l l

pdgpad-tmmu~c)zm.

I - h ~ l p a m m i n l . l a a b c s s ~ L r m I ) . w ~ Y a k . o b d t Y l k -

'ti i

Case I W i W Z - L B 4 M IhummI I33 Fbd Wl9lO Page lOd 10

1 e a d T a m , a r C 4 ~ k + l 4 n - - , r l P l n r M&

n e S r . ~ d N n r b b s i m l l w m ~ h . ~ b m a * ~

tLm A . r i r h t b e * & n I I t h ~ N w Y a k S o a ~ . d ~ b m m d m a

Plid%&abn J r ~ d ~ t b - d - & H A V A . - & . d

* l J r o l d m b J t b c ~ ~ d h m b ~ N . m d ~ ~ ~ i n l J o f

1 b- ~.idd,Ub-.bd.h,d.11p&tba-d-Sbbr Tbt

r ~ s n ~ ~ + b & ~ ~ l & S l b 0 f ~ C d d a n o . ~ o d M m m

~ p w v l b ~ p m m i k ~ 0 f ~ ~ r m & t L e ~ ~

n. comuaaorc

k h ~ - i l h b a e b p

O 1 D L P m 6 m d l p r r b a l m 6 a O ~ ~ ~ n l l & ~ ~

1 ~ A a a b d C o a * b i l r . ~ U ~ L W R I G F Y .

o*aaD~&Ckkacm~of4dsOaoLbdOnkmPhidUL

rrmmoumm.

DA7W PI*q 19.2010 lrag.*Yak

AS-\ -10-

- .... . .

l ~ T k 4 2 U 9 C 1 # W 1 1 k . n / W r Q k . ~ Y I ~ k ~ ~ d W V A I . l d . ~ ~ 2 a ~ p ( U p * 1 ~ I * r Y O n ~ R o p b b . q ~ h ~ w R r . ( . I v . T h . S U ~ o t ~ O n g m . N r v s d . . A R n u d J . A r c a n . ~ D I m r m W R M B D I ~ U W 4 m m ac.ocI..(~cSHumos

--m a B o L P 1 * l c r ~

U . S . a a l r s ~ W a & n D U m W d P I c r Y . r L ~ ) QVlL DOCKET FOR CASE k I:S~T~MO&RIA

l b 4 2 U B C 1 9 1 ) I ~ l F a k C l i r M ~ D . s M m ~ 8 b a e r i d c ~ m o T H A V A W ~ ~TcnnLrrrd:WI~ . 2 8 U S C P M p . r l ~ N R Y a L ~ Iq-afradd ~ n l m i t y i n ~ m % d s I v . T b e % o l ? N m z m d S e i e 4 4 0 C i v i l ~ O l b r Q t i f i . n i ~ ~ A hiddim US. Gcwmmml hipdm:ma.~*bsdr- aleodrnt

42:1983 Civil Righ Act

m J I L . . I I L Y l : X b Q l g : -kkLlhLlr*rt1L4LW I s l l r s l ~ r n r n U Q l l l n l F l s r n A a mO*relrdm#r&.hb*rlb --&*my. dbmmom .IBAVA~S& & W b d ~ # MFIAVA rob ~ . P U S C P U ~ ~ . l r h l . r n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p . t ~ -NmY.rt- tstu4b~&~.abr hrplt'seqmNyhB8lm -lor z2?"'"-

5367Up~erIidyRtl CkwdmNY I44?9 PROSE

m W v m r t .

m Dn

m c.brld..rp.. npaard*--

n5-M -mrlszs

I t

516- -- PRO SB

Qma EmnrdYms*.

m -wM

nm!u ReADeoCmSra@~rC --=-P-..r-

mm - W A V A W m m-

v. m TkU.wBbh.BcYrAYra - b T k l r R m

PBalrr! & U d k d m h s a r r O a d a u t * o b ~ a - c a d Albamcalak

-lrJ FAm-% PdmlCcmc I38DchmrcA.a h5l4 NY 142m 716.843-5867 Fa- 716451-3196 Ermil:mny-w A T K M N E T l V B G h V l C R l

BCalr! m-drsmd- - w h t ~ g l r r Yerk W e r Y o r t S a h A I l n y r n

I O I D c h A m Fmib-

2

1 ~ I l O o l 6 h r o f - ~ w ) ~ ~ ~ j

frnlnw a ~ n m m & m m m m m & - h 9 q p a o f b b l a h 6 k d b y t b W ~ ~ ~ o f ~ b y t b c A l l o m c y I ---(FlernigMng)-@=Im

oslalt2006 Zp N C l l l C E d ~ b y J ~ A ~ m ~ o f C o u r d y o f 4 ~ o f C b c D u q C ~ o f a ~ d Y . a . C a r n h l o f 9 m q i ~ o f S L n n c a r o . c L m i y o f ~ c L m i y d S l d q R C o o d l o f W ~ C o o d l o f U l s . ~ o f W . o y r ~ o f A n r € 5 9 . ~ o f C 1 ~ C a a r y O f ~ C a n r m o f ~ C a m y 0 f F u l m 4 CourdydHcrLima.~ofLiviaaoqCoumyofhbatgomrry.C05yof

! ( b d 4 ~ o f ~ c L m i y o f ~ ~ o f ~ ~ o m y d r r o a ~ o f W - ( C d b y C d b y J - Y ) ~ 0 6 1 0 1 n o m )

!WCtlm M O T l O N h w l u v e ~ ~ p r o b c ~ M O n O N I o ~ ~ ~ - = d b y C O m y o f w S 0 ) - ~ ~ ) d d r d ~ I 6 r M 0 0 6 A ~ O . L h ( S O h M ~ m Y U M 0 6 ( S O . ) . ~ - ~ ~ ~ M . b L d a M m i m n M O T H l W f a l m mM==pob.cv*(w--

fommm n r u r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ a i c a f a ~ c m t D ~ r i ~ n w ~ . i S i b y ~ R i s b s r d J . - m 6 1 6 1 2 0 0 6 . ~ J . ) M o B ~ c l i W I M ~ ~ (e. r). @RK.I ~ ~ W Z O O Q

I ~ ~ k a l ~ L S i i b y h d # e ~ J . ~ m 6 / 6 / m M i (B.bar. J.) ModiW m 6nRM6 (8.Ls. I.). J.)@eiad ~~ l- n P l i n a a ~ a o l . S l s r o r ~ m H a b o o I - - -

d 6 v C a m M m d R a p m s e t o M & o f ~ ~ ( ~ ~ u ~ C c m ' h m c ~ S a n i s c ) ( r n I ; ) ~ : O M ) 9 R m 6 )

; a m O D 6 '14 lE€rqRlk l lgmdiq~Mot iopaol In*00AppmpIrcv*r~by

J d p RicM 1. Aranm OIIR006. (Baker, 1.) Modibsd m WIXMkX (Baku, J.). (Iiarsd: 06112~DIDS)

jOdlVnmd 7S l E X T O R D E R k i b b 6 k ~ b p ! ! r m & m . h m b a ? 3 , m

I aml-.SWblHmWI.-aMUZD06.(8*a.l.)

-0611-1 4--

:WYIODC a I ~ ~ ~ ~ m s ~ = ~ - l y r r ~ * ~ d c r p * r w i . a . ~ ~ . , b

t .On- 'FC m m m Z ~ ~ ~ . ~ I * * ~ J . h m

MUtODL-l.)lTsam-)

I 1 I-orn~ms,

jO7alnm6

I f

t

! g r m ~ ~ ~ d - !Wllm i

lovluz~as t

!oMMW !

w

Ipp

=onwR&i l l t l l * l *4 i . l l rE-d ~ k ~ ~ h I D A C p P r o L r . i a D a . y I t . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - t d h s b p r b ~ l . a a l p h l J . ~ m l n l ~ (8.br. I.) (M l n n m

P m t f . c v o c F ~ b o p a ~ n - . , w s n . m ~ . d r r m 0-- b F W c Y r c k e p i d h - - S 7 S 4 l a 4 l b P 1 1 ) . [ac)(ermb:m'lm)

O n o t n ~ M h k & m o ~ V a M d C a t W ~ c e H m a a s ~ d N O Y a L . ~ b y ~ ~ J . - a W l 4 m a 6 . ( % h r . J . ) M OM-

C B ~ m D i a * t o t ~ D i o i a d ? h Y . 4 t % d ~ m d l r t ~ a w a f ~ a & . d ~ t h r 4 ( D I O ~ O I V I I r n )

IN THE Ul$lTED STATBS DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IJMTED STATES OF AhmUCA, 1 1

PlaintifF, 1

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECITONS., PEIZR S. KOSINSKI and STANtEY L. ZALEN, C o - E x d v e Directors of the New York State Board of ElMons, in their official capacities; and, STATE OF NEW YORK;

1 ) Civil Actim No. 06-cv-0263 1 (a) 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1

Upon the motion of the United States of M c a , md the Court having bard the patties F

inrespotmthaidb,

NOW, after due dcl~hation, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

1. The United States' Motiom for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, to the extent set

forth below.

2. T%e DefeadaPlt State Board of Eldons is not yet fblly in compliance with $8 301 and

303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of2002 ("HAVA"), 42 U.S.C. 1530 1 et seq.

3. The Daf'endant StsteBoard ofElectians shall take all necessary actions IU come into

complirace wilh lfie reqrrirernents of Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA as soon as practicable,

in accatdance with a remedial plar to be aplmwed by this Court.

4. The Defendant State Board of Elections shall file with this Court on or M r e April

10,2006, a comprehensive plan for compliance with Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA The

United Statei shaU file a response to lfie Debdant State Board of Elections' proposed

compliance plan within 10 days after filing of thm proposed plan.

5. Accordingly, in light of this Order, further briefing and scheduling are suspended,

except as b the Mutiam to Inmvem. If the parties are unable to wme to agreement on a

comprehensive plan fbr compliance with Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA, the Court will

promptly schedule a hearing in this case on the D e f ' t State Board of Electims' proposed

compliance pim as aecsssary to t~sure a prompt resolution of this action.

ENTERED a* ~3~ day ofMarch. 2006, at Albany, New York.

5.:: '5 g it? $2 IS: . .

UU

r m M M I Y U Y U h l

m=mY W C I P Y-CIIY UOlOl *P-tfllY m- W e C P Y LO- Y e O I m W-

u- w-mr* rn- wmLplY m- r r m m r * m r Y ~ C I ~ u- Y -~ IY rn- *I-enm tm- Y-tllY Lm' I p . c . D Y U'

rr-mw w--t ILIOIHY U'-

- -urn na(R-- 4 c.p-wIYI -4- 1

u n . r w r nrm-s

--MY - k ( l g

1511111-u * * D ~ Q I P U w-11- mm

*1m~* m b e r a m ww-m~~ mrran U ~ I Q I Y * . d w m l l

-3

H.r

R a UI) W-PYY a 1 hl -m - m a rr. -O* ~ * n m m m y m n m a 0 1 Y-MYI I M m M P r I LlaQ I * ~ H I Y ~ m m a H I U Y *YIDOHY m 9 m - X

.II-BIYI mr-mm

Fm* - F m * * - e m m ' 4 W P l l P-a * L W1IPOIIPIY - m w

~ r w r a r n m-mw u-m1* m-4mw

m----aur I l l 0 g l - m ma-mw - - u r n m-mY * U ~ W I Y m m a I - 4 m Y I m-mr4

m* mum C . l m . m m m-mw p-* RCw Y - U m - * D M 1 kl -m Y..DptPYI hm-mm r - n -or I)IPO.LU m-wr* F-a -m Y ~ Y D ~ U Y m-mu kl -U --.am M - W W i

w w W ~ W I I I m-mo Yllpl4mrn m m m . I * m U Y C I m-mm **-(*I- m-mm I I I P L a m m m-m- w - u m nm-mm ---.I W 8 W m W-UY -1411 Y - ~ Y m-mm Id-.ml* m-mm' Y - I m Y I u.4-mpn Y131M.* M-mm -3rm.a~ m-mm W ~ . ~ I Y - m m 4 Y - ~ I Y I m-a w=*aC* m-M

. r a n u r n rn-5 -4

I

- -- -11-9. k v d y q . --- --m Llrrrr*P -s*cr u - m I P e m R I --PI

--0 -rar*- -wee -IY- 'FL*-II I&P*d-

--4. I-- s a g - --- --pl

--m mill --a --PI .-- u c q - -F4- --a* b.-- --CYL --CY

rvroq- rsgYY- I---- ---*- -0.r*.+ld-

I 4 L q - d -

m - m d d - ---a- ---a- -. -- -

****em - I a a - ~ 9 0 in-2

O*.rrrao mnv 7 - f m wm lmm m a * - uQI - a*=- - 1-

1 1 * i B 1 1 1 1 i m l 6 i 1 I m W 9 ara n m r r r a u I*P.cllJ m.lq.l I I h I O L - - o n * - a m a i m I L - l b l Y I D im- 0 - * - 0 I-m 0 - 4 - a ~ - r u q owur* ugp I-* 11111- YllD I-11

0.*11110 in- I 1 . * 1 1 3 Y O I6l-

1 6 m w r y m I n u 1 n n a u-dl-- inl- 11-10-w IWY16V

i l e m u m t l ~ ~ In- n-rm w uai- W - b r r H40 16,-

In- 1- -Y 41- D m r I k r n 7-

m-a- w - 46-1- M lsllllDl P-n-rm mw II-.ld.c)Um 1%- a - n m P mnruom P * M e r P in- 1 I . L l d . r - raa*- a"-.- 0 *rwn a-am- 13- m*mmLD raisamro ereom w 4 a m 4 1 l l l f l - w 1-1 i d l U 4 r n - rn-mrr iym mum!-

- - m u m - -*- 'R eP+rWPI

M- I _a- -%*I ll-

.- [R

h m * l l v l r g * r d - * d W m r a A&

-4%-

~ k ~ ~ p b ~ ~ I Y I * ~ a ~ ~ am-

- ,

-clllR.-IIL-.--- i r A -

tm-crr m a - ----

IMlmmm-ORIIf mm'mm-mIRIYm

--.lrC CmALWCdl m m w I A 1 R - - m n - c - m O Y # O T m

r n W a u # I I C I C ltlltllllt mAnm-a& -a-

m . -1M#

am y r m m a , r W I m ~ m - d - ~ m+maVI*rrW.m&-M- I l ~ ~ W d ~ b h I Y Y l ~ M ~ A L M --

m u * , w m - - m r . w m d r r a m e*rl.muza L - b ~ # ~ r w * . *

wm I - k U d L r w * r U 1 m * ( 1 1 * r l l ) l & 153 m lh ma-- w. ~ l r p a n r n 11- w-rn I I ~ a#pl#l#ILPY

mu-- ' ----

-*--(ZarJ- . -M#- lawrraur+.a0m- w - .rsr---rl- 2 7 M - m C - L I . - . h W f . I Y "jec!'yq?'% v 4 TYP. mn-11 r r a w l a e h . r ~ rn--&m

RYldlmm-m W1+

I pQm1w -. -

b - mr- --- PA-

mrhnmumw- m P r u D m

-%m

or-*- , z=- 5lbjuwm- rrnz , r w - mw%%m "

m* Wn1.m WCI.

- -.. . w- W Y h n r * . w 0 m A - m 1n-w

tm *WY sum p1)mnw ""ZEZm* m*

Qrlr*L*-- ~VYSAPA-rn m n v Hlm wn- m s r * m c l l r ~ # - * J . u r . & ~ ~ - w Y d c r r m . a - ~

-0r-d-

M'NIIL *h.*lrF~~--~--=m-

-4r-d- ~ * w t b m Y m m * - * a * ~ - - *s lkUtW- * m m w - -,,**-*1 hblalru~e=*"-- yprtm- -pl.

um- - ~ ~ ~ r r h m - r n w - -w *wmmm

_ - _ ^ _ . - - - - + -

- -- --OF-

l D B l W l y -mL#mm4m

- A m - 1*1111*

yIuI*u

I#*=

- E m

-1-bwa PI*--- Pa m a erwn.mr*

I*: FrlPI**r-M-aa --.-WrCU*D-

R r r l t . m

*-d-"-*k'--'-wrrl&k- ~ ~ r * * . U 6 . a q . I ~ b # a l * P r l Wbo*l*l ~ ~ ~ n - * m I Y 1 * C I W I 1 Y r u Q % R m b n a r b-##(YRoodrr &-4& -4

*---.odk-Bnrl*dma.pl* -~ -~- * - *p~-wr l l .wrb* -

a*rF*r*--bdwd.d#-m - l r ~ m @ m --

-5- m-

m-- - - R w I -a-

- --*krnYII.-..*YL*LICIIC.B -

D # p a r t m e n f of Law

m*,myodr

142- -- m u u * . Es-

-!&=

==- -o*Yo*. rPmrPacllWllg m*l-

WdlllaD m-m - k k . =-- W r n liao --wr 1-

szZ--*rrr, I#mrr*dr 1 1 1 1 - M m*r I U I W A 4 W l Q l l

* . k b r U l r * r w ~ U * . -*urnom -----Olrt---m.rl#

Ik*ICIIII:

rmm*,,,-r*PIC*.lglr*-~*r~ -- f - . l - . r m a r # e - . ~ t w ~ , w ~ - m R * R . . . l A ~ b m * ~ p b ~ m ~ ~

1

- # - -dMWrYakQ*mwwwa -n*1hwwmmgrrt - #ra*,@r*.m - b - - - d - m * k * * * ~ ~ q w ~ d

O A k D m q I r a l P h a a r V m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * * w ~ ~ * l * * m ~ t m m ~ a ~ l r ~ # r . T O ~ - I I * J P

\kw-

-aplrv-*# - -<m- -- ='*--**-ulrr .-bull W M

T- mn*m- * mmnl. - 3 -

\

A - 57

The AD HOC NYS ~eopie for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate I Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide P.O. Box 28 - Clarendon New York 14429

nyspeo~lenationwid~~ahoo.com

May 5,2006 FAX and E-Mail

To the Defendants in Forjone etal. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080

The Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara has issued a text order that all Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs Order to show cause letter by June 1,2006.

The six pages of the Show Cause Letter is faxed herewith including the Text Order as follows:

hate: For those Defendants desiring a PDF copy of the Attachments Exhibits A thru G to the ~ k o w Cause Letter available on the WDNY Website docket as shown above, in order to save tfldndy please contact the following e-mail nvs~eo~lenatiomrvid~vahw~com and we will forwatd them accordingly.

John Joseph Forjone 1 Christopher Earl Strunk

RESPONSE to 24 Order b Show C a m med by John Joseph Forjone : The 42 USC 1983 1 Bivens I False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People's equity in Bottom-up Suffrage,

I

5 0510u2006 1 i :

Co-Chairmen of the AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate I Intqrsbte HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Natioawide

i i Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 3(DLC) (Entered: , ! 0510212006)

i wder to sttow muse on or before June 1,2006. Sgned by Hon. Richard J. I Arcara on SI412006. (hker, J.) (Entered: 05/0412006)

- 26

FAX of Show Cause Letter Page 1 of7

______2_ A - 63

mjmadr.EACeuLwImYo6m4o€a

d. ALqC~-~Aapqdolk lm-ddInOl lh .dh~AIDaq Il2lWoSt-Rmm90OAKmy.NY l P 0 7 ~ ( 5 1 8 ) W - 7 l l O P u : 5 M 4

a I ) . C h C a r t ) . h n m % I l l l r l d W d 2 2 M ~ k R S a m - NY m I @ 4 s ) U 1 6 2 1 1 0 F u g 6 2 m 2

c o = E w M o m y . ~ - a s . ~ c o r r - C ~ ~ Z S ~ M ~ . ~ E D ~ G O # ~ O , N Y 1 0 9 U I . r ~ ~ ( ~ 291-31 J

5 B o r t M c a r e ~ , ~ L n g l q l l - H q l p d R o d . - Gty . NY 10956 (845) 638-51110. (84S) 6385676

h ~ - ~ r u t q . . v . a n k a c ~ ~ s n c m ~ n r ~ 1 4 Y l t b c A l o ~ c M r b l u - E 2 d d i q W ! i m m N Y 10601-3311

( 9 1 4 ) 5 9 S m Rc (914) 2854884 I. T U E C T T Y O P ~ W Y O P T a ~ ~ a m a d b y I b . 9 b a ~

a d s ~ ~ M k k M d A & k n ~ k m C R o p k wi&i%rh*br8nxpx~aicy-m--- ~ l i a a 1 9 6 4 m m w ~ d ~ B m a . M m M n q ~ ~ s m c n ~ ~ N Y C & * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . m C . Y ' a n m ' ? r i m p h d m v i u a t ) e N Y C ~ ~ o r d . ~ * ~ r l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r t b ~ ~ y o ~ l c r ~ d l m ~ S ~ U I N C W Y ~ ~ N Y I C W ~ ~ I ~ ~

j. -CaarAtmwY,Lora-ekl.I W a I l B o a M i N Y 11501 (516)571-3056

r s l laoPramyMaq.-mw,% m1r+tiCmbmBadb.1m V ~ M m r r * l I h J P O ~ 6 1 M ~ N c r Y d 1 1 ~ ( 6 3 1 ~ ~ 4049 FAX8534169

1 7 . B b d ~ ( * l ) W ~ , ~ ~ M P ~ ~

r ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 a ~ m p b w r n h n s ~ r i ( ~ ~ ~ 1 1 0 ( 2 )

A w d $ y D W m ~ ~ r d n d d D P l l . . 1 6 ~ ~ b

~ ~ d * . ~ ~ ~ s r ~ ~ I % h t i c k ~ r d & b ~

n a a & & € m b r s b r i L l l a a r i w B m d d ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ A U & i A N Y , ( M W A u J U h CATI*IAOc04

C A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I R ~ A ~ ~ E Q U I W I I Y ; A ,

-mm - -arr~~%~~m W . C h W A m L ~ - U 1 4 ~ ~ olacG0.m.

LIw=naIPAmaB-- -.wA.PBY-rOCh

e C s l l . i . p p l 9 d 6 2

F a j m U L v . E A C ~ w m Y ~

W ~ ~ ~ O I W ~ W * P ~ ~ ~

IOhm-ADY,-WM

L N ~ ~ ~ C h 6 A I = ~ ' B g ~ 1 7 5 ~ 9 b 6 LakpmtNY1409+2740P L;

n AnsplrCoruAtmwY.D~idJ~.WCaay06.-l*ildhL7 v c l t 1413.~- (mt66~(10mmit

a B m O m O C a r n t y ~ , d o ~ ~ ~ B 1 r a w ~ O 6 i a ~ U I i l w k y S m y r 6 c b P b o r R ) B m 1 7 6 6 ~ N Y 1 3 9 1 1 1 1 7 6 6 PboDL 607.7782117p.'- -cQ-Y-.Edm&I 4 c o a I . r Lkzmmm Ocma OEIce Bddha Mapilk. Ncr Y a k 14757 (716) 153- 4U7 sndl: &-

p ~ ~ ~ . ~ T ~ ~ 3 a 3 C a t s b c a - ~ 2190- 716938-9111 F e -

+ - C a a u N - w . M W m W I U ) ~ k ~ P L ( 3 l ~ ~ 1 2 7 4 FU it U>IM

r. ~ ~ M a q . ~ I . r ~ 7 i l 3 I . b r S r ~ N Y 1 4 9 0 1 607-137-2982

a ~ 3 ~ ~ " V 1 9 " , Y I 2 I ~ ~ E I o i * . 198-W .-'1

t ~ m t m d ~ ~ ~ m ~ q . ~ a k ~ , e * . ~ ~ m a ~ u i l ~ . ~ k ~ b o r s 0 c Q r m A ~ ~ % ~ G d l d , N Y 1 3 0 4 5 ~ ( 6 0 7 ) 7 5 ? - S 0 9 S ~ -

r C h n q p ~ A ~ . U k h d W . ~ b p S C a ( ~ ~ MY+ 13a15 b (607)-137-1405

v. CdmdnmColdyA-. L b d L ~ P s q . 4 0 1 S g ~ ~ NY 12534(518)82k3MFn(511)BY)535

w. l i i c a a l q ~ . W r I e b ~ . % ~ h ~ W n , Y a k 13857 TcL (607) W-8253. F a 22F7LX13

r ~ - ~ a a u ~ a q , * w r n 4 h + I z m C m s b c a w Nsr Yak IULSO (607) 2-74-5546 pat P ' -

Y. ~ ~ M m y M m y d o ~ ~ C n - Y ~ ~ l m ~ S W WQkim Obn. NY I4691 T c k (6073 5354lM Fa. (607) 53S-8109

z SLubcnCol.l*Atbmy.€t&.i&KAbra.h-Otfka3E.lt ~ ~ e a y - 8 1 4 ~ v c a l a n o -(607)nm1mtnss

r ~ C m q A t l p r ) , ~ J . ~ E q ~ C m k r 6 M sw NY IW $~Q~&oI- (%I x s m 3

b h O 1 d u b C a a ( y N - w , ~ W . h h E l q . O B i o C a b y ~ 2 7 Nw&L(dnSaoar ' _ .N.Y. I U U V ~ ( S S ) 1 9 & 4 4 1 1 ; F n 4 M l .

~ Y R ~ ~ ~ . ~ A ~ , ~ Y R S ~ ~ ~ I ~ LibmyStmc4tkiteZM P C Q Y ~ N Y an

~ ~ ~ t O d 6 2

~ ~ v . . . e A C & ~ ~

~ S a s a ~ ~ , - S t a a o 1 . B o ~ ~ ~ a O l i l I D i P u d o m W d a b q N Y 13165 M 315-53%1Bf), Pa: 315-539-37119 E m i l : * ?

c~W.plhwq~.MMWym.Pq.QIIA.rr-l6~9b6 L m N r r Y a k I U 8 9 3 1 5 4 & 7 4 Q ~ ~ - m

K ~ ~ ~ , ~ M i a b s l L l a a i m Y E . ~ S t , O R l r W NY 1 3 u 6 T ~ ~ 3 4 5 4 2 9 O T e k h x ~

a ~ ~ A m m y . L m i d C ~ s g . P . O . B a S a q U o d 4 N Y 14lOb (5%) 793-fW FAX: 79OUI76 E-zmik 9-.

~ o c l r m o c C ~ ~ , d o t b r ~ C L r L d m C m 1 d y C a n h a r . 7 W ~ M . i o S a o 4 B a r i N Y 1 W ( ~ U W ) o l U O S . -

L ~ ~ A ~ , P r i s T f n d 4 h p . l l ~ ~ A t h . N c r Yak 14011 Phac 5 8 5 - Y ) l - I Z U ~ ~

L. k e n m ~ M a q . h ~ P 4 . 1 7 5 A r r o l ~ W.bmra . *Yak 1331 M 0 1 ~ ~ F A X 0 1 ~ 5 1 7 8

k k . M ~ ~ . R l c W ~ E 4 . 7 6 0 6 N . ~ h h d k . NY 13367Pbmc: 315-3765282. Pa: 3857 E n d -1

n wdi--~ttanq,sloh-es, ~kaasw-NY 13163015)M6~/fn0l5)36621(a36&25CQ

I r H a L i m a ~ A m m s y . R o b S t l . M . k q ~ ~ I 3 Z O C o r u ~ Bdd&IO9May&ra ~ , N Y l 3 3 J P b m e 8 6 7 - l l ~ ~ 1 1 ~

r o a s D ~ ~ . ~ K ~ . b p l ~ ~ ~ ~ m 1 n ~ 1 IW - mrn- FAX: w - 7 s n ; 17

r' - a a S L L . r r a a o c C n - Y A a D m y , ~ W . S i h u , ~ WdldiqlBCary

M a r y ~ C Q t ~ ~ ~ Y c l t 1 3 6 1 7 ~ 3 1 S 3 ~ F u : 579.m-

~ p F r r t l i D C a a u ~ , d o ~ ~ M q l p N . p o d * 3 5 5 W a t H d . 1.2953 PIUMZ 51W481-1693 Rc483414I

q & a a m C a y A L a q . D s l i r D . a m ~ I ~ A ~ P . 0 . ~ ZP(7 Ph&e@,NY 12901 ~ ( 5 1 S j % 1 - 4 W P A X % l - U 1 ( 8

r ~Caa(yMomy.l'llkummadhp.7~51~SrrodP.aBa217 -Nu Y d 12932 518-873-3380 PAX 518-873-3894

r ~ C a d J A D p o * . k + s E I d q E q 1 5 5 Z u d A l q F o 9 NY 1206aPbmo:(518)829-5067

a w a r n ~ o a t y ~ t t a n q . r n ~ . w p r o w m - ~ ~ a r 1340 %b RL 9 h k e ( b o A N Y 12845 518-761-6463 FuSl8-7614377

r ~ ~ A t m w Y . S m W . p . o Y ) ~ ~ ~ l s c t ~ U l samd*. ~ ~ N m Y a k l Z O a O J I & g M - 4 7 7 D E m J I : -

~ . W ~ c G . l t Y A ( l a q . l l o p W k k u . b p C 4 y ~ C a Q F o l r W N Y I Z B Z g ~ ( S l 8 ) 7 4 & 2 2 1 6

~ . l l a t r r ~ A t w y . R d u t A S * E q R a c b s ~ O f l l r o a - 4 t h Rm NY 1 W 7tb AwTmy.NY IZI(IOYIO(5l8)T)(L29SO

A n u a M ~ p p l l l d Q

P a p r & I . . . E A C c u l w m Y ~

~ ~ C ~ A I D ~ ~ . M D . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I U I S ~ ~ I C U & ~ U . N Y

n' ~ W = A ~ ~ N Y ~ * ~ ~ 8 2 ~ , " I a DeLmcCaayA~.doOIyLcrdv,CaayacdrlIMdnSIlsctm Bm 426 W N Y 13753 (607) 746.212) Pu (m7) 7-.

m ~ C o r u ~ a q . ~ 8 4 5 % % 4 1 m260.do-mcceivs R n t u t J . B m d i ~ ~ P B P . c o . d J ~ ~ W , o b r i a A ~ 3 d F b o r C m u 4 N . Y . I M 1 2 (845)225-364l.atMOPAX2254!2M

b b b H 5 i l h m C m a y A t t a n q . d o d C a a y C W . t ~ ~ , N e w Y d ~ O ~ C B U ~ M ~ L I O X ~ I ~ ~ ~ L . ~ N Y . I Z W O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -.

~ ~ ~ A ~ , ~ S ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ O ~ W ~ P ~ W ~ , Main S m NY I=, Rmp: 518-ZJ6SMl FAX 762-4504

a d d . ~ C a a y ~ . d o h b J . W ~ ~ c k a l O m a 6 2 0 9 D * ~ , N Y 112)05Phms:(518)388-m4 - ~ r - , s & l l r l w ~ W ~ ~ - 7 . w y cobbsgw 1 2 ~ ~ ~ s l b 2 9 6 ( g ~ ~ ~ : ~ 1 a ~ ~

a ~ C a r y ~ . S . m Y . l a ~ P 4 S . l l h . . ~ ~ c a w lMNmbSm+rP.O. B m 5 0 1 2 ~ 4 N Y Uml-5192 llU-79f-YaOFAX: 845-79f-~~)- ' - A w ~bme:(84~m-~a0m 3545 FU. w~~

1 8 . N m l Y ~ l b a m l p . a a B u n m g h ~ d ~

L I m m a ~ d ~ b ~ h w d c ~ ~ w a h l b S t b ~

c o m m i r a * ~ ~ b s b s b l b ~ d ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ L r ~

d l r l l p l e h - r m m b d . * r n b d ~ a c m ~ r m ~ m

c b o C F t r ~ Y a k e a r d d ~ . ~ ~ ~ o d r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ f = ~ ~ l d d a * a s D t l K ~ . B o n h s y 1 T . . c d b d i r r l l r r " 1 ~ a d m w . - s m ~ , ~ h b 8 c ~ . % ~ o ~ r i ~

p l l a h ~ ~ ~ S D l q L I Y R a & t m W . . Y a k I I ~ I ;

MCKC&OUNDFAClS

1 ~ . r n 1 m 1 1 ) 7 s a b l t i ~ - , + , d a ~ c ~ m ~ m ( w p a ~ ~ ~ h ~ w 3 b l b 1 9 6 6 U . i w l D a L d i a d i i m 1 m ~

A.addCcalLilm12d62

~ull.w*1IPly- y r u v . u c u r m n -

~ r r r A T m ~ C O U S T ~ ~ Q F ~ Y O R K m w -b-ID-lli.-d#m-kbaad

bhbbIbiah-d* ~ M + P L ~ ~ & d ~ W J m a W d r h r 1 B l r Y A I I ~ --ar

~ b k w . r b ~ ~ % ~ m o * r m I A V A ~ d w d

eo-*w**m aarucmrr-m-d- w , . w r 1 * 1 9 - ~ h - - * - a b b m

d V . M r r L W O W T ~ * s k k ~ d l ~ ~

m-mmnm--wmmamranolrrnm ~ m * W V B ~ d s r - ~ m b h - a w a m ~ n w r r m w r # ~ ~ ~ ~ o m m m

~ ~ ~ ~ M M A I N T rlmsrrmaywapar~ar*s--a-b

- L - r s v k i = - - J - ~ e ~ p l d q : Rlrr-.m-dhLlhkarPI&w

I. I u r n ~ ~ r - ~ m ~ d ~ ~ - ' 9. Y h k Y d - C h P * y L r r w d h r & k M b r L D R I :

* c r a r o L * ~ r n ~ ~ w r d M Y a w S l e r r q d B u ~ r n * . . - m.

- ~ R c r b r ) d m U t P b r - m m ' d ) ( Y S DPlDUp-#m--.

-1- an. - .ae .t.t.11~1 t~ m t~i.6. '-'m(*palR*r*'rWrIYabOmm- 51. ma- w t ~ m a r . .

5,. -. -- m * L . d .

o o l p y ~ ~ - r a ~ ~ i ' l o w m ( k l r ~ a ~ * r r h m 15. 0 f i - r ~ - 1 t 1 ~ . 57. M i t i e n d p l u l t i o a .

- * h i , = - S 51. C O l l U l o f ~ . n Q - m b . r U d . m r , ~

2 t r m k * r - . l g f i v M h d d --"? ~ d ~ ~ e ? ~ ~ ~ ? p % ~ & - ~ - ~ i ~ =dim - n a an math r a pm-s=jw or -tion of

* M a w m ~ ~ ~ d ~ / w l w r A M &rmM~. o t h r h 1- a m . 1 r t l w d t r mr -zit, -m- 017 ol a-rn ln rlW at -1rrp.m m m i a t r L u * o In this d -f.hr nut. - mum, o r I -I e r rn

-w - * -m-m) I@ ' IkdYRLb lb 8rrt .cmitj or --=it,. er a .t o d r -4 mi. th h - l m n t e m r r In. *IthLn th i r ty dap a f u . thin artlcl. uh.

* a t l l , o r r . ? ? * & * * r r r d ~ r r p d l C o J ~ ~ ~ * .If&. w mrr d -r.tIm or u-rat- b.ruct.r e-116. s i t k i n t m m &+s .la= la r m p a w m f . -1 ria. df9 tb. ..cnuty of m t r u m m ma or Iu -tltmth. &I-. darn.

I h p ~ ~ Y O * l t O l ( M V A ~ k d d ~ B k - M f r m l l * I b a ~ w * r4ulatLm. url ~ r ) l d d r m N p . w l a r rim r mvwr ei brr e r m h i p a d a U m t of lu orflcrrr k tM crrnmt w r . h" h

rqrainrk---Aa-(vm=d- mrporatura a m "-1- o w l , la CU. i t 1 -titdim, +I-. w.r, -ZI- or mth d rn m, prt - m e . a - I d , cwpd. m - rim* h &* -st.= 4 mi-la ar

~ ~ d t ~ p l r ~ k t ~ ~ WC371PILnm¶m -- rrl. dth =IY u -. -- - oc .uch - i d . qr -I*L*I -tLtution, by-law, 4.. -Ullw o r ~ t b oc

- b r a h i p . r - n rVFh ~ ~ r w r a t i m 01 "&tion muU n r h l n th i r ty

m-hp't

5 sl. RKII~IW. puw m n . L*.? d v i a or ~WCLatim (MU, rim tm O.Y. 4fL.r t h wloe rAim V1 th ~ Z l i a d t h Q1A# - B D l m t b m 'b. - OL y act- 01 mn corpnu- mr u-lltua. p- Lor mmHM ela fl 1- m t r or of wrt - co 0- or

OTT - V

r -- & *--

STATE m Mw YOII:

m m m w A= -amcAnatkar*--dq.ddbmtlpm-

bhhmDkbadh-dW

w d l * m l . m m

a * , a r ~ - ~ .

Sm%OTmm m a na .~rmm(jrrsJ1

' ~t4.k- . -ar*rAarar

: -CaarQ.-

' . .' * * . Q W R T B p - m u -

F m m 11-

EXHIBIT 8.

ass--12

3-363-0006 I ' d 1PBPsPPttlL .-Y-OPP-~, . .&m"

.,.-?I;, 'T" ' , .A:-..',! I-:. .,*..,+-:r>. : 'l, .-?- ..-d ,-:,I,*-* . -. . .- .: - ' 8 ' - .# '-

, ' d - W k ~ n r t C + l k # I m

wmnwrrn- , d 3 t U I wht G3. Wmmmtm 10, .+ /;'. *rr -,Am -0*, 1 . IIIE.. L '

.. . , - - fi ., - 8.1, , ma Al- 11.71*.02 '

*T?'. ' , '.>. - -,-,'--A<--;:' .>-, . ' . ,

- ..

, #,*a!.B* '

11011.64 . , - -3, H l l . r n 0

" ,

,

: - . ..* - . .

. . , .

I

;"- . a M h Y M i - , Ul.L7 1") ' .- pi. r-1 - 'mu~ . . I,6W..I

ar304.91

$:::,-mew m- sU.I'I

!- , 3 . W . 8 3 b'! -

- - . 4.W0.40 ;;. , . ;. ..: .'-A 6. d.SU.78

m,as*.-a 4.BU.4a

4,?3*.M

r .m.+a 4 . 4 b I . U

Y,&a*.oi . =.-.a.

:... , -

'I I... . ..

03-353-0007 '

.......... .. ..... wa ..... s . w m , a . W . .....,.... w+u,*=!J.. ....... . . m m ....................... 5

, 8

- .

"i, , , 0 , . ... , . 03-363-0006 .. .> .

..... ........... ..or.4. . [email protected]. - : ........ . .~+IMw?.A .. .... . m m . . ...............

-- -. - , - - - - . IY IP~Y~~-~Y- -~ - I~ I a i m - m u I

Pg. 2 of2

Wm-StAm-rmmr R W I m ~ ~ O V h l m Y m K

EMcmmmsKmmm 1 a s s r m u n t ~ - ) m d r h b Y d W B m d d

STATEOFHEW Y W - R i . t q b w a d s a a o r - . t l o p :

- 2 -

r n ~ m l o r ~ v ~ u u ~ ~ I s a l l , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r a *

d C e R h V k

5. W & d F b r Y d i m W d & M h d M d a

a s l n t b l b a ~ M T W V h ~ ~ t L D s ~ M r m 8 m

m*--rlm8--na-UC** -- auacHtwr. 1qa2w1.

b DL6rhlkwYd-BpsdEWkWSBOB")LoWd

* r B t o e a k ~ s T t k ~ ~ Y m k r d L ~ B r . . p q * Q +

~ M . a h a b o W l d k % a m ~ w h h ~ d i i A V A H.Y.

allLaml.*wrlcalahiwIm:mmr,~Qs*nw~~~~.

I. l h ~ O l * J d l b Z k i l a l S a * ~ t b I Y ~ m ~ O t * r

~ ~ G 4 ~ m ~ b ~ & J w i a 3 9 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 Y * # r t b Z L b

b V & M d ~ C R l r V A ~ r i + ~ a & m l c t 6 f * s x l o r W R d a l d h

h a g o a m Y a l : 4ZUS.C.HtWldIwaW.L

' -

Z T Y ~ b ) r l r d i a i a d I L b m h ~ B n U x H 1391 d IMI

a l U U S C # I S S l l .

mmvrt,-.s-gan-anw

* r r e e a l w a h d - & E - d w d X -

7. - h l a S . ~ r l ~ L p . l s l # b * r -

o l n m l W [ l % s d ~ * r * d b M ~ ~ .

a p s % t x " " *-'la&HAYhWY.BladahJ>IOD.

k T b p ~ o f N a , Y e k i s m b h M m & a m ~ ~ ~ ~

*m mpriP.**brW&bbba-IZ1IW6dm+

~ & ~ ~ l s I b s ~ r n ~ ? , m M .

9. O ~ - R ~ D O Z W V A I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & - 4lULC%

-ml-BrCllrm- - ' + m a - . . -

42ux.a LSUI4Sgl.

I& ~ ~ l d H A V h d k d ~ S , ~ h d c l a . c l a . ~

12 -2OM l-ne I-ba: Julie fidcy, Uuiwd S w e s h t m ~ t o t t u . . (-on fur SuEuriv d -h ii L .S. Dqmmta of Stnn: 2 3 1 C S w t KW .

w*ton,LK:2052u . . . *

Rs: 7 N S = & ~ - a,s: . E b G ~ $1- fMCF/nnlHR -&=*r*a kppr

1 b r v e t r ~ ~ s a ~ . o p p n m i ~ ~ ~ d r b w s u b j b ~ f ~ ~ ~ . . . r s g o n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ b i h ' d e l a d i n y ~ m ~ . & r o l r m y 6 : ~ m y ~ i a 2 9 9 6 w ~ y i ~ w i t b b y t h c ~ o f Cdrlhhinlu~rtCrrrt D i & % ~ h a it 4023 sIien* c i h o 1 1 f d W i t h ~ l ~ M N ~ S a v i u e , ~ i a b b i r h m ~

: t h v n 2 J 6 Y ~ f ~ ~ ~ m e d f m m y ~ w t b ~ z y - . W d q + i t e r n y c f C ~ s.tkidg,dw pnrcass the tiPlduhckd611* a -tt=ot'pbhc ~ a r d was dd by c-r mt ~tnpc~irian ofthe Replblicrol yld D r m d c Natianal-

I s r a n w r i & g t h i s ~ ~ ~ ~ m y ~ w i t h ~ o f ~ . l w H ~ ~ ~ h ion 6f:

1. ~WifHmsoftbaNAMrcpMG 2. t h a t t h e p i W ~ t i o a ~ f e b e h ' W W W ~ ~ f ~

of Star (NUS) b s kid fomign o b a m m to bunous sutc dtaiert~ i # m * ~ ~ l ~ \ D * ~ ,

3. w h y t b t o s C = ~ ~ ~ ~ a U l ~ ~ ~ * ~ w o t # ri;rul.latdwbatis~~f~i~pbBSCrmJim;

4. ~ h i f ~ ~ l h h ~ i s ~ O S ~ ~ ~ ) ~ ~ g ~ d r , 0 b 0 u t ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ 3 c r t h * : H * ~ t o V ~ I \ c t I t i A V A ) a o ~ i l l ~ k l u r J l c j i d t m o L i ~ , i n ~ h m v o t i ~ b ~ P h c abctioaIDtbc~mteJ;a

5. Wks prppatIopsl hpfmtjw audmrity docs tbe USA Slstrc in 'conjlmtim with tlw m k .U m h ~ r IQ#SM h th ad what8

. ~ y O s C E ~ O D U i R a c r i w ~ o r p ~ ~ t b a U S ~ u n d & ~ o f k ssvaal mw?

E ~ h ~ V E ~ l w a l ~ i n P l o r E A r c r c l a s ~ ~ s i n Y M d ~ t k v s L p w W u w d w 11 July 2iMM thF. W&qS -m -C!E in- -~fl%...",wirhwhllt&py~veRtbt~tthep&&w -law& j W d m d w k N ~ S S l o p a n f c ~ o y n m & d r y w i l h t b a ~ A p d d o t b r ~ E K S M R I v v s t a s b ~ e b y Z h u p o Y t j c & ~ I W ~ ~ i t M ~ ~ r i t ~ ' ?

1 * -

F&inWo6VIOlbwFmcli~hEinrelplrdltoM~brrr#~#;t w W i r v a y r l ~ w r c ~ w a n d ~ ~ 9 A s y 0 u ~ ~ w o r r : m y & + ~ k g r o u n d r ; d i n ~ * d u a p - ~ w h e n ~ y o N s i a L r Uilto follow thmqghwi- bBiRgrepprwJ by OSCE b mortok'o- that)rt-m itsc:1f,~isa~nmucad1~p~tbiaOSClE~aniy~f~dircupf m n l i & t i a b e ~ ~ d o l w ~ W k ~ d ~ y m y ~ i a : ~ ~ # ~ ~ C ~ X ~ C W I W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ , W ~ D L # a n ~ ~ , a n d m y i ~ i s d b o m a k h s t ~ F ~ I w .

WEBSTER SZANYI LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Jeremy A. Colby Partner

Admitted in NY and MA

December 1 7,2009

VIA Enllnq - _ _ _ - Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn .-

James 7. Foley-U.S. ~ o u i t h o u s ~ 445 Broadway, Room 509 Albany. NY 1 2207

Re: Forjone v. State of Califomla et al. Case No.: CO6-cv-1002

Dear Judge Kahn:

Our firm wresents 25 of the county defendants, all of whom are listed at Docket No. 70. 1 write to request a telephone status conference in this matter (several attorneys are outside New York). Several motions to dismiss have been pending since 2006. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

***Request for a conference is DENIED without prejudice.

/s/ Jeremy A. ~ o / b y . I -

Jeremy A. Colby

U.S. D i s t r i c t judge I I D a M : December 30, 2009

2400 Liberty Building Buffalo, New York 14202 TeI: (716) 842-2800 Fax: (716) 845-6709

[email protected]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in re Appeal 10-822-cv

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November 29,2010 and under penalty of pe jury, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, caused the service of twenty-six (26) complete sets of the Appellant Brief signed 11/29/10 and Appellant's Appendix with each set sealed in a properly addressed envelope with proper postage for 2-day mail will delivery confirmation by the US Postal Service upon Defendants' Counsels:

WAN J. KIM, U.S.A.G Carol Fumanti Arcuri, Esq. Thomas J. Cawley, Esq.

Civil Rights Division Office of Westchester Cty Attorney Sullivan County Dept of Law County

U.S. Department of Justice 148 Martine Ave. F16 - Rm 600 Gov Center 100 North St, POB 5012

Room 7254--NWB White Plains, NY 10601 Monticello, NY 12701

950 ~ e n d ~ l v a n i a Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530

ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General of the State of New York; Tlie Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341

David W. Kloss , Esq. Kloss & Stenger

... 69 Delaware Ave Ste 1003 Buffalo, NY 14202

Jeremy A. Colby , Esq. Webster Szanyi, LLP 1400 Liberty Bldg. - Buffalo, NY 14202

Joseph F. Reina , Esq. Erie County Dept. of Law 69 Delaware Ave. - Ste 300 Buffalo, NY 14202

Michael E. Davis , Esq. Monroe Cty Dept. of Law 39 West Main St., Rm 307 Rochester. NY 14614

Michael P. McCarthv Esq. Onondaga Cty Dept of Law John H. Mulroy Civic Cntr 421 Montgomery St., FL 10 Syracuse, NY 13202

Thomas Simeti , Esq. Rockland Cty, Dept. of Law 11 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956 ,

Aaron J. Marcus , Esq. Broome Cty Atty's Office 44 Hawley Street POB 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902

Michael'~. Reinhardt, Esq. Ontario County Attorney's Office 27 North Main Street -4th Floor Canandaigua, NY 14424-1447

John V. Hartwell , Esq. Jefferson County Attorney's Office 175 Arsenal Street Watertown, NY 13601

Alan R. P e t e m , Esq. Hiscock & Barclay, LLP One Park Place 300 South State Street P.O. Box 4878 Syracuse, NY 13221-4878

Tina M. Wayland-Smith , Esq. Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC 60 East State Street Shemll, NY 13461

Francine A. Chavez , ks. NM Attorney General's office P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504

Jason T. Contreras, AAG Amanda J. Cochran-McCall, AAG Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division 300 West 15th Street, 11th Floor Austin, Texas 78701

KIMBERLY GALVIN, ESQ., Diana L. Varela , Ex A"":"*,,* Attn.na.3 c

Aven Rennie, Esq. McGavem, McGavem & Grimm, LLP 1100 Rand Building 14 Lafayette Square Buffalo,, NY 14203

Stephen M. Sorrels , Esq. Feldman. Kiefer & Herman, LLP 110 Pearl Street - Suite 400 Buffalo, NY 14202 -. Joshua J. Hicks Sr. Deputy Attorney General Civil Division 100 North Carson Street Carson City, NV. 89701-4717

Eric J. Wilson , Esq. Assistant Attorney General the State of Oregon Dept. of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301 -4096

Edmund G. Brown Atty General Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-255 26

Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr. Esq. Assistant County Attorney- Suffolk County Attorney's Office H. Lee Dennison Bldg. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 1 1788-0099

Ester Miller, Esq., Assist Cty Atty. Nassau County Attorney's Office 1 West Street

1- Mineola, NY 11501

Special Counsel Attorney for The N.Y.S. Bd. of Elections

maalaLarL m r r v l u r j "eneral Attorney for State of Arizona l37C Wart Washington Phoenix, I A I J V V b D

40 Steuben Street, . ; ,:: ; : ' ,j 4:; i Arizona 8 ~ ~ . -.-- Albany, Ny' nfM)-T , T ; , I ::, i..j <\ ':! 3 '3

, r i .,.!\.,,. 'r::':

, < . , $ I ; . , , ; , ,/ ,;-< <: "1 .:> .. ' I do declare and certify_under penalty of perjyqr;

_ . A , , .&; - .-: f ! ..: ;.i ' Chl

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 26 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 1 of 15

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080

Amended Complaint Page 1 of 62

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK case: 06-cv-0080 A(Sc) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide

distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People’s equity in Bottom-up suffrage, Homerule autonomy and effecting real property tax levy: JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, DAN DEL PLATO JR. GABRIEL RAZZANO, EDWARD M. PERSON JR., And CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiffs: AMENDED V. COMPLAINT

The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ; The States of: CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively; THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR §1012; THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS by its counsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities; The New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of: ERIE,MONROE, ONONDAGA, ALBANY, DUTCHESS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND, WESTCHESTER, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NASSAU, SUFFOLK, NIAGARA, ORLEANS, GENESEE, WYOMING, ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CATTARAUGUS, CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, CORTLAND, CHENANGO, COLUMBIA, TIOGA, TOMPKINS, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, BROOME, LIVINGSTON, ONTARIO, YATES, SENECA, WAYNE, OSWEGO, JEFFERSON, LEWIS, MADISON, HERKIMER, OTSEGO, ST. LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA, WASHINGTON, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER, DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON, FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN; and the duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn MARTY MARKOWITZ,

Defendants.___________________________________________________________________________x

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Article I, Article III, Article IV,

Article V, Article VI, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth, Fifteenth U.S.

Constitution amendments; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331, §1343(3) and §§2201-02; 42 U.S.C.A. §1981,

§1982, §1983, §1985,§1986,§1988 and 42 U.S.C.A §1973gg as relates to the 1993 National

Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the October 29, 2002 Help America to Vote Act (“HAVA”),

P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 and as relates to Article 1 Sections 2 and 4 compliance with the

State of New York Constitution and Laws as a sovereign state among several sovereign states’



constitutions and related laws, and as a matter of any state and or subdivision / person, territory

that makes a false claim, as defined under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 USC §3729 thru

§3733, as well as Racketeering provisions of 18 USC §1961 thru §1968 as done under color of

HAVA for Federal Treasury reimbursement certification review by the United States Department

of Justice (DOJ) for the United States Election Assistance Corporation (EAC).

VENUE

2. Venue is properly found in this District and this Division under 28 U.S.C.A.

§§1391(b) and §1393(a) and 18 USC §1965 as a statewide HAVA funds distribution matter to be

heard by a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel in that this Court comprises the District and Division

in which Erie county among other State Subdivision Defendants that maintain their official

residence and in which the claims arose under color of the 1993 NVRA in the 42 USC §1973gg,

the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 with

available remedy as of right adopted by the New York State Election Law (“EL”) §2-100, §4-

100, §4-138, §5-210, §5-211, §5-213, §6-134, §6-138, §6-147, §6-154, §6-156.

That additional State and Federal Defendants are necessary parties arising after the enactment of

the 2002 HAVA, with significant occurrences and transactions with supplemental injuries arising

first on January 1, 2006 by failure of the State Board of Elections to maintain a virtual real-time

duplicate central data base to verify the actual active voter registration in any and all

municipalities with control over the Bottom-up original voter registration data base; and by

failure of the EAC to also maintain a duplicate certified central national data base capable of

checking the legitimacy of actual active voters nationwide in each and every state and territory

totaling FIFTY-FIVE (55).



That this matter has related active cases with different issues:

a) in Western District of New York Forjone v. Leavitt 05-cv-395 before the Honorable

Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara with an interlocutory appeal dismissed by 2nd Circuit

case 05-4513-cv, with motions pending involving 28 USC 2284;

b) in Northern District of New York Loeber v. Spargo 04-cv-1193 before Judge

Lawrence E. Kahn with an appeal wrongly pending before the Second Circuit in case

05-6956-cv and dismissal of an Original Proceeding 05-6539-op with a motion for en

banc on procedural matters pending involving 28 USC 2284;

c) in Northern District of New York USA v. New York State et.al. 06-cv-263 before

Judge Gary L. Sharpe in the matter of New York not meeting the January 1, 2006

HAVA deadline- and where Plaintiffs are denied intervention with prejudice.

d) in Eastern District of New York Torres et.al. v NYS BOE et.al. 04-cv-1129 before

Judge John Gleeson with a January 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order and

Preliminary Injunction with significant elements effected by redistricting, Strunk was

denied intervention status.

e) in Northern District of New York Fitzgerald et.al. v. NYS BOE et.al. 02-cv-926

before Judge Norman A. Mordue with amended complaint in the matter of the NVRA

and HAVA involving ballot access and lockbox restraint, effected by the decision of

Judge Gleeson in the EDNY case Green v NYS BOE 02-cv-6465 with 2nd Circuit

upholding permanent injunction on N.Y. voter registration in November 2004.



PARTIES

3. At all times relevant to the instant action of all PLAINTIFFS, hereinafter known as

“Plaintiffs”, “Eligible Voters”, “PEOPLE”(1) “U.S. Citizens”, “whistleblowers”, “relators” are

U.S. Citizens entitled and or duly registered voters as “active voters” per Election Law §5-213

organized under EL §4-100 within a legitimate NYS municipality of the State of New York, by

individual “relator” affidavit of verification attached, are part of a class of state U.S. Citizens jus

tertii of the PEOPLE without any control over patronage, policy, and purse, who are pro se

without an attorney, per 18 USC §1964(c) hereby complain of Defendants as persons defined by

31 USC §3729 thru §3733 under the False Claims Act (FCA) and 18 USC §1962(a)(b)(c)(d).

4. John Joseph Forjone, 5367 Upper Holley Road mailing address POB 28 Clarendon

NY 14429 Phone: 585-721-7673, injured in County of Orleans with George D. Maziarz 62nd SD

and Charles Nesbitt 139th AD

5. a.) Dan Del Plato Jr., 50 Chandler Avenue, Batavia, N.Y. 14202, Phone:

585.343.5283 e-mail [email protected] injured in County of Genesee;

5. b.) PENDING DISMISSAL Wayne Alan Mack, 1178 Indian Church Rd. West Seneca NY,

14224 Phone: 716.675.5285, Cell 566.0056 e-mail [email protected], County of Erie.

(That Plaintiffs received a copy of a letter to Mr. Mack dated March 27, 2006 from

Magavern Magavern & Grimm, and as such we also understand that the firm does not

represent him expressing his desire not to be a plaintiff. Plaintiffs are all aware that Mr.

Mack had been employed by Erie County, has considerable first hand experience with

government in the Medicaid program compliance, and Mr. Mack desires his job back

without complication.)

6. Gabriel Razzano, 135 Gordon Place Freeport, New York 11520, Phone 516-223-

6883, injured in County of Nassau, with Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. in the 8th SD and David G.

McDonough in the 19th AD

1 New York State Constitution Article IX “Local Government” definition of the “PEOPLE” (d) Whenever used in this Article the following terms shall mean or include… (3) “PEOPLE.” Persons entitled to vote as provided in section one of Article two of this constitution.



7. Edward M. Person, Jr., 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon N.Y. 11703 Phone

631-667-7316, injured in County of Suffolk, Owen H. Johnson in 4th SD & Andrew P. Raia 9th

AD with real property in the 6th AD.

8. Christopher Earl Strunk, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238

Phone 845-389-0774, injured in City of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn, Velmanette

Montgomery in 18th SD and Roger L. Green in the 57th AD.

9. Plaintiffs are associated with The AD HOC NYS People’s Bottom-up Suffrage and

Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide (“AD HOC U.S.

Citizens”) for this suit as of right seeking remedy individually jus tertii (third party status created

by malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty) within a respective municipality of residence

as an unincorporated association that would be granted recognition by the NYS Civil Rights

Consolidated Law Chapter 6 Article 5A (CRL) with twenty or more members.

10. The United States ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (“EAC“),

Address United States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite -

1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202)

566-3127 E-mail Address [email protected] by the THOMAS R. WILKEY as the EAC

Executive Director Address, that operates under the auspice of the Voting Rights Act , United

States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite - 1100 Washington,

DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202) 566-3127 E-mail

Address [email protected].

11. The United States Department of Justice by ALBERTO GONZALEZ is the

Honorable United States of America Attorney General, is a statutory party herein under 28 USC

2403 takes orders from the chief law enforcement officer of the United States President George

W. Bush (“Respondent”, “U.S. Attorney General”, “DOJ”, collectively as “Defendants” or

“Respondents”), serves at the pleasure of the President with advice and consent of Congress has



offices other than Washington D.C. in every State and here in this venue such ancillary office is

located at the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, 138 Delaware

Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202; The United States Attorney General has the duty and

authority to defend the Federal Constitution, Congressional Law, Civil Rights Law, the Voting

Rights Act Immigration and Nationality Act, HAVA, and Public Officers with duties during

good behavior;

12. At all times relevant to the instant action of all STATE DEFENDANTS, hereinafter

known as “State Defendants”, and Collectively as “Defendants” each state of the several states to

numerous to name each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively:

a) the state of CALIFORNIA, the Secretary of State at 1500 11th Street Sacramento, California 95814, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 (916) 445-9555

b) the state of OREGON, the Secretary of State at Room 136 State Capitol Salem, OR 97301 Fax: (503) 986-1616, and the Attorney General at the Department of Justice 1162 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Fax: (503) 378-4017 TTY: (503) 378-5938

c) the state of NEVADA, the Secretary of State at 101 North Carson Street, Suite 3Carson City, NV 89701-3714, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney General Nevada Department of Justice Carson City Office 100 North Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 (775) 684-1100 Fax - (775) 684-1108

d) the state of ARIZONA, the Secretary of State at Capitol Executive Tower 7th Floor 1700 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 602.542.5025 Fax 602.542.4085, 800.352.8431 (outside Phoenix and Tucson)

e) the state of NEW MEXICO, the Secretary of State at Office of the New Mexico Secretary of State, State Capitol North Annex, Suite 300 , Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503, Phone: (505) 827-3600, FAX: (505) 827-3634 Toll Free 1-800-477-3632, and Attorney General at 407 Galisteo Street Bataan Memorial Building, Room 260, Santa Fe, NM 87501, Phone:(505) 827-6000, Fax: (505) 827-5826



f) the state of TEXAS by the Secretary of State at Executive Offices State Capitol Room 1E.8 Austin Texas 78701, (512) 463-5770 Fax (512) 475-2761 E-mail; [email protected] , and Attorney General at By U.S. Mail: Office of the Attorney General PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548- Physical Address:Office of the Attorney General 300 W. 15th Street Austin, TX 78701

13. THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL in the person of ELIOT SPITZER,

individually and as public officer is the State of New York Attorney General duly elected

Democratic Party chief law enforcement officer (“Respondent”, “Defendant”, “Attorney

General”, collectively as “Respondents”, “Defendants”), with offices located at the State of New

York Capitol Albany New York 12224 and per CPLR 1012 is vested with the authority to defend

the State Constitution, Civil Rights Law and Public Officers with duties during good behavior;

14. THE NEW YORK SECRETARY OF STATE individually and as a public officer,

is the Secretary of the State of New York is a Republican Party member duly appointed and

serves at the pleasure of Governor (“Defendant”, “Secretary of State”, “SOS”, collectively as

“Defendants”), with offices located at The New York State Department of State 41 State Street

Albany, NY 12231, is a member of NASS and by law is the Public Officer charged with

responsibility to safeguard civil rights under CRL to review for compliance and repository for

all, incorporated and unincorporated association due process including 58 municipalities with

Boards of Elections within, safeguards all records for New York;

15. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, created under EL §3-100

two “bi-partisan” co-chairman and two “bipartisan” commissioners with jurisdiction and

authority over every one of the 58 Municipal Boards of Elections, along with every Corporation

Counsel of every Municipality including the Board of Elections, of the city of New York, by

their special counsel Todd Valentine Esq. with place of business located at 40 Steuben Street

Albany, New York 12207-2109.



16. At all times relevant to the instant action all MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS,

hereinafter known as “Municipality”, “Municipalities”, “County(s)”, “Municipal Defendant(s)”,

“State Subdivision(s)”, “person(s)”, “HAVA claim filers”, collectively as “Defendants”, are to

maintain an elected local government legislative body per NYSC Article IX and maintain a

Bottom-up data base of real property owners subject to real property tax levy under EL §4-138

and as such use a municipal board of elections per Election Law to maintain original records

database of real property owners and qualified voter registrations and voting records of duly

registered voters as “active voters” per Election Law §5-213 organized under EL §4-100 resident

within a NYS municipality of the State of New York; and that each exists with a state

constitution Article III suffrage and Homerule autonomy conformance mandate of the State

Legislature for protection of the People’s speech and association by a dedicated representative in

the Assembly by no less than two (2) ADs coterminous and compact within each such

municipality and

17. That Eleven (11) Municipal Defendants, including the city of New York and the

People resident in the NYC Boro of Brooklyn represented by natural Person of the Brooklyn

Borough President, are entitled to a municipal Board of Elections a municipal entity created by

the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX and Article II accordingly for the People

within ERIE, MONROE, ONONDAGA, ALBANY, DUTCHESS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND,

WESTCHESTER, NASSAU, SUFFOLK:

a. Erie County Attorney Frederick A. Wolf, Esq. 69 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, New York 14202 phone - 858-2200, fax - 858-2281

b. Monroe County Attorney Daniel M. DeLaus, Jr., Esq. Law Department Room 307 Monroe County Office Building 39 West Main Street Rochester, New York 14614 Phone: (585) 753-1380 Fax: 753-1331 [email protected]

c. Onondaga County Attorney Anthony P. Rivizzigno Onondaga County Department of Law John H. Mulroy Civic Center 10th FL. 421 Montgomery Street Syracuse, New York 13202 [email protected]



d. Albany County Attorney c/o Department of Law Office of the County Attorney 112 State St- Room 900 Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 447-7110 Fax: 5564

e. Dutchess County Attorney, Ronald Wozniak, 22 Market Street Poughkeepsie NY 12601 (845) 486-2110 Fax 486-2002 mailto:[email protected]

f. Orange County Attorney, David Darwin, Esq., Orange County Government Center 255 Main Street Goshen, NY 10924 Law Department Municipal: (845) 291-3150

g. Rockland County Attorney, Patricia Zugibe, 11 New Hempstead Road, New City, NY 10956 (845) 638-5180, (845) 638-5676

h. Westchester County Attorney, Charlene M. Indelicato Law Department 148 Martine Avenue Michaelian Office Building White Plains, NY 10601-3311 Phone: (914) 995-2000 Fax: (914) 285-3884

i. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity created by the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX and Article II accordingly for the People within, which as a corporate entity subsumes pre existing Counties, without Homerule since 1964 are now boroughs of the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, that NYC exists at State Legislature pleasure; (“Defendant”, “NYC”, “Person”) with place of service at the NYC Corporation Counsel. Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0995

j. Nassau County Attorney, Lorna Goodman, Esq. 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501 (516) 571-3056

k. Suffolk County Attorney, Christine Malafi, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Hwy PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 (631)853-4049 FAX 853-5169

17. Each of Forty-seven (47) Municipalities without sufficient total persons excluding

the civilly dead resident within for the People therein to have Homerule with at least two (2)

Assembly Districts coterminous within as such are null municipal entities historically created by

the neglect of the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX, Article II and Article III

accordingly for the People with a nullity municipal Board of Elections including NIAGARA,

ORLEANS, GENESEE, WYOMING, ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CATTARAUGUS,

CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, CORTLAND, CHENANGO, COLUMBIA, TIOGA,

TOMPKINS, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, BROOME, LIVINGSTON, ONTARIO, YATES,

SENECA, WAYNE, OSWEGO, JEFFERSON, LEWIS, MADISON, HERKIMER, OTSEGO, ST.

LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA,



WASHINGTON, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER, DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON,

FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN:

l. Niagara County Attorney Claude A Joerg, Esq. Courthouse, 175 Hawley Street, Lockport NY 14094-2740 [email protected]

m. Allegany County Attorney, Daniel J Guiney, Esq. County Office Building, 7 Court Street; Belmont, New York 14813, Telephone: (585) 268-9410 Email: [email protected]

n. Broome County Attorney, c/o the County Clerk Broome County Office Building 44 Hawley Street, 6th Floor PO Box 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902-1766 Phone: 607.778.2117 [email protected]

o. Chautauqua County Attorney, Frederick Larson, Esq. Chautauqua County Law Department Gerace Office Building Mayville, New York 14757 (716) 753-4247 email: [email protected]

p. Cattaraugus County Attorney, Dennis Tobolski, Esq. 303 Court Street - Little Valley 14755 Extension: 2390 Phone: 716- 938-9111 Fax: 938-9438 [email protected]

q. Cayuga County Attorney, Fredrick Westphal, Esq. 160 Genesee St., 6th FL (315) 253-1274 Fax #: 253-1098

r. Chemung County Attorney, c/o Law Department 203 Lake St. Elmira, NY 14901 607-737-2982

s. Oneida County Attorney, Randal B. Caldwell, Esq. Oneida County Office Building 800 Park Avenue Utica, New York 13501 Phone : (315) 798-5910 Fax 798-5603 Email: [email protected]

t. Cortland County Attorney, John Bardsley, Esq. County Office Building, 3rd Floor 60 Central Avenue Cortland, NY 13045 Phone: (607) 753-5095 E-mail: [email protected]

u. Chenango County Attorney, Richard W. Breslin, Esq. 5 Court Street Norwich, New York 13815 Phone: (607) - 337-1405

v. Columbia County Attorney, Daniel J. Tuczinski, Esq. 401 State Street, Hudson, NY 12534 (518) 828-3303 Fax (518) 828-9535

w. Tioga County Attorney, David Dutko, Esq. 56 Main Street Owego, New York 13827 Tel. (607) 687-8253, Fax. 223-7003

x. Tompkins County Attorney, Jonathan Wood, Esq. 125 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-5546 [email protected]

y. Schuyler County Attorney, c/o The Schuyler County Attorney's Office 105 Ninth Street, Watkins Glen, NY 14891 Tele: (607) 535-8100 Fax: (607) 535-8109

z. Steuben County Attorney, Frederick H. Ahrens, Esq. Attorney's Office 3 East Pulteney Square, Bath, New York 14810 Telephone: (607) 776-9631 Ext. 2355

aa. Livingston County Attorney, David J. Morris, Esq. Government Center 6 Court Street, Geneseo, NY 14020 [email protected] (585) 243-7033

bb. Ontario County Attorney, John W. Park, Esq. Ontario County Courthouse 27 North Main Street Canandaigua, N.Y. 14424 Voice: (585) 396-4411; Fax 4481.

cc. Yates County Attorney, Bernetta A. Bourcy, Esq. Yates County Courthouse 415 Liberty Street, Suite 204 Penn Yan, NY 14527



dd. Seneca County Attorney, Steven Getman, Esq. Seneca County Office Building 1 DiPronio Drive, Waterloo, NY 13165 Phone: 315-539-1833, Fax: 315-539-3789 E-mail: [email protected]

ee. Wayne County Attorney, Daniel M. Wyner, Esq. Court House -26 Church Street, Lyons, New York 14489 315-946-7442, E-mail: [email protected]

ff. Oswego County Attorney, Richard Mitchell, Interim 46 E. Bridge St., Oswego, NY 13126 Telephone 349-8296 349-8290 Telefax 349-8298

gg. Orleans County Attorney, David C. Schubel, Esq. P.O. Box 606, Medina, NY 14103 (585) 798-2250 FAX: 798-0776 E-mail: [email protected].

hh. Genesee County Attorney, c/o the County Clerk the County Courthouse, 7 West Main Street, Batavia, NY 14020 (585)344-2550 ext 2205. [email protected]

ii. Wyoming County Attorney, Eric T. Dadd, Esq. 11 Exchange Street, Attica, New York 14011 Phone 585-591-1724 [email protected]

jj. Jefferson County Attorney, John Hartzell, Esq. 175 Arsenal Street Watertown, New York 13601 Phone: (315)785-3088, FAX (315)785-5178

kk. Lewis County Attorney, Richard Graham, Esq. 7606 N. State Street Lowville, NY 13367 Phone: 315-376-5282, Fax: 3857 Email: [email protected]

ll. Madison County Attorney, S. John Campanie, Esq., Box 635 Wampsville, NY 13163 (315) 366-2203 / fax (315) 366-2502

mm. Herkimer County Attorney, Robert J. Malone, Esq. Suite 1320 County Office Building: 109 Mary Street, Herkimer, NY 13350 Phone: 867-1123 Fax: 1109

nn. Otsego County Attorney, James Konstanty, Esq. 197 Main Street Cooperstown, NY 13326-1129 Phone: 607-547-4208 FAX: 547-7572; [email protected][email protected],

oo. St. Lawrence County Attorney, Andrew W. Silver, Esq. Building #8 County Attorney 48 Court Street, Canton, New York 13617 Phone: 315-379-2269 Fax: 379-2254 [email protected]

pp. Franklin County Attorney, c/o County Manager James N. Feeley 355 West Main Street, Malone, New York 12953 Phone: 518/481-1693 Fax: 483-0141 [email protected]

qq. Clinton County Attorney, Dennis D. Curtin, Esq. 1 Cumberland Avenue P.O. Box 2947 Plattsburgh, NY 12901 Phone: (518) 561-4400 FAX 561-4848

rr. Essex County Attorney, Jill Drummond, Esq. 7551 Court Street P.O. Box 217 Elizabethtown, New York 12932 518-873-3380 FAX 518-873-3894

ss. Montgomery County Attorney, Douglas E. Landon, Esq. 155 2nd Avenue, Fonda, NY 12068 Phone: (518) 829-5067

tt. Warren County Attorney, Paul B. Dusek, Esq. Warren County Municipal Center 1340 State Rt. 9 Lake George, NY 12845 518-761-6463 Fax 518-761-6377

uu. Saratoga County Attorney, Sara Caty, Esq. 40 McMaster Street Building #1 Second Floor, Ballston Spa, New York 12020 518-884-4770 E-mail: [email protected]

vv. Washington County Attorney, Roger Wickes, Esq. County Municipal Center, FortEdward, NY 12828. Phone (518) 746-2216

ww. Rensselaer County Attorney, Robert A. Smith, Esq. Rensselaer County Office Building - 4th Floor NY 1600 7th Ave Troy, NY 12180-3410 (518) 270-2950



xx. Greene County Attorney, Carol D. Stevens, Esq. 411 Main Street Catskill, NY 12414 Phone: 518 719-3540 Fax: 518 719-3790 [email protected]

yy. Ulster County Attorney, Joshua Koplovich, Esq. County Office Building, 6th Floor 244 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Phone: (845) 340-3685 Fax: 340-3691

zz. Delaware County Attorney, c/o Gary L. Cady, County Clerk 11 Main Street PO Box 426 Delhi, NY 13753 (607) 746-2123 Fax (607) 746-6924.

aaa. Putnam County Attorney, phone 845225-3641 ext. 260, c/o County Executive Robert J. Bondi County Executive Putnam County Office Building 40 Gleneida Avenue, 3rd Floor Carmel, N. Y. 10512 (845) 225-3641, ext. 200 FAX 225-0294

bbb. Hamilton County Attorney, c/o of County Clerk at Hamilton County, New York County Office Building Box 771 Indian Lake, NY • 12842-0771 518-648-5239 [email protected]

ccc. Fulton County Attorney, Arthur Spring, Esq., County Office Building 223 West Main Street Johnstown, NY 12095, Phone; 518-736-5803 FAX 762-4504

ddd. Schenectady County Attorney, c/o John J. Woodward Schenectady County Clerk’s Office 620 State Street, Schenectady, NY 12305 Phone: (518) 388-4220, 388-4493

eee. Schoharie County Attorney, Michael West, Esq. 2668 State Route 7, Suite 34, Cobleskill, NY 12043 Phone: 518-296-8844 Fax: 518-296-8855

fff. Sullivan County Attorney, Sam Yasgur, Esq. Sullivan County Government Center 100 North Street P.O. Box 5012 Monticello, NY 12701-5192 845-794-3000 FAX: 845-794-3459 E-Mail: [email protected] Phone: (845)-794-3000 ext. 3565 Fax: (845)-794-4924

18. MARTY MARKOWITZ, the natural person Borough President of Brooklyn,

Democrat out of the Brooklyn Democratic machine associated with the State Democratic

Committee, duly elected by the People of Brooklyn, is a powerless figurehead that has a

ceremonial staff, picks some members of the city planning board, however has no authority over

the City of New York Board of Elections or any other policy regarding bottom-up suffrage and

autonomy for US Citizens resident within Brooklyn; (“Defendant”, “Boro President”,

collectively as “Defendants”, “State Defendants”, “State Public Officer”, “Public Officer”) with

place for service at Brooklyn Borough Hall, Brooklyn New York 11201;

BACKGROUND FACTS

19. The 1973 / 1975 Helsinki Accords under the auspices of NATO (North Atlantic

Treaty Organization) in combination with the 1966 Universal Declaration of Human Rights



issued by the United Nations, is being utilized to modify suffrage here in New York and each

state of the several states and territories of the United States.

20. The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was adopted by a summit meeting of most

European governments in addition to those of Canada, the United States and the Asian countries

of the former Soviet Union, in Paris on 21 November 1990.

21. The Charter of Paris was established on the foundation of the Helsinki Accords, and

was further amended in the 1999 Charter for European Security. Together, these documents form

the agreed basis for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

22. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is an

international organization for security; in its region, OSCE is concerned with early warning,

conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.

23. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has 55 participating states

from Europe, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Central Asia and North America, with agents

operating with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and whose Office for Democratic

Institutions and Human Rights is the oldest OSCE institution, established in 1990.

24. OSCE is based in Warsaw, Poland, and is active throughout the OSCE area in the

fields of election observation, democratic development, human rights, tolerance and non-

discrimination, and rule of law.

25. OSCE/ODIHR has observed over 150 elections and referenda since 1995, sending

more than 15,000 observers.

26. OSCE/ODIHR has operated outside its own area more than once. Notably a 43-

member OSCE team offered technical support for the October 9, 2004 presidential election in

Afghanistan, as well as with multiple inspection teams inside the United States.



27. The 1991 “Copenhagen Declaration” on International Standards of Elections

associated with the OSCE created after the so-called collapse of the USSR (actually seen as a

shift in war by alternative means) follows the script of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe

that adopts the Helsinki Accords’ human rights goals ratified by the U.S. Senate except for those

Copenhagen Declaration articles that are not self actuating and unenforceable unless adopted by

each of the several states in suffrage matters.

28. The unenforceability of the Copenhagen Declaration entered by President George

H.W. Bush and the Federal Executive in 1990 requires that of 53 Articles the first 27 Articles

are not self-actuating, because nearly exclusively the 50 States who are not party to the treaty

per se individually in each state legislatures in the name of the people within control suffrage.

29. Under the Federal Constitution Article I Sections 1, 4, 8-18, Article II Section 1-4,

Article IV, Article V, Article VI, Article VII limits the power of Congress in keeping with the

spirit of the Copenhagen Declaration as an Extension of the CSCE Helsinki Accords with the

OSCE / ODIHR overtly interfering with elections under the NVRA and HAVA empowers the

Federal Judiciary to hear specific grievance under 42 USC 1973gg.

30. In 1993 the National Voter Registration Act “Motor Voter” “Registration by Mail”

was enacted as a self-fulfilling design by Congress to circumvent state sovereign control over

suffrage and create a central voter registration data base for those states maintaining such and

nationally supposedly to prevent the ongoing interstate and intrastate abuse of “One Person One

vote”, and thereby a “real time” state central data base, done nationally breaks the status quo.

31. Enactment of NVRA is adopted from the language of the Copenhagen Declaration

despite the non-self actuating aspects, nevertheless mandates state compliance without an

amendment to the Federal Constitution.



32. The Nov. 21, 1995 Dayton Accords were created as an extension of the Helsinki

Accords and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, that brought forth Copenhagen and NVRA;

33. That the Dayton Accords are an social engineering experiment intended to afford

suffrage to otherwise questionable transient persons deemed resident in the New state (Bosnia

Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia) therein requiring provisional voting at a general election,

which has since been adopted by HAVA;

34. And Furthermore like boiling a frog the provisional voting experiments by the OSCE

/ ODIHR in Bosnia under the Dayton accords, are now being used to further impose top-down

control over the outcome of elections in every state of the several states, that as of October 29,

2002 Congress enacted Help America to Vote Act (“HAVA”), P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 as a

questionable mandate under Article 1 Section 4 to carry forward the state by state requirement

for a central voter databases that was to be done by January 1, 2006 for the November 2006

national elections, with final system operations due in 2008.

35. As enticement for cooperation of the southwest border states Congress created an

overly broad HAVA reimbursement formula based upon “Voting Age Population” (VAP); and

by vagueness and cynical interpretation would include all persons enumerated in the 2000

Census who are 18 years of age and older whether citizens or not, rather than “Citizens Voting

Age Population” (CVAP) that does not include non-citizens, the civilly dead and those U.S.

Citizens otherwise not entitled to register to vote.

36. Nowhere in the United States does a non-citizen have a civil right to vote in any

Federal Election at the state level and therefore VAP must only be defined as CVAP.

37. New York only uses those U.S. Citizens who are registered to vote, and is not

interested in those citizens who aren’t registered- e.g. no non-citizen is of voting age.



38. the States of CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS,

OREGON all require that only US Citizens be allowed to vote would violate their own state

constitutions and election laws by using VAP under the broad definition used by Congress to

raid the US Treasury of HAVA Funds disproportionately from New York and other states with

less non-citizens or otherwise more honest in filing for HAVA certification and funds.

39. The September 2005 report by the American University Commission on Federal

Election Reform and Center for Democracy & Election Management whose Co-Chairmen James

E Carte and James Baker III report on the public confidence in the election system in Section II

for Voter Registration and Identification state quote that “under the National Voter Registration

Act, names are often added to the list, but counties and municipalities often do not delete the

names of those who moved.. Inflated voter lists are also caused by phony registrations and

efforts to register individuals who are ineligible…. At the same time, inaccurate purges of voter

lists have removed citizens who are eligible and are properly registered. …[T]he quality of voter

registration lists probably varies widely by state. Without quality assurance, however, cross-

state transfers of voter data may suffer from the problem of ’garbage in, garbage out’…”

40. In New York we have bottom-up suffrage in supposedly Homerule municipalities

with a BOE within that is to maintain the original voting records, and each such municipality

outside the city of New York provide funds for expense of all elections by a real property tax

levy under EL §4-138.

41. In New York 47 municipalities of 58 by mis application and administration of the

State Constitution and Elections Laws do not have at least two (2) Assembly Districts

coterminous within as required by the State Constitution Article III Section 5, as such are a legal

nullity and do not even qualify for having a municipal board of Elections within.



42. As a top-down matter, the New York state Election Law §4-100 requires that each

“Election District” as a single polling place with at least one voting machine have 950 Active

Voters per EL §5-213 each for equal time place and manner of suffrage- the status quo in New

York as a rule fails to provide equity as such.

43. As a result of the April 22, 2002 redistricting using the 2000 Census by the State

Legislature, Governor, Secretary of State, have continued since the WMCA v. Lomenzo , 377

U.S. 633 (1964) US Supreme Court case to mis administer and apply the State Constitution

and related laws as applies to Municipal boundaries, Election Districts, Assembly Districts,

Senate Districts, Congressional Districts and Judicial Districts statewide using total population

without giving deference for actual citizens eligible to vote and there by gerrymander vote

effectiveness.

44. That each legitimate state subdivision municipality with a legislative body and board

of elections within, in which there are eleven legitimately formed, had until March 1, 2006 to

declare its intention to redraw their own Senate, Assembly, Legislative and Election Districts

within in order to comply with administration and application of equal time place and manner for

bottom-up suffrage within in a fight for more HAVA funding.

45. Despite adequate notification to each and every one of the 58 state subdivision

municipalities named as defendants herein, not one of the municipalities has expressed intent to

reconfigure any districts coterminous within.

46. That NYC is too large in population size by proper application and administration of

the State Constitution and Laws shall not have 1/3 and or ½ of all the State Senators- does;

47. That the State BOE and the State of New York failed to meet the HAVA deadline of

January 1, 2006 to create a central data base which is the subject of a case before the Honorable



Gary L. Sharpe in NDNY 06-cv-263.

48. the State BOE knows an active ongoing central data base, as opposed to the present

once every two years as a snapshot, would entail detecting Election Law Article 17 illegal

interstate / intrastate multiple voting, domicile residency and uncovering the civilly dead and

thereby greatly reduce the number of both active and inactive voters on the registration roles and

thereby decrease the amount of HAVA money due the state.

49. The HAVA penalty, and lack of interstate and intrastate HAVA funding equity means

that real property owners are not equally treated on a municipal by municipal basis and some of

which will lose real property in smaller municipalities as a result of the increased burden

imposed by the HAVA mandate of as much as a 500% Tax Levy increase.

50. Plaintiffs in the Western part of the state as in the Eastern part, on an intrastate basis

want equity with all other parts of the state in HAVA funding missing since 1994, and

51. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that New York suffers interstate injury is caused by

loss of HAVA funds when California etcetera use a broad interpretation of VAP versus CVAP

contrary to its own election laws and constitutions in seek HAVA funding; New York gets less

funds than it should be entitled to.

52. An Erie County BOE audit as with the other municipalities with a BOE to numerous

to name, report that Erie County is unable to pay for compliance with the HAVA without raising

real property taxes or getting more of a share of HAVA money now going to California and

other states making false claims under HAVA, and in that regard the 27 January 2006 Erie Board

Of Elections Audit Released Written by Press Release at Cost, Free!!

http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=898

Erie County, NY - Our review determined that the Boards staffing structure of 36 full-time employees is sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate part-time and seasonal employees, said Poloncarz. However, our auditors determined that the Board does not have sufficient funding for part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities



and that additional funding will likely be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Erie County Comptroller Mark C. Poloncarz today issued an audit of the Erie County Board of Elections (Board) for the period starting October 1, 2004 and ending September 30, 2005. The review was initiated by Comptroller, Poloncarz's predecessor in October 2005 at the request of the Erie County Legislature and Executive. The audit examined staffing and operational issues relating to the conduct of elections.

"Our review determined that the Board's staffing structure of 36 full-time employees is sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate part-time and seasonal employees”, said Poloncarz.

"However, our auditors determined that the Board does not have sufficient funding for part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities and that additional funding will likely be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)." Poloncarz expressed concerns over the Board's ability to conduct, within its current appropriation, the February 28th Special Election for the New York State Senate, September Primary Election, and November General Election. Poloncarz stated, "The Board's 2006 Budget appropriation is not sufficient to meet the new expenses incurred by the County under HAVA, and additional funding will be necessary." The audit reports that HAVA costs to Erie County in 2006 will be at least $1.4 million, and likely higher. HAVA is the federal legislation passed in the wake of the 2000 Presidential Election requiring state and local elections officials to implement certain procedures to safeguard elections. In New York State, this includes transferring election responsibilities and those respective expenses from cities and towns to the County.

53. In the September 2005 GAO Report 05-956 on ELECTIONS it found that:

Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting SystemsAre Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed

While electronic voting systems hold promise for improving the election process, numerous entities have raised concerns about their security and reliability, citing instances of weak security controls, system design flaws, inadequate system version control, inadequate security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor security management, and vague or incomplete voting system standards (see below for examples). It is important to note that many of these concerns were based on specific system makes and models or a specific jurisdiction’s election, and there is no consensus among election officials and other experts on their pervasiveness. Nevertheless, some have caused problems in elections and therefore merit attention.

Federal organizations and nongovernmental groups have issued both election-specific recommended practices for improving the voting process and more general guidance intended to help organizations manage information systems’ security and reliability. These recommended practices and guidelines (applicable throughout the voting system life cycle) include having vendors build security controls and audit trails into their systems during development, and having election officials specify security requirements when acquiring systems. Other suggested practices include testing and certifying systems against national voting system standards.

The federal government has begun efforts intended to improve life cycle management of electronic voting systems and thereby improve their security and reliability. Specifically, EAC has led efforts to (1) draft changes to existing federal voluntary standards for voting systems, including provisions addressing security and reliability; (2) develop a process for certifying voting systems; (3) establish a program to accredit independent laboratories to test electronic voting systems; and (4) develop a library and clearinghouse for information on state and local elections and systems.

However, these actions are unlikely to have a significant effect in the 2006 federal election cycle because important changes to the voting standards have not yet been completed, the system certification and laboratory accreditation programs are still in development, and a system software library has not been updated or improved since the 2004 election. Further, EAC has not consistently defined specific tasks, processes, and time frames for completing these activities; as a result, it is unclear when their results will be available to assist state and local election officials.



54. An example in the matter of impropriety and the failure of the city of New York to

enforce the election law by equal time place, manner, and flouts the appearance of impropriety in

the matter reported on January 26, 2006 by the New York Daily news article entitled “Board

votes to spare elex boss” http://www.nydailynews.com/01-26-2006/boroughs/story/385772p-327360c.html

by HUGH SON DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, quote:

“Diane Haslett Rudiano- Despite a City Department of Investigation probe that found she lied about her voting address, an embattled Brooklyn Board of Elections honcho will keep her job, the Daily News has learned.

Board of Elections officials declined to punish Diane Haslett Rudiano - even though city investigators said she lives in Forest Hills, Queens, and not at the East New York address listed in voter registration records.

"Her attorney made a case and gave supplemental documentation that wasn't part of the DOI investigation," said Board of Elections Executive Director John Ravitz.

"And [election commissioners] decided that the residency issue DOI raised wasn't sufficient enough for disciplinary action against Rudiano."

Board of Elections commissioners unanimously voted to clear Haslett-Rudiano of the election law felony charges at a closed Tuesday hearing.

Haslett-Rudiano, who earns $76,817 as the borough's top Elections Board employee, is responsible for making sure election laws are upheld.

"I think it's a disgrace," said Sam Sloan, the political gadfly who notified the investigators of Haslett-Rudiano's address flap last year.

"I went to her supposed house," said Sloan. "I talked to 30 of her neighbors who had never seen her there. The idea that she claims she's been living there all these years is just preposterous."

Haslett-Rudiano represents East New York, Bushwick and Cypress Hills as an elected district leader in the Brooklyn Republican organization.

According to her voter registration records, Haslett-Rudiano has lived in a modest two-story Schenck Ave. house since 1988. The owner of the building, Theresa McGovern, 99, said Haslett-Rudiano lives on the second floor.

Property records show Haslett-Rudiano owns several properties, including an upper West Side townhouse and two Queens homes.

The Investigation Department report wasn't made public, and a Freedom of Information Law request to reveal its contents was rejected.

55. On March 15, 2006 – an EXCLUSIVE New York Post article entitled “Hill Foe Registers

Often, Votes Rarely” By FREDRIC U. DICKER http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/65274.htm



“ALBANY - Just-announced Republican Senate hopeful Kathleen McFarland has repeatedly failed to vote in some elections and is registered at two addresses - a possible violation of state law, The Post has found.

McFarland, a wealthy Park Avenue matron who announced last week that she'll seek the GOP nomination to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, didn't vote in nearly half of the state elections since 1991, records show.

She skipped six of the past 14 elections - starting from the time she registered as a Republican in late 1991, Board of Election records for New York City and Suffolk County show.

McFarland, a Reagan administration official in the early 1980s, has maintained two voting addresses since 1996: at her posh Park Avenue home and at her family's stunning second home on a small island near Southampton, according to the records.

She pingponged her vote from Manhattan to Southampton in various years, casting her ballot from the Ram Island address in 1998 and 1999, but voting from Park Avenue in 2000 and 2001.

She skipped the 2002 and 2003 elections, and then it was back to voting in Southampton in 2004, according to the records.

State law makes it a felony to be registered at two addresses during the same election cycle, according to state Board of Elections spokesman Lee Daghlian.

"When you change the place you've been voting, a new registration has to be filed, showing that you've changed your address," Daghlian said.

Her spokesman, William O'Reilly, said, "We don't know the circumstances around the missed votes, but we will make no excuses for them."

McFarland's newly hired election lawyer, Josh Ehrlich of Albany, insisted there was "no criminal intent, no venality here," but conceded the law does not allow dual registrations.

"This is a case of the boards of elections not doing their jobs . . . She should have been turned away," Ehrlich insisted.

Records at the two boards show McFarland registered as a Republican in Manhattan in late 1991 and then registered again as a GOPer in Southampton in 1996.

State Republican Chairman Stephen Minarik said yesterday it would "probably make more sense" for the GOP to give its nod to McFarland's opponent, ex-Yonkers Mayor John Spencer.

56. Based upon Plaintiff Strunk’s phone call with the Office of Representative Hyde of

Illinois April 18 2006 there is broad failure in any attempt to enact “The Federal Election

Integrity Act of 2004,” or H.R. 4530 or any other associated bill to ensure voting integrity that



would specifically amend the NVRA of 1993, would require any individual who desires to

register or re-register to vote in an election for federal office to provide the state election official

with proof of citizenship to prevent illegal aliens from voting in federal elections.

57. Plaintiffs pursuant to the foregoing background facts have injuries to plaintiffs’

individual proprietary suffrage property by dilution, devaluation as a targeted jus tertii class also

effected by long-term gerrymandering since the 1972 reapportionment; and that those Plaintiffs

with real property are effected by takings injury by multiple schemes to defraud facilitated by

local governments acting in conjunction with state and federal malfeasance, therefore Plaintiffs

complain such is done by defendants illegally as a if by a complex racketeering enterprise under

18 USC 1961 thru 1964 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries as follows:

58. As and for a First Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants DOJ and its

agents and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yet to be named pursuant to above

paragraphs 19 thru 57 have improperly enforced the 1993 NVRA to prevent mail-fraud by those

persons ineligible to register to vote in a respective state of the several states and or territories.

59. A report issued by the Justice Dept. in 2000 detailed a program run under auspices of

Vice President Gore's "Reinventing Government" project to streamline government services.

60. In a successful effort to clear a backlog of 1.2 million applicants, the INS engaged in

this crash program called "Citizenship USA" to naturalize the immigrants between October 1995

and September 1996, not coincidentally, just in time for the presidential election.

61. Douglas Farbrother, an official on Gore's team, is quoted in the report saying he

"believed that the (citizenship) program had a deadline that was directly connected to the

upcoming election."

62. The Clinton administration bypassed the customary FBI background check for these



new citizens demonstrating that creating new Democrat voters was a much higher priority than

national security.

63. It is estimated that tens of thousands of applications approved without FBI review.

64. The Justice Dept. report documented 1,000 cases in Miami; 1,300 cases in Chicago;

and an astonishing 2,500 cases in Los Angeles.

65. The politicization of the INS continued in the 2000 election. As documented by

journalist Joseph Farah, on Nov. 6, 2000, (one day before the national election) the California

Democratic Party sent thousands (upwards of 4 million by some estimates) of mailers out to

immigrants who had citizenship requests before the INS.

66. These non-citizens were informed, in both English and Spanish, they were registered

to vote as a Democrat and given special identification card to "help...voting go more smoothly."

67. Follow up investigations by the press pointed to the possible use of INS records to

commit this massive voter fraud.

68. How many of the recipients took advantage of the generous offer made by the

Democrats is unknown, but based on the estimates it is quite possible that Gore's much touted

popular vote win (by just under a million votes) could all be attributed to this scam alone

69. A Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report reveals that "The Matricula card is

accepted as a valid form of identification by police departments, banks and 12 states for driver's

license applications."

70. This disregard for immigration law has no positive impact for Americans except

those who seek to grant Democrats and Republicans additional power.

71. Moreover, this aberration of constitutional law is tantamount to mailing absentee

ballots for any future election to Iran, Syria, France, Germany, North Korea, or anywhere else.



72. Under the Motor Voter law, anyone [Motor Vehicle Department employees

included] who "knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to

intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to

register or vote" violates federal law.

73. Hence, the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, visa overstayers and others

classified as "refugees" who were granted amnesty or asylum by the Clinton Administration and

or borderless philosophy of Texacan George W. Bush, under the NVRA and seditious lack of

enforcement could all have been illegal voters in the 1996 thru 2004 election thereafter.

74. The DOJ has not done enforcement under NVRA to prevent those ineligible to vote

to take advantage of the Motor Voter law by registering to vote. In Florida, according to the

Florida Secretary of State's numbers, between 1994 and 1998 (the most recent data available),

the number of registered Hispanic voters skyrocketed by an astonishing 557%, from 99,000 to

655,000 while the number of White and Black registered voters increased by a reasonable 15%.

75. The number of registered Hispanic voters has grown even more dramatically in south

Florida. For example, in Dade County, from 1994 to 1998 the number of Hispanic voters grew

by 1996%, a nearly 20-fold increase! And in now-famous Palm Beach County, the four year

increase was completely off the charts, a 7,220% jump!

76. In 1996 the Clinton administration's documented immigrant fast-track citizenship

programs, which have granted citizenship to known criminals, freed to prey on innocent

Americans who "worked hard and played by the rules." ; has not skipped a beat with transition to

the Bush Administration rush to placate and entice illegal immigration and vote fraud.

77. NVRA use by applicants who had no business even visiting this country, let alone

living here, were rushed by the Clinton Administration through the citizenship maze based on the



theory they would, out of gratitude, vote for the Democratic Party.

78. While unhinged seditious Democrats and Republicans spread fear about the alleged

discriminatory disenfranchisement of American citizens, they have supported the indiscriminate

enfranchisement of untold numbers of foreign outlaws -- including suspected al Qaeda operatives

and terrorist sympathizers.

79. The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported that illegal alien Nuradin Abdi -- the

suspected shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia -- was registered to vote in the battleground

state of Ohio by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

80. Also on the Ohio voting rolls: convicted al Qaeda agent Lyman Faris, who planned

to sabotage the Brooklyn Bridge and had entered the country fraudulently from Pakistan on a

student visa.

81. In the battleground state of Florida, indicted terror suspect Sami Al-Arian illegally

cast his ballot in a Tampa referendum in 1994 while his citizenship application was pending. He

claimed the unlawful vote was a "misunderstanding." State officials declined to prosecute.

82. John Fund, author of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our

Democracy," reports that at least eight of the nineteen Sept. 11 2001 hijackers were eligible to

vote in Virginia or Florida while they plotted to kill Americans.

83. According to Ohio’s Franklin County Board of Elections, the Dispatch reports, the

office simply "takes a person's word, that they're (sic) a U.S. citizen." The Democratic Party

revealed its hand when it crafted the "motor-voter" bill, which made registration so easy that

NVRA stopped authorities from asking for proof of citizenship.

84. Another method in use by seditious state officials is the unwillingness to require an

ID at the polling place, in New York merely requires recognition by a person’s signature.



85. In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal

election (or state election, unless authorized by state law).

86. It is up to the state officials to ensure that those voting in federal, state and local

contests are citizens.

87. A vote by an illegal immigrant brings in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, a newly formed arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

88. It would be ICE's job to deport any non-citizen discovered casting a vote, whether

they are legal or illegal. Marc Raimondi, an ICE spokesman, said the penalty for being in the

country illegally would be deportation anyway.

89. Additionally, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in

violation of the IIRIRA law.

90. There are many documented reports of non-citizen voting, (2) and there is no evidence

of prosecution of the aliens for their action by DOJ or state authority.

91. With nearly 19 million foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens in the

country in the 2000 Census and an estimated 9-11 million illegal residents (many of them were

also counted in the Census by intentional refusal to ascertain actual citizenship status for fear of

decreasing responses) and now in 2006 estimated to be approaching 20 million, the potential is

enormous for non-citizens to affect the outcome of elections.

2 “Fraud Roundup,” United Press International, January 26, 2001.

“Putnam Opposed Voting Reform Act,” Lakeland, Florida Ledger, December 17, 2001. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) is quoted: “Now we find that one of the guys that flew into the buildings in New York had voted in Florida,” (referring to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers). “Think about it,” he said. “You are told you are entitled to public assistance and then almost in the same breath asked if you want to register to vote. Now, if you think that registering to vote is tied to getting assistance or to getting your driver’s license, you are going to say, ‘Yes.’”



92. Charges were made in at least three federal elections in California (3) and twice in

Florida (4) that voting by ineligible aliens determined the outcome of the election; for instance:

In Florida, election observers say a “sizable number” of Florida votes in the 2000 election

may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens. (5)

In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta

Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were

cast illegally by non-citizens. (6)

93. Investigation of the allegations established that aliens had illegally voted in those

elections, but not in sufficient numbers to have changed the result. Authorities appear not to

have prosecuted any of the aliens who voted illegally.

94. The enactment of NVRA made the process of registering to vote nearly automatic for

people applying for a state driver’s license or ID card, and called for distributing registration

applications in state welfare offices. (7)

95. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as

information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she does not want to be

3 Samuel Francis, “Voters—the Democrats Seek Them Everywhere,”Washington Times, February 17, 1995. “Fraudulent voting by illegal aliens or legal immigrants not yet citizens has been documented in a number of elections in the past — in Florida in 1989, in Los Angeles in 1988, and in some nine California counties in 1982, to mention only a few — and Republican Michael Huffington claims alien voting helped him lose last year’s California Senate race to Diane Feinstein.”

“Ineligible Voters May Have Cast a Number of Florida Ballots,” Washington Times, November 29, 2000.4 Ibid5 Ibid6 Ibid7 “Illegal Voters,”Honolulu Advertiser, September 9, 2000. Election officials found 543 Oahu residents who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote. The officials speculated a number of factors may have resulted in the voter irregularities, including language barriers and the ease of voter registration.



registered to vote. (8)

96. With driver’s licenses made available by several states to aliens (both legal and

illegal), it seems likely that voter rolls now contain large numbers of non-citizens ― enough in

close elections to change the outcome if those aliens illegally vote.(9)

97. An effort in Congress in 1998 to preclude the registration of non-citizens was

narrowly defeated. (10)

98. Among the reforms included was a provision that required ID for first time voters.

The bill passed 92-2 in the Senate. The two standouts: N.Y. Democrats Clinton and Schumer.

99. Explaining her vote, Clinton said the ID provision would "disproportionately affect

ethnic and racial minorities, recently naturalized American citizens, language minorities, the

poor, the homeless, the millions of eligible New York voters who do not have a driver's license,

and those individuals who otherwise would have exercised their right to vote without these new

provisions."

100. Considering the bill allowed for the use of Social Security numbers, pay stubs

(including government issued checks), utility bills and other forms of verification, Senator

Clinton’s real concern seems to be placed squarely on opposition to the prevention of voter fraud

by the large illegal population in her state. Forty five percent of Democratic primary voters in

8 John Fund's Political Diary, Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2000. “Voter fraud has become a bigger problem since the 1993 federal Motor Voter law required states to allow people to register to vote when they get a driver’s licenses; 47 states don't require any proof of U.S. residence for enrollment.”

9 On September 26, 1996, California’s Secretary of State ordered county voter registrars not to permit non-citizens to vote in the November 1996 elections, after it was revealed that 727 non-citizens in Los Angeles County had filled out the voter registration form attached to the driver’s license application under the new “motor voter” law.

10 Rep. Steve Horn (R-CA-38), observing a rapid increase in non-citizen voting, introduced the Voter Eligibility Verification Act that would have given voter registrars the ability to eliminate non-citizen voting. Although the bill received a majority of the votes cast, the Rules under which it was brought to the House floor required a two-thirds majority and so it failed to pass. (H.R. 1428, 105th Congress) (Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot Program Act of 1998, H.R. 3485, 105th Congress)



New York were minorities, a group Clinton clearly pandered to in making her decision.

101. Among the special interest groups that oppose requiring ID to vote: The League of

Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership

Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense

and Educational Fund.

102. The Clinton and now the Bush Administration contribute to the opening for mass

voter disenfranchisement.

103. Recently the Treasury Department handed down a decision allowing banks to

accept Matriculas under the Patriot Act, legislation enacted in part to make tracing money to

terrorist organizations easier.

104. In Congressional testimony spokesmen for both the FBI and Department of

Homeland Security backed off previously asserted national security concerns with issuing

Matricula cards to illegals. Granting legitimacy to these flawed ID's opens the door wider to

massive voter fraud in states granting driver’s licenses to non-citizens, further undermining an

already besieged franchise.

105. Flaws in the system continue to be used and expanded upon to give the Left an

unfair advantage in elections and to undermine the legitimacy of our most fundamental

American right.

106. In 2002 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, designed to correct some of

the irregularities found in the 2000 election.

107. A report filed in Washington D.C. Nov. 21, 2003 by United Press International

declared that the nation's election boards have few controls that would prevent illegal immigrants

from voting in federal, state or local elections, with many of them saying they operate under a



patriotic cloak of trust that individuals casting ballots will conform to U.S. law.

108. Federal immigration officials’ estimate in 2002 between 8 million and 11 million

illegal immigrants live in the United States and with the limited restrictions on voting policies,

some say that raises serious questions about the integrity of the U.S. voting system.

109. Three years after the country's most contentious presidential election -- inundated

with hanging chad and butterfly ballots -- the sweeping reforms promised for the voting process

in the 50 states and the District of Columbia had not been realized.

110. Moreover, with few exceptions including those instituted in Arizona and Missouri,

no security measures have been put in place to protect the veracity of elections from illegal, legal

aliens and or citizen multiply registered within a state and without a single state.

111. The U.S. Constitution details how elections in the United States are to work. To

hold office in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, it requires an individual to

reach at least age 25 or age 30, respectively, and be a citizen for at least seven years.

112. The Federal Election Commission, which oversees the financing of federal

elections, does not have jurisdiction over how elections are carried out in the individual states.

"That's not the role of the FEC. It's probably enforced by the Department of Justice," said Peggy

Sims, an FEC research specialist.

113. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in Washington, is an

organization that advocates reform of U.S. immigration policy. Dan Stein, FAIR's executive

director, says the federal government and political parties have little interest in ensuring that

illegal immigrants do not cast votes.

114. "It is one more factor that causes illegal immigration to jeopardize the integrity of

the electoral process. (If) we count illegal aliens in the census and reapportion districts to include



them and we allow people to vote illegally, we have dual nationality," Stein said.

115. "In a sense, it winds up diluting the votes. (But) it's not just a matter of diluting the

votes. If a person's vote is offset by someone voting illegally, you also have this problem of

entire states losing congressional seats. It jeopardizes the legitimacy of the whole system of

representation in this country, potentially."

116. Stein contends that efforts to match names on voter registration lists with

immigration lists have been confounded by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union,

which threaten lawsuits about information sharing. Democrats, he said, insist it would chill voter

participation.

117. FAIR’s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal

aliens vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations. He pointed to the 1996 California

race between former Rep. Robert Dornan and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, who defeated

him by 985 votes.

118. In that race Stein said that Dornan challenged the election results and set up a year-

long battle over the validity of more than 700 votes, allegedly by illegal immigrants. A House

committee voted to drop the investigation of Dornan's accusations, saying that while they had

found evidence of illegal votes by non-citizens, it wasn't enough to affect the race.

119. Stein pointed to state driver’s licenses as a problem. The so-called motor-voter

program that allows individuals to register to vote when they obtain or renew their drivers

licenses also opens the process to fraud. Some states do not require applicants to prove they are

legal residents of the United States or citizens before they obtain a drivers license

120. Since enactment of the 1993 NVRA a pattern of illegal registration use by mail

fraud by illegal aliens has been aided and abetted by partisan political figures wire and media



fraud intent on vote fraud necessary for maintaining control over patronage policy and purse,

121. There is an ubiquitous scheme to defraud elections with use of NVRA with

impunity due to lack of “bi-partisan” will to prosecute offenders at the state and federal DOJ law

enforcement level, under the guise that somehow illegal registration and voting is a victimless

crime and law enforcement would undermine confidence in elections and impact partisan gains.

122. That the FEC uses an arbitrary and capricious “unofficial” definition of VAP based

upon internal consideration separate and apart from state law (11).

11 The Federal Election Commission website http://www.fec.gov/pages/vapwords.htm, with emphasis added by Strunk quote: “A Few Words About Voting Age Population (VAP)

The term Voting Age Population (VAP), refers to the total number of persons in the United States who are 18 years of age or older regardless of citizenship, military status, felony conviction, or mental state.The standard source of VAP figures is the Bureau of Census, as reported in their Current Population Reports, Series P-25.

Extreme care must be taken when using VAP figures as a basis for measuring voter participation in elections for federal office. The actual number of eligible voters, those that are legally entitled to vote, will always be less than the VAP because of the inclusion of resident aliens (both legal and illegal), as well as convicted felons who are either institutionalized or who have not yet had their voting rights restored under the various State laws, persons declared non-compos mentis by a court of law, or those persons otherwise ineligible to vote. Neither the Bureau of Census nor any other organization can define with complete accuracy exactly how many eligible voters there are in the United States. According to 1994 estimates, approximately 13 million persons over the age of 18 were not U.S. citizens. (Non citizens make up the largest group of ineligible voting age persons. In contrast, the next largest group, institutionalized felons, who are prohibited by State law from voting in all but 4 States, numbered only about 1.2 million at the end of 1996.) In spite of these shortcomings, the lack of accurate eligibility figures requires political analysts to employ voting age population as a base number for comparisons of participation in the political process.

The other significant variable one must keep in mind when dealing with VAP is the fact that the Bureau of Census actually uses 3 separate sets of voting age population figures in any given federal election:

Projected Voting Age Population Estimated Voting Age Population Current Population Survey

The Projected Voting Age Population is provided by Census in the Spring of each election year. These figures are only "quick and dirty" extrapolations from previous data and are therefore unofficial approximations. These figures include members of the armed forces where they reside at their duty stations, but exclude the military and civilian population overseas and their dependents of voting age who would be eligible to vote by absentee ballot in their home State. These early figures are used primarily to satisfy the needs of the news media and political strategists.

The Estimated Voting Age Population are based on a sample survey conducted in the Summer of the election year and are thus "official" estimates as of July 1st and are certified as such by the Commerce Department. These figures include military and institutionalized populations but (in 1996) were not adjusted for the 4 million undercount in the 1990 census. The value of these statistics lies in their



123.As and for a Second Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants the EAC

and DOJ and its agents yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 122 have

improperly certified state HAVA submissions of the several states without reviewing the

submissions in the context of the respective state law and constitution;

124. EAC has improperly distributed HAVA funds to each state of the several states and

territories under color of HAVA on the basis of DOJ and EAC staff application review

125. That DOJ has admitted to improper review and certification of the applications from

New York in the case USA v the State of New York et.al. NDNY 06-cv-263

126. DOJ has admitted it has improperly certified for EAC to make premature funds

distribution to defendant New York without being in compliance with HAVA and or state Law

127. That DOJ admits that it has improperly certified the application for payment and

EAC has improperly disbursed funds to New York, and are without authority under HAVA to

retrieve the sums improperly paid

128. However, DOJ and EAC are empowered to retrieve HAVA funds under the False

Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733, but refuse to do so.

129. That DOJ and in turn EAC as per above paragraphs 19 thru 128 have similarly

reviewed the applications of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas as well

as the other state of the several states and territories to numerous name without using state law in

utility to government agencies like the FEC who must use them, especially in Presidential election years, for certain financial purposes.

Current Population Survey numbers are generated by Census each month based on extrapolations from the previous years estimates. In contrast, these figures do not include military or institutionalized persons, but are adjusted for the 4 million undercount.

For statistical purposes, the Federal Election Commission has opted to use the Current Population Survey figures for its report to Congress on the NVRA largely out of professional convention. These are the figures employed by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress as well as by Election Data Services, Inc.. Moreover, these are the most frequently cited sources in other private publications such as those from the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate and Congressional Quarterly.



regards to an accurate definition of VAP commensurate with the use of the respective state

election law and constitution in regards to what voting population actually is for the respective

state, i.e. any US citizen 18 years or older being a qualified to register to vote.

130.As and for a Third Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants EAC, Thomas

Wilkey and its agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 129

intentionally promote facilitate aid and abet illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona

and in other state of the several states.

131. In ARIZONA when vote fraud was suspected in the 1996 Arizona Primary (the one

that ended Pat Buchanan's winning streak after New Hampshire), the Arizona legislature passed

a special law forbidding a recount for that one primary election only!

132. Jeff Flake R-Ariz., introduced a bill that would bar federal agencies from accepting

a state-issued driver’s license unless the state has in effect a policy requiring presentation of

acceptable forms of identification prior to issuance of the license.

133. "Acceptable forms of identification" would include a birth certificate, U.S. passport,

a U.S. certificate of naturalization or U.S. certificate of citizenship.

134. Matthew Specht, an aide to Flake, said that Flake wanted to close the loophole

opened when Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002. That law states that a voter

should present to "the appropriate state or local election official current and valid photo

identification."

135. "There are some states like California that issue drivers licenses to undocumented

citizens. That would be a case where you have a legal form of identification according to federal

law ... for somebody who is not a citizen and should not be allowed to vote," Specht said. In



2004 Arizona Voters approved Proposition 200 that requires all registrants and voters to show an

idea when voting.

136. That the EAC and DOJ are working at cross purposes under HAVA as is properly

framed nationwide by the March 11, 2006 press report By C.J. Karamargin ARIZONA DAILY

STAR Tucson, Arizona entitled “U.S. panel says voters don't have to prove citizenship -

Decision appears to run counter to state's Proposition 200”.

137. That EAC and Director Wilkey treatment of the State of Arizona in the matter of

it’s plenary right to ascertain who is or is not a citizen for the purposes of voting as a conflict to

be resolved general is further elaborated by the January 24, 2005 Letter from Joseph Rich then

chief of the DOJ Voting Rights Section to the Attorney General of Arizona in the matter of

constitutionality of Arizona proposition 200.

138. Furthermore, on February 7, 2005 the Arizona Attorney General duly notified

Missouri State Senator Larry Taylor of Jefferson City of the constitutionality of proposition 200

and as such Missouri enacted a similar law requiring certification that only U.S. Citizens are

permitted to vote in Missouri. United Press International surveyed several states with large

immigrant populations to determine their policies for ensuring voters are legal citizens.

139. FAIR estimates there are as many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in

California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the state's board of elections told UPI that it has

an "inherent assumption" that individuals who sign their names on voter registration cards are

doing so legally.

140. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order

to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding that they provide registration cards in seven different

languages.



141. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or

passports to verify citizenship or when voters show up at the polls.

142. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have

been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law,"

Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred.

143. Lee Daghlian, spokesman for the New York Board of Elections, alleges that their

voter registration card is an affidavit that has an individual swear that they are a U.S. citizen and

at least 18 years of age, or face felony charges; in fact the voter registration card is an un-

witnessed declaration unenforceable as an affidavit.

144. "Is there room for someone to lie and get by, sure," Daghlian said. However, he

pointed out that the new rules for the next general election will require potential voters who

register by mail to provide their drivers license number and the last four digits of their Social

Security number.

145. A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney, Hans Von Spakovsky, charged with

determining whether to pre-clear Georgia's voter identification law penned a law review article

advocating polling-place photo ID from all voters last spring, angering critics who say the staffer

had made up his mind on the issue before reviewing it.

146. The Washington Post reported that Hans Von Spakovsky, now at the Federal

Election Commission, published the article under a pseudonym in a 2005 issue of the Texas

Review of Law & Politics - before issuing the decision to Georgia - and later added a link to his

page at the FEC. It has since been removed from the agency's site but is available here.

147. In the CALIFORNIA 1996 election that unseated Bob Dornan following his efforts

to investigate the Clinton White House, canvassers discovered that nearly half of the names



registered to vote in the GOP election from 7 precincts simply did not exist.

148. The California Attorney General's office was informed by the precinct worker, but

again nothing was done.

149. In 1998, almost 20,000 fraudulent voter registrations were discovered on the voting

rolls, but were allowed to remain on the excuse that their removal in time for the election would

cost too much!

150. California State Senator BILL MORROW of the 38th Senatorial District in a letter

to the state Attorney General Bill Lockyer on April 7, 2006 challenged him to enforce state law

in regards to illegal aliens registering to vote.

151. Morrow Alleges the registrars of voters in all of California’s 58 counties are not

ensuring that they have procedures in place for identifying valid voters so that illegal aliens are

prevented from casting illegal ballots

152. United Press International surveyed several states with large immigrant populations

to determine their policies and controls for ensuring voters are legal citizens.

153. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates there are as

many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for

the state's board of elections told UPI that it has an "inherent assumption" that individuals who

sign their names on voter registration cards are doing so legally.

154. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order

to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding they provide registration cards in seven languages.

155. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or

passports to verify citizenship or when voters show up at the polls.

156. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have



been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law,"

Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred.

157. The evidence for massive vote fraud in the United States uncovered by the Voting

Integrity Project and organizations like it are ignored by the government, which has obviously

been the beneficiary of such chicanery, and by the media, which is complicit in the fraud.

158. FAIR’s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal

immigrants vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations.

159. Election On Line. Org reported April 13, 2006 Thousands of registration

applications were rejected in California where, since January 1, nearly 25 percent of voter

registration forms submitted for verification have been rejected by the statewide database. In Los

Angeles County, 43 percent of voter registrations have been rejected.

160. In a letter to Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (R), Conny McCormack, L.A.

County registrar-recorder/county clerk cited several examples of some of the thousands of

applications rejected by the "CalVoter" system including forms being rejected because a last

name has a space in it such as De Leon, or a last name that is actually two last names with no

hyphen, such as Weaver Cardona, or even new residents to California being rejected because the

DMV file the CalVoter system uses is only six months old.

161. "The challenge of setting up a statewide voter registration database that complies

with HAVA requirements has been well-known to election administrators and activists for

years," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "This particular

problem that California is experiencing is a result of the terms of an agreement made between the

Secretary of State and the Department of Justice that is unique to California and a handful of

other states. This form rejection problem itself is a surprise that I don't think anyone anticipated."



162. Nevada has announced that it is to use a voter registration back up system because

of problems with its vendor Covansys Inc., Nevada will be employing a similar system to

California's whereby counties will send voter registration information to a state computer every

24 hours for comparisons to DMV and Social Security records.

163. In February 2006, Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller (R) suspended a contract

with Covansys claiming there were too many problems with the system the company was

creating for the state.

164. According to published reports, in addition to suspending the contract with

Covansys, Heller requested that the company return more than $1 million the state paid for the

creation of a new database as well as reimbursement of monies the state is now spending to

implement the replacement system.

165. Heller told The Associated Press that the back up system is not ideal and that he

prefers a top-down system, but with no vendor contract and an election just about four months

away, the back up system is the only option for compliance with HAVA.

166. As and for a Fourth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants New York

State Board of Elections and its agents yet named as Defendants as per above paragraphs 19

thru 165 intentionally and maliciously for partisan gain fail to maintain statewide central

data base to enable municipalities to reduce and verify actual inactive voters per EL §5-213 as

displayed below: § 5-213. Inactive status.

1. When a voter is sent a confirmation notice pursuant to the provisions of this article, the voter’s name shall be placed in inactive status.

2. The registration poll records of all such voters shall be removed from the poll ledgers and maintained at the offices of the board of elections in a file arranged alphabetically by election district. If such board uses computer generated registration lists, the names of such voters shall not be placed on such lists at subsequent elections other than lists prepared pursuant to theprovisions of section 5-612 of this article but shall be kept as a computer record at the offices of such board.



3. The board of elections shall restore the registration of any such voter to active status if such voter notifies the board of elections that he resides at the address from which he is registered, or the board finds that such voter has validly signed a designating or nominating petition which states that he resides at such address, or if such voter casts a ballot in an affidavit envelopewhich states that he resides at such address, or if the board receives notice that such voter has voted in an election conducted with registration lists prepared pursuant to the provisions of section 5-612 of this article. If any such notification or information is received twenty days or more before a primary, special or general election, the voter’s name must be restored to active status for such election.

4. As soon as practicable, after it restores a voter’s registration to active status, the board of elections shall send the voter, by first class forwardable mail, a notice advising him of the restoration in a form which is similar to the notice sent to new registrants pursuant to the provisions of section 5-210 of this title and which has been approved by the state board ofelections.

5. If the board of elections receives notice, which complies with the requirements of this article, that a voter in inactive status is residing at another address within the jurisdiction of such board, it shall transfer the registration and enrollment of such voter to such other address pursuant to the provisions of section 5-208 of this title.

167. That using the flawed 31 December 2004 statewide database done as a snapshot

every two years yields a statewide average number of inactive registrations of 9.74%, includes a

10.08% of inactive registrations within NYC shown in the below Chart on Line #58, and outside

NYC, the mean number of inactive registrants is 9.39% shown below as Chart line #59.

168. Outside NYC the EL §5-213 determined number of inactive registrations by

municipality varies from 2.95% in Chenango county shown on the Chart below on Chart Line

#1 to Sullivan County with 22.93% shown on Chart Line 57.

169.That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE individual municipal

boards responsible for maintaining the original registration records in each municipality separate

from the so-called state database, the NYS BOE does not impose rigorous of uniformity of EL

§5-213 compliance to be done by each municipality as evidenced by the below chart:



170. That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE and the obvious facts of

active voters multiply registered in one and more municipalities outside of the NYC,

171. In more than one borough within illegal aliens having been given sanctuary “with

the don’t ask don’t tell “ policy promulgated by the Koch Administration before the 1980 Census

172.The NYC Board of Elections has no viable excuse for not rigorously enforcing EL

§5-213 in the Boroughs marked in the above Chart Line Item 58A thru 58E have inactive

registrants that vary from 9.77% to 11.89% ;

173. That NYC will wrongly receive no less than $394,075 shown on the chart above

that should rightly go to municipalities to relieve real property taxpayers therein a municipality

otherwise doing its fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 and otherwise getting less than the people

within are en titled for reimbursing costs of implementation of the NVRA and HAVA.

174.That theoretically based upon use of the state mean inactive voters calculated in the

above Chart there are 23 municipalities shown on Chart Line items 1 thru 23, that are not only

entitled to receive the $394,075.45 that would otherwise be wrongly disbursed to NYC, but are

additionally entitled to greater amounts from the municipalities outside of NYC shown as Chart

Line item 24 thru 57 that would otherwise be wrongly reimbursed HAVA funds instead.

175. That the New York state legislature controlled by the permanent oligarchy

despite absolute need for merger and consolidation of municipalities in order to afford US

citizens within equal protection and treatment under the law according to the state constitution

and related laws, instead the so-called “bi-partisan”autocracy maintains municipalities as if

merely plantations to extract bounty with impunity from the non-majoritarian People left without

a dedicated voice within in the state legislature as they were devised in the 19th century as the

map of municipalities and New York Municipal subdivisions History depicts as follows:



New York

Municipal

Subdivision History

1683 thru 2006



176. That NYC like other municipalities in expectation of increase HAVA funds

malfeasance is rewarded with expectation of increased dollars by maintaining fraudulent

registrations with plausible denial by the State refusal to setup a real time statewide database,

177. That each individual municipality with implementation of NVRA has lost control

of the accuracy of the original registration database, as was intentionally done to create plausible

denial to effect a scheme to defraud the election process by Defendant BOE and those yet named

based upon the pattern shown since implementation of NVRA nationally and since its adoption

by New York’s Pataki Administration and “bi-partisan” legislature.

178. On March 23, 2006 the special counsel to the BOE inferred that the State Board

may have to sue each municipal board of elections to implement HAVA requirements and in

effect is not representing the municipalities per se in the Case USA v NYS NDNY 06-cv-263.

179. Notably both Niagara and Cayuga Counties refuse the dictates of the NYS BOE.

180. On March 23, 2006 the Assistant Attorney general of the State of New York

appearing for the entities of New York State in USA v NYS stated that the NYS Ag in the matter

of NVRA and HAVA can not adequately represent the interests of the People of New York.

181. On April 20, 2006 the Executive Director Robert Freeman of the Committee for

Open Government of the Office of the New York Secretary of State held in a written opinion that

the DOJ advisary to the NYS BOE and New York State has repeatedly improperly attended the

Executive Session of the Board of Election closed sessions without public access or record there

by violates the state of open meetings law.

182. There is a body of evidence that the Defendant State Board has NOT enforced the

requirement of EL §5-213 be done by each Municipal Board, enforcement is non existent when

compared to aggressive enforcement of Election Law Article 14 finance provisions.



183. As and for a Fifth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendant New York

State Municipal subdivisions and agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above

paragraphs 19 thru 182 intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration

database on a municipal by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and

New York State Election Law;

184. That Municipal defendants under EL §4-138 pass-on the expense of administering

elections to the real property owners by tax levy outside of NYC and by users fees and other

excises within the city:

185. That Defendant Municipalities depicted in Chart Line Item 24 thru 58 have a

fiduciary duty required of each respective “bi-partisan” municipal board of elections as part of

the partisan control over patronage policy, purse and especially the real property tax levy

empowered under local government Homerule law, pass on the all unfunded expenses for

Medicaid, Elections, and other unfunded mandates required by the State.

186. Municipal Defendants over the years based upon public records display a pattern

of intentional concealment and cover-up in regards to accurately noticing and segregating the

actual Medicaid costs required under Social Service Law related to the Social Security Act, as



well as election costs required under EL §4-138 and now NVRA and HAVA to be levied upon

real property outside NYC, as excise users fees within NYC whose tax burdens are staggering.

187. That were the other states of the several states to honestly and legally to make

reimbursement claims for HAVA funds using the narrow interpretation of VAP based upon

rigorous use and enforcement of the respective state constitution and laws less HAVA funds

would be disbursed to those states, and

188. Accordingly based upon the narrow interpretation of the HAVA VAP

reimbursement formula, rather than the intentionally over broad use of VAP as

unconstitutionally vague, when in fact in all state law non-citizens, and the civilly dead are NOT

part of the voting age population, and

189. Therefore, the state of New York and the respective municipalities subdivisions

would receive a significantly greater HAVA reimbursement, thereby relieving the real property

owners as a jus tertii class including plaintiffs with property along with those people within

NYC, would not be burdened with unreasonable higher taxes as a result of such legal narrow

interpretation of VAP.

190. That Plaintiffs are not legally represented in the state legislature with a dedicated

voice or other recourse other than Federal court and that State Defendants, State Municipalities

and rubber stamp by DOJ of the April 22, 2002 gerrymander of state and federal districts

191. Gerrymander per se is done by mis application and administration of the state

constitution and laws, contradicts the express required total number and allotment of State Senate

Districts (“SDs”) location, and ratio of Assembly Districts (“ADs”) seats within;

192. Statewide allocation, size, number of State Senate and Assembly seats for the

people resident within each existing municipality entitled to no less than two (2) ADs and a



municipal Board of Elections within is dictated by the state constitution and related laws;

193. The intra-municipal equity in distribution of EDs is necessary within each AD to

prevent Disproportionate Diminished Dilution (“DDD”) of a vote strength and effectiveness is

dictated by the state constitution and related laws, however is not complied with.

194. As and for a Sixth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants State of

California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states of several states to

numerous to name whose agents yet named as Defendants, pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru

193, intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal

by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and N.Y.S. Election Law.

195. That the Chart on the next page entitled “2000 Census Table 1.1 Total Population

by Age and Citizenship: March 2000” is from the 2000 Census enumeration, and is highlighted

to show all persons of any sex 18 years or older equals 204,523k or 73.9% of the Total Persons,

or “Voting Age Population” (“VAP”) therein containing the civilly dead within. Of that total

177,515k are native born citizens, 10,683k naturalized citizens totaling 188 mil. And when the

civilly dead are subtracted by say 3 mil. equals say 185 mil. Eligible voters nationally therein

include both registered and un-registered citizens entitled to suffrage.

196. The 2000 Census Table 1.1 for total combined persons by Sex and Age in the

category of 18 Years and over totals say 204 mil. VAP as opposed to Citizens both Native and

Naturalized including the civilly dead, or say 188 mil. minus the civilly dead equals CVAP

197. The “Projected 2000 percent of Total State EV per total National EV” the total

185,208,072; and further shows the “2004 Estimated Active Voters per state using New York”

10,540,535 AV or 81.51% of the total registered persons in NY and each state as first

approximation equal to say 150,964,221 Active Voters nationally as the figure to be used to



disburse HAVA funds.

198. The set of Census numbers when compared to the total VAP used by the EAC will

validate whether VAP of CVAP is used.

199. That the basis for determining the accuracy of the projection of the national total

of say 185,208,072 mil. Citizens 18 years or older, whether registered or not excluding the

civilly dead, approximates “Citizen Voting Age Persons” New York has say 12,931,489 with the

actual 10,540,535 AV recorded as of 31 December 2004 in the flawed central database, and

200. That based upon the December 31, 2004 New York voting rolls, 10,540,535



Active Voters is compared for accuracy with the actual number of those persons alleged

“Eligible” to register to vote as claimed by the Secretary of State of both California, Texas, in

each State Compliance Plan filed with the Department of Justice and the Election Assistance

Commission for HAVA funds reimbursement, and that the SOS of California alleges it has

26.08% unregistered and Texas alleges it has 12.47% unregistered; and compares such figures to

an estimated 9.79% for New York state as of December 31, 2004, as follows:

State2000

Census Total

ALLEGED Eligible

Percent of ALLEGED

Eligible

Actual Total

Registered

Total Active Voters

Total Alleged Eligible

unregistered

Percent unregistered

======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= =======California 33,930,798 22,495,914 66.30% 16,628,673 15,587,358 5,867,241 26.08%

Texas 20,903,994 14,965,061 71.59% 13,098,329 9,971,374 1,866,732 12.47%New York 19,004,973 12,931,489 68.04% 11,666,103 10,540,535 1,265,386 9.79%

201. That as of February 10, 2005 a California compliance submission to the DOJ and

EAC in the matter of use of the term “Eligible” notes that “the figures under the heading

‘Eligible’ in these sections represent our estimate of the number of people in California who are

eligible to register to vote as of February 10, 2005”; and quote that

the “Population estimate data from the Population Research Unit of the Department of Finance were used to estimate each county’s total population. Subtracted from this total was the estimated number of persons ineligible for registration because of age, felony convictions, and citizenship status. The figures given are unofficial but represent a reasonable estimate of the eligible population.”

202. Like the California Constitution portion shown below only US Citizens may vote

and as in Texas Election Law §11.001 and §11.002 that defines Eligibility to Vote and

“Qualified Voter” using only US Citizen eliminates non-citizens and the civilly dead in keeping

with Article 6 –SUFFRAGE Section 2 - QUALIFIED ELECTOR; REGISTRATION; ABSENTEE VOTING –

Texas Constitution Article 6 Section 2 Subsection (a) Every person subject to none of the disqualifications provided by Section 1 of this article or by a law enacted under that section who is a citizen of the United States and who is a



resident of this State shall be deemed a qualified voter; provided, however, that before offering to vote at an election a voter shall have registered, but such requirement for registration shall not be considered a qualification of a voter within the meaning of the term "qualified voter" as used in any other Article of this Constitution in respect to any matter except qualification and eligibility to vote at an election.

The CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 2. A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

203. That the Texas compliance submission to the DOJ and EAC in the matter of use of

the term “Eligible” notes that its VAP according to the 2000 Census is 14,965,061; as follows:



204. That in the matter of national HAVA Funds distribution there is an inconsistency in

the use of VAP versus CVAP, that a thorough review of the public records of each state of the

several states and territories will reveal in comparison the 2000 Census enumeration for nativity

and State Plans submissions to the Election Assistance Commission evidenced by the Federal

Register record on the EAC website.

205. Federal Election Commission (FEC) basis for which VAP (shown in footnote #11)

is used differently from state to state and would properly create an offset and resolution for

equity; especially since as many as 18 states have not implemented the “centralized” voter

registration database- i.e. the underlying reason for HAVA and the National Voter Registration

Act (NVRA) in the first place.

206. The imperative to catch the rampant vote fraud and abuse nationally and statewide

here in New York is essential and warrants fraud investigation statewide.

207. The Chart below compares the actual numbers used by New York with a

$221,000,000 funds figure that is subject to HAVA funding variations caused by arbitrary use of

VAP by California and Texas in the state compliance submissions to the DOJ and EAC:

the Chart shows that New York even with a large number of non-citizens like both Texas and

California, however New York has relatively less aliens, and therefore is more significantly



injurious to the U.S. Citizens resident in New York with use of VAP instead of CVAP;

accordingly New York Citizens are denied equal protection as a result of California and

especially Texas gaming the system without proper Voting Rights Act compliance oversight and

equal treatment afforded by DOJ review and certification for the EAC to equally disburse funds.

208. That Injury to Plaintiffs is significant and palpable by the very nature of the

underlying causes of action stated above in paragraphs 58 thru 207, Petitioners / Plaintiffs

individually and collectively as a class as those similarly situated are irreparably injured by

Respondents / Defendant as a result as follows:

209. As and for a First Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 208

Respondents injure Petitioners by Denial of Substantive Due Process required of Defendants

under proper administration and application of the NVRA, HAVA and NYSC and Laws .

210. Because of virtually no vote fraud enforcement, motor voter registration, driver's

licenses for illegal aliens, amnesties and other factors, American's most precious liberty, voting,

is being rapidly undermined by illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens.

211. As and for a Second Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 210

Respondents injure Petitioners by denial of equal treatment under Election Law, deny

expectation of effective ballot access and voting., by disproportionate diminished dilution of

plaintiffs vote strength as is related both to gerrymandering and arbitrary enforcement of law.

212. As and for a Third Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 211

Respondents infringe Petitioners’ speech and association fundamental rights otherwise

available for U.S. Citizens in the Federal 1st amendment as related to the 14th Amendment by

denial of due process and equal treatment under Election Law and redistricting violation of the

NYSC Art III, infringe speech in the Legislature.



213. As and for a Fourth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 212

Federal Respondents as a Bivens 1st, 4th 5th 8th 13th 14th 15th amendments injury disenfranchise

Petitioner suffrage rights by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs proprietary

tangible suffrage property.

214. As and for a Fifth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214 State

Defendants by a pattern of malicious fiduciary neglect intentionally take Petitioners’ suffrage

rights as reverse discrimination prohibited by VRA under a scheme to defraud under color of the

NVRA and HAVA.

215. As and for a Sixth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214

Respondents infringement of Petitioners’ speech, association, bottom-up suffrage and Homerule

autonomy rights and unlawful takings by patterns of fraud under multiple schemes to defraud

thereby deny a republican form of government.

216. As and for a Seventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 215

Respondents injures Petitioners’ 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th Amendment Right as U.S. Citizens who as

New York State Citizens with sovereignty granted in each state of the several states are to be

protected against foreign interference with suffrage aren’t by use of VAP instead of CVAP.

217. As and for a Eighth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 216

Respondents injure Petitioners’ as jus tertii classes where they reside since April 22, 2002 having

expended state available remedy are without a means to provide for reasonable amendment to the

State Constitution.

218. As and for a Ninth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 217 in

the matter of CVAP unequal treatment of the unfunded HAVA mandate on a municipal entity-

by-entity basis Defendants deny substantive due process for the EL §4-138 unfunded mandate as



is done under the Medicaid tax levy without notice and segregation of the election costs on real

property tax levy, is a taking of property.

219. As and for a Tenth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 218

notwithstanding 28 USC 1341 does not apply herein, the EAC under HAVA absent equity relief

would deprive Plaintiffs and the PEOPLE of NYS and of the several States by either Top-down

or Bottom-up suffrage, with Homerule autonomy, must afford equal protection of the law against

HAVA false claims, would otherwise qualify under the False Claims Act 31 USC 3729-3733.

220. As and for a Eleventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 219

that damages to individual plaintiffs jus tertii within each respective municipality entitled to a

board of elections not in compliance with application and administration of the state constitution

and laws who by ultra vires offense, not least of which impose unequal EDs non-conforming

with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 and without elections conducted without “bipartisan” election

inspection, while maliciously requiring of real property tax per EL §4-138 as an unreasonable

burden by excessive expense, Plaintiffs as a jus tertii class require reimbursement for suffering

arbitrary and capricious taking of personal and real property.

221. As and for a Twelfth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 220

that were any claim against the HAVA reimbursement transacted with DOJ and EAC for the

state of New York without bottom-up suffrage and Homerule compliance with the application

and administration of the state constitution and related laws such would be a false claim as

defined under 31 USC §3729 thru §3733 subject to treble damages and penalties against

Defendants with payment due to Plaintiffs as whistleblower / relator jus tertii as U.S. Citizens in

the name of the United State Government entitled to 15% to 30% of that recovered and a fee for

each false claim filed by any municipality not conforming as well as any state effecting as a false



claim, and that the fee due relators per transaction is in the amount not to exceed $11,000 for

each occurrence, and notwithstanding the False Claims Act (“FCA”) damages that financial

injury to individual plaintiffs being denied expectation of effective suffrage participation date

exceeds $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners as “whistleblower / relators” and those similarly situated as a

Federal class of CVAP within the state of New York and in the several states and territories urge

remedy from irreparable harm that warrants a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel for preliminary

injunction suspending HAVA filing deadlines, permanent injunction for equal treatment of

suffrage and autonomy for all New York State Citizens and CVAP nationwide entitled to

suffrage separate from non-citizens, minors and those adjudged civilly dead, Petitioners and

those similarly situated urge remedy and protection from irreparable harm that warrants

permanent injunction for equal treatment of all real property owners with a the Court order:

A. That there must be a 28 USC 2284 trial to hear the statewide municipal apportionment of HAVA funds based upon proper administration and application of the State Constitution and related laws

B. That each legitimate municipality has until March 1, 2006 to initiate redistricting of its legislative, senate, assembly, congressional districts coterminous within including those of NYC and for HAVA certification and constitutional infringement issues.

C. That the HAVA January 1, 2006 compliance deadline for each state of the several states be stayed nationwide until such time that the court determines the constitutionality of the use of VAP funding rather than CVAP without those adjudged civilly dead, and determines equity for reimbursement using CVAP nationwide accordingly.

D. That each municipality entitled to a Board of Elections within must produce a compliance plan proving conformance with the administration and application of the State Constitution and laws in order to receive HAVA reimbursement for equity statewide in voting machine acquisition.

E. That U.S. DOJ voting rights section must pre-clear municipal compliance plans before



certification is sent to the Election Assistance Commission for reimbursement offset.

F. That the municipalities of Hamilton and Fulton must elect together conterminous within one single SD, AD and CD.

G. That the US Supreme Court held in the WMCA case that the State Constitution Article III Section 4 formula for enlarging the number of SDs beyond the expressed provision of fifty (50) is unconstitutional, and as such until such time that the NYSC is amended accordingly with a new formula, there shall be fifty (50) SDs that shall each contain three ADs coterminous within a CD and JD by proper application and administration of the NYSC and laws to meet the requirements of the VRA, the U.S. Constitution and HAVA reimbursement for ED voting machines.

H. That in the matter of EL §4-100 creation of Election Districts shall not to exceed 950 active voters (“AV”) each statewide, and further, every ED statewide shall be of equal size with the exception that for the convenience of the active voters any ED may be subdivided and additional voting machines provided and paid for by the EL §4-138 real property tax levy, and furthermore, at the direction of any municipal legislature to the board of elections within may decrease the number of EDs within such municipality to contain more active voters beyond 950 AV not to exceed 1150 active voters, with the convenience proviso of ED subdivision.

I. That redistricting of the each SD, AD, CD and adjoining SDs ADs and CDs is moot were it effected before March 1, 2006 for the purposes of the 2006 election cycle based upon proper use of the New York State Constitution Article III and laws, is now dependent upon a Federal Court under 28 USC 2284.

J. That the NYC entity must be subdivided to prevent continued disproportionate diminished dilution of EV / CVAP votes within NYC, excluding those adjudged civilly dead must beenumerated at the domicile of conviction within NYC, as well as effect it has outside NYC.

K. That the NYC entity in the matter of the 1/3 rule and the ½ rule must be subdivided to prevent majoritarian control over the state senate and therefore the assembly exclusive of any other consideration involved when combined with either Westchester and or Nassau in the matter of a State constitutional amendment and convention.

L. Certification by each municipality of Election District equity for equal time place and manner in regards to available machines and absentee ballots

M. A trust fund for each municipality setup with HAVA funds to property real property owners over time to prevent real property taxes increase

N. Restraint against HAVA funds from being disbursed to any and all states and or


municipalities using VAP to include non-citizens, "illegal aliens", and or the civilly dead.

0. That there must be a hearing on all matters sufficient to issue a declaratory judgment on the

intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity,

P. That there must be a hearing on all matters sufficient to issue a declaratory judgment on the

Federal, State, Municipal Corporation Equitable real time use of a central voters data base at

the state level of each state of the several states and territories and that those central data

bases shall be used in a real time national data base to guarantee the principle of "one person

one vote" nationwide.

Q. Stay of all real property foreclosures in New York State until there is resolution for the

equitable disbursement of HAVA funds nationwide. R. The U.S. Justice Department should oversee any existing municipalities with a board of

elections within that does not meet the requirements of the administration and application of

the respective state constitution and related laws for bottom-up suffrage and Homerule

autonomy of the People within

S. That there must be a jury trial in the matter of damages.

T, That in the matter of the FCA under 3 1 USC 3729 thru 3733, Plaintiffs / Relators are entitled

to relief &om false claims transacted to date by the Defendants and offending municipalities,

and that all the records of transactions to date and into the future for any state shall be available for review and be subject to trial and penalty; and

U. For such other and different relief deemed just and proper herein.

Respectfully submitted to the best of our bowledge according to the Order of the Court by:

GABRIEL RAZZANO. EDWARD MJERSON JR..



AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.:

COUNTY OF ORLEANS)

Accordin~k, I, John- Joseph Forjone, being duly sworn, deposes and says under penalty of

perjury:

Am resident for service at 5367 Upper Holley Road mailing address POB 28 Clarendon

NY 14429 County of Orleans with Phone: 585-721-7673 County of Orleans&-mail:

medicaidtaxlevv~vahoo.com, and request electronic service.

I have read the foregoing Amended COMPLAINT Six Causes of action and Twelve

Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as applies to me here in Orleans County and as a

member of Jus tertii class of those People Resident in a municipality with real property and or

effected by false billing under imposition of HAVA nationally and on a municipal by municipal

basis here in the state of New York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own

knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and as

to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon

information and belief are as follows: 3d parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to before me tbis d J day of April 2006

DEBORAH J. M A R W i NO 01 MAW55647

~ r y ~ ~ ~ . s t a t e o f ~ ~ Qurr)llkd in Orleans

My Cwnm$aton Expires

Amended Complaint -- Page 58 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.aL WDNY 06-cv-0080



COUNTY OF GENESEE)

Accordinply, I, Dan Del Plato Jr., being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

Am resident for service at 50 Chandler Avenue, Batavia, NY in the county of Genesee

with phone number 585.343.5283 e-mail dandel~latoir ahoo.com, and request electronic

service;

I have read the foregoing amended COMPLAINT Six Causes of action and Twelve

Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as applies to me here in Genesee County and as a



basis here in the state ofNew York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own

knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and as

to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon .. information and belief are as follows: 3& parties, b H s and records, and personal knowledge.

bP&,b DAN DEL PLAT0 JR. (

Swo to before me this &%aY uf April 2006

kWt3 L MSUGHEKf'Y ~ A R V R W L I C - K E W Y O F h

OENESEE COUNTY Complaint -- Page 59 of 62 -a==




COUNTY OF NASSAU )

Accordin~ly, I, Gabriel Razzano, being duly sworn, depose and says under penalty of perjury:

Am resident for service at 135 Gordon Place Freeport, New York 1 1520, County of

Nassau, with Phone 5 16-223-6883, emil; [email protected] and request electronic

service.


Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as applies to me here in Nassau County and as a

member of Jus tertii class ofthose People Resident in a municipality with real property and or


k q i s here in the state of New York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own C

knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as

to those matters I believe it to be true. 'The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon

information and belief are as follows: 3& parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Swo to before me this c a L\, - day of April 2006

Complaint -- Page 60 of 62




COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )

Aecordinek, I, Edward M. Person, Jr., being duly s\;orn, depose and says under penalty of

perjury:

Am resident for service at 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon N.Y. 1 1703 CounQ of

Suffolk with Phone 63 1-667-73 16, email; ra~torwimo2004ad~~ahoo.com , and request electronic

service.


Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as appiies to me here in Suffolk County and as a



basis here in the state of New York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own

knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as

to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon

informat ion and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

EDWARD M. PERSON, JR. to before me this

-PEACOCK NobyPllbllc,bya(~krr~ocir

= m J E m t ~ Ourll#hNmU~ounly

W--~av.29.#)gg

Complaint -- Page 61 of 62




COUNTY OF KINGS )

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and says under penalty of

perjury:

Am resident for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 in

the city of New York borough of Brooklyn with Phone # 845-389-0774,

email:~ncasvotes2@,~ahoo.com, and request electronic service.

I have read the foregoing amended COMPLAINT Six Causes of action and Twelve

Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as applies to me here in the city of New York

borough of Brooklyn and as a member of Jus tertii class of those People Resident in a

municipality with real property and or effected by false billing under imposition of HAVA

nationally and on a municipal by municipal basis here in the state of New York, and know the

contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to

be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds

of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3"' parties,

books and records, and personal knowledge.

CHRISTOPHER EARL, STRUNK Sworn to before me this

7 - day of April 2006

PAGNOTTA EUGENE V. 1

tl, NOTARY PUBLIC N.Y.S

, -/.A -- 20.. 2 UEENS # lPA4931558 I f % OMISSI N EXPIRES

< i 8

JUNE 20, 20L,!--


EXHIBIT C

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

RICO Statement Page 1 of 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------x RICO CASE STATEMENTJOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, DAN DEL PLATO JR. PURSUANT TO LOCALGABRIEL RAZZANO, EDWARD M. PERSON JR., RULE 5.1(h)And CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. V. 06-cv-0080A(Sc)

The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION,THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ; The States of: CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS each by Secretary of State and Attorney Generalrespectively; THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR §1012; THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et.al. TRIAL BY JURY IS

Defendants. DEMANDED OF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------x ALL ISSUES

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is a Civil RICO Statement by Plaintiffs John Joseph Forjone and

Christopher Earl Strunk, each pro se and neither being an attorney under 18 USC

§1964(c), in addition to the relators matter under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31

USC §3729 thru §3733. This Civil RICO Statement (“Statement”) is submitted

pursuant to WDNY Local Rule 5.1 and 9.2 in conjunction with the Amended

Complaint to be duly filed by May 1, 2006 in compliance with the Order of the

Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara.

The Amended Complaint has 221 paragraphs and Wherefore relief section

that will be referenced in this Statement. As alleged in paragraph 57, Plaintiffs

pursuant to the background facts in paragraphs 19 thru 56 have injuries to (i.)

Plaintiffs’ individual suffrage proprietary property by dilution, devaluation, and



offset as a jus tertii class (1) additionally effected by long-term gerrymandering

since the 1972 reapportionment, (ii.) those Plaintiffs with real property are

especially affected by takings injury caused by multiple schemes to defraud

facilitated by local governments acting in conjunction with state(s) of the several

states and territories and federal malfeasance and both sets of Plaintiffs suffer (iii.)

theft of individual liberty.

That Plaintiffs complain of injury done by Defendants, their agents

statewide, and those yet named nationally and internationally conducting an

enterprise through patterns of racketeering activity defined 18 USC §1961 thru

§1968 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries.

The enterprise in New York, centers the New York State BOE and its

agents, including every Municipal BOE and its agents, including Thomas Wilkey

as its Democratic Party co-director and member of the National Association of

Secretaries of State (NASS), are a legally mandated “bi-partisan” configuration

dependent upon appointed members of two different political faiths (the same

parties for more than one hundred years) are all defendants as a class herein too

numerous to name. By operation of law Defendants preclude non-partisan and or

non-majoritarian citizens. As such all “bi-partisan”Defendants and their agents

have an express fiduciary duty to check and verify the actions of each other, as

1 “Jus tertii“third party standing created by non/mis/malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty.



well as to detect, prevent and punish misrepresentation and fraud in provision of

suffrage for the benefit of each Plaintiff individually and class similarly situated

precluded from the process under color of law.

Plaintiffs allege Defendants on a state, multi-state, national and international

level are part of a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with exploiting vagaries,

loopholes and questionable devices associated with the “Voting Age Population”

(VAP) Formula created by Congress and the enterprise itself as if by operation of

law under color of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 2002 Help

America to Vote Act (HAVA).

That the enterprise reaps unjust enrichment by taking intangible and tangible

property by fraudulent concealment, extortion, theft and robbery benefiting from

mail and wire fraud while operating under color of the 1993 NVRA, 2002 HAVA

incorporated into the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA); and by operation of the

Racketeering Enterprise among enticements it harbors aliens defined per the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), uses the “Great Society Program”

provision of Medicaid (SSA), education, housing, employment and provides mail-

in registration and voting without oversight to Plaintiffs proprietary property and

business detriment.



That under HAVA as an extension of NVRA, the enterprise and its agents

facilitate illegal mail-in voter registration(2) devised in a scheme that can only be

enforced by the respective state of the several states in many of which its agents

are of the enterprise itself. That the DOJ has refused to become involved as a rule

rather than exception, and when the State authorities refuse to do fiduciary duties

as the only agency that may ascertain the validity of the registration and or voting

by mail-in voter registration and or absentee ballots nationwide, As such politically

motivated dereliction of fiduciary duty constitutes a component of the enterprise(3)

scheme for unjust enrichment that willfully facilitates, aids and abets to defraud

Plaintiffs, those similarly situated, and the Federal Treasury by devaluing and or

nullifying (offsetting) U.S. Citizen’s proprietary vote investment, thereby thieves

and extorts expectation of suffrage effectiveness, real property, and individual

218 USC § 1341. Frauds and swindles - Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to

defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

3 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television -Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.



liberty; and notwithstanding the myth of good government appearing long

abandoned in New York, corruption is a “bi-partisan” endeavor, expectation of

effective voting remains the right that safeguards all other rights.

That NYS BOE is at the center of the enterprise with respect to various New

York state subdivision municipal boards of election who are each either co-

conspirators willfully acting or unwitting participants in the scheme to facilitate

registration, voting, and with use of the U.S. Mail funding the scheme by a pattern

of real property tax levy taking property differently outside NYC and other states

than within. That participants act under color of the VRA and related laws to aid

and abet illegal alien sanctuary per 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.), obstruct

INA process in the matter of facilitating illegal aliens to pose as US Citizens (4), to

obtain fraudulent documents (5), and then on the prime voters list used tangentially

every tens years to gerrymander as was done April 22, 2002. That the criminal

activity of the enterprise involves mail and wire fraud defined under 18 USC

§1341 and 18 USC §1343, and that for no less than fourteen years has been aided

4 18 USC § 1425. Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully- (a) Whoever knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship

5 18 USC § 1546. Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents – (a.) Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained



and abetted by DOJ, FEC and now EAC, its agents in “bi-partisan”

administrations.

That anyone who is not a citizen, or is a citizen multiply registered at two

different locations with intent to vote, or is a U.S. Citizen declared civilly dead by

due process of law including but not limited to felons who have not regained civil

rights as well as those declared incompetent under supervision of the state, who

engages in use of suffrage documents and or votes, participates in the scheme to

defraud with such documents (6). That any document associated with use of the

social security number or other official means of identification that may be used

with intent to defraud the government, by passing as a US Citizen or legally

6 18 USC 1028 Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information – (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section— (1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; (4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; (7) knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; (c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that— (1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document; (2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or (3) either—(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or (B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section. (d) In this section— (1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified; (f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.



documented alien, are document matters that DOJ absolutely has authority and

jurisdiction over.

That DOJ and its agents inaction absent reasonable standard of care is

dereliction of duty, that appears politically motivated, is consistently done as a

pattern of dereliction while under the Clinton and current Bush administrations to

both conceal and facilitate the scheme to defraud.

That the scheme to defraud US Citizens that registers illegal aliens to vote as

if done by US Citizens under color of NVRA and HAVA involves solicitation of

foreign owned vendors to acquire, operate and manipulate votes cast on electronic

voting machines mandated by Congress, and that such schemes not only statewide

have an impact nationally and internationally as a matter of commerce under North

American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) whose agents promote open borders

and predatory trade practice with use of chattel indenture and peonage.

The schemes use the weakness of the VRA, whose safeguards apply only

for protected minorities in which DOJ has jurisdiction; however, does not afford

equal protection to those who are not protected minorities, operates as a reverse

discrimination facilitating the crime defined(7)

7 18 USC § 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises-(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to— (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform— (b) As used in this section (i) “unlawful activity” means (2)extortion, bribery, … in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act



That by reason of not having a central database, by reason of Don’t ASK

Don’t Tell harboring policies, by reason of non-compliance in application and

administration of the respective state constitution and related laws, by reason of

enticement and common purposes with federal funds certified without checks and

balances; by reason of the proximate cause of the commonality of criminal activity

plaintiffs are sufficiently directly injured by the unlawful expansion of the

registration pool, and by reason of harboring deprives Plaintiffs individual and

collective suffrage bargaining power, depresses suffrage power outside of the

enterprise.

That each Plaintiff whose proprietary property is affected associate together

in an ad hoc group to protect proprietary voting property, personal property, real

property, and intangible liberty, against defendants perversity in participating

knowingly and unknowingly as outlined above in a statewide scheme to defraud, a

nationwide scheme to defraud and international scheme to defraud under color of

the NVRA and HAVA, and as such Plaintiffs require protection relief against

interference in this action accordingly (8)

which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957of this title…

8 18 USC § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant- (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to— (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent



According to Local Rules Plaintiffs submit this RICO Case Statement that

includes facts upon which we are relying and which were obtained as a result of

the reasonable inquiry required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In

particular, the statement uses the numbers and letters as set forth by local rules, and

states in detail and with specificity the following information.

(1) State whether the alleged unlawful conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d).

RESPONSE: This civil action alleges violation of 18 USC §§ 1962 (a), (b), (c), and (d).

(2) List each defendant and state the alleged misconduct and basis of liability of each defendant.

RESPONSE:

a) The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION created

under HAVA by “bi-partisan” consent not competition has by gross dereliction

of duty disbursed Federal Funds without proper oversight using the FEC

definition of VAP rather than by actual state law imposes a top-down form of

from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (c) Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from— (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense;



state and national elections without Article 5 amendment;

b) THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director, having previously been the a Democratic

Party co-director of NYS BOE, pursuant to the Third Cause of Action aids and

abets illegal aliens to register and vote in Arizona and other states of the several

states as per paragraph 137.;

c) THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION co-authority

of the EAC in the matter of involvement in the implementation of the

“unofficial” definition of VAP for broad rather than narrow use as referenced

by the Amended Complaint footnote #11 referenced by paragraph 122 and in

the First Cause of Action Paragraphs 58 thru 122.

d) THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Voting Rights Section

per (VRA) under direction of Joseph Rich who retired in 2005, and now John

K. Tanner with assistant Wan J. Kim, all have failed to duly certify HAVA each

state compliance plan submission by measure of state law in the matter of VAP,

admitted such for New York on the record of USA v NYS BOE on March 23,

2006, referenced in Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207;

e) Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ preceded by John Ashcroft in the

Bush Administration, and Janet Reno under the Clinton Administration,

together have been politically motivated in the arbitrary enforcement of the

VRA, and especially the NVRA and HAVA to the detriment of Plaintiffs and



those similarly situated. Alberto Gonzalez first acted from 2000 thru 2004 as

counsel to President Bush and after the 2004 Elections as referenced in the

Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207;

f) Each State of the several states and territories by each Secretary of State with

authority and Fiduciary control over the respective State Board of Elections

responsible for compliance with the NVRA and HAVA as each similarly

devises a different interpretation of VAP and billing as referenced in the

Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207; and

g) Each state of the several states’ Attorney General responsible for protecting US

Citizen suffrage. Plaintiffs allege that CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA,

ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS have falsely billed for HAVA funds and

have received an amount greater than each is entitled by using a broad

interpretation of the VAP rather than a narrow definition of CVAP in keeping

with state law referenced in paragraphs 58 thru 207.

h) THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (SOS) first with

Alexander Treadwell (who left to become chairman of the Republican Party and

now being filled by Stephen Minarik), replaced by sportscaster Randy Daniels,

now with an unnamed substitute with authority, jurisdiction and responsibility

to protect the civil rights of every citizen of the state of New York and to keep

the “bi-partisan” function of the State Board of Election and related boards



operating as such have failed to enforce oversight of the NYS BOE improperly

operating under Election law per EL §3-100, as well as non-enforcement of

open meetings law, has aided and abetted concealment of the enterprise that by

public disclosure of the “bi-partisan” decisions that have been degenerated in a

star chamber, would have been exposed;

i) New York State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER per CPLR §1012, like the

SOS in the matter of enforcement of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article

5A, Eliot Spitzer and Dennis Vacco before him are “bi-partisan” operatives

who are politically motivated to enforce law in a capricious manner for the

benefit of the “bi-partisan” enterprise, and that just as the Attorney General has

been found wanting in a pattern of lack of enforcement of fraud and abuse in

the Medicaid program, he is similarly exudes willful neglect in election matters,

j) THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, past and present two

“bi-partisan” co-commissioners and two co chairmen, two Counsels, two co-

Directors, one NVRA Officer, agents at the Office of General Services securing

equipment and services, and per the Fourth Cause of Action in the Amended

Complaint paragraphs 166 thru 182 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of

Action 183 thru 193 of the Fifth Cause of Action are at the Hub of the

Racketeering Enterprise billing for HAVA funds yearly since 2002 enactment.

k) That as per the Fifth Cause of Action in the Amended Complaint paragraphs



183 thru 193 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of Action 166 thru 182, the

New York State municipal subdivisions entitled a municipal board within

whose officers to numerous to name herein for the purposes of brevity in the

matter of the fiduciary duty to comply with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 along with

interrelated “bi-partisan” safeguard and oversight of elections, especially since

mere existence of a legal county party committee under EL §2-100 in most

municipalities is questionable, would detail plaintiffs contentions of

wrongdoing; and to the extent that the 1894 state constitutional mandated

firewall of municipal control over the original database has been breeched by

the operation of NVRA, HAVA and districting after the case WMCA v.

Lomenzo, 377 US 633 (1964), the need for safeguard and compliance becomes

that more urgent as a fiduciary duty to protect plaintiffs and those similarly

situated.

(3) List the alleged wrongdoers, other than the defendants listed above, and state the alleged misconduct of each wrongdoer.

RESPONSE:

For the reasons and occurrences cited in the Amended Complaint in paragraphs 1

thru 221: William J. Clinton, Albert Gore, Douglas Farbrother, George W. Bush,

Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Joseph Rich, John Turner, Wan J. Kim, The

Department of Homeland Security including Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE), George E. Pataki, Alexander Treadwell, Carroll Berman,



Edward I. Koch, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, National Association of

Secretaries of State, New York State Association of Counties, Lee Daghlian, Diane

Haslett Rudiano, Kathleen McFarland, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, The

League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National

Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Association of

Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the American Civil

Liberties Union, The Brennan Center for Justice. the city of New York borough

party committees, Defendant Municipal party committees, NYS Party Committees.

(4) List the alleged victims and state how each victim was allegedly injured.

RESPONSE:

a) JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Orleans County;

a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor; owns real

property in Orleans County used in the transaction of business, affected in the

matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real

property tax levy, has a related action in WDNY 05-cv-395 with a decision

pending in various motions since October 7, 2005 and Default Judgment since

the return date of February 28, 2006; has been directly affected by Defendants

breech of fiduciary duty at the center of the “bi-partisan” racketeering

enterprise, whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect,



prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting

inside and outside the state is combined with questionable imposition of

Electronic Voting Machines, that effects elections outcome within Orleans

County and statewide, as both involved in harboring illegal aliens, with aiding

and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow

definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories,

with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain

and penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and

HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to

New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL §4-138 (unlike

NYC) impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid

notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Orleans county

reports 10.42% Inactive Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter

registration database; however, acts in conspiracy with the racketeering

enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters

breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.

b) DAN DEL PLATO JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Genesee County, is

employed as a Hospital worker, owns real property in Genesee that is protected

under a five year U.S. Bankruptcy Court mandated plan in WDNY that is

affected by the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in



the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary

duty of NYS BOE at the center of the “bi-partisan” racketeering enterprise

whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent

fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside

and outside the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic

Voting Machines, effects election outcome within Genesee County and

statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and

abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow

definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories,

with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain

and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and

HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New

York and in turn the County of Genesee who under EL §4-138 impose election

costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark

and segregate amounts; that Genesee county with 7.30% Inactive Voters has a

duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however, acts in

conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds

disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213

for detecting inactive voters.

c) GABRIEL RAZZANO is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Nassau County, a



sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real property

in Nassau County used in the transaction of business, affected in the matter of

concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real property

tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the

center of the “bi-partisan” racketeering enterprise whose control over the

central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and

misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside and outside

the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting

Machines, effects election outcome within Nassau County and statewide both as

a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting citizens

multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were

used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of

EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties

punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA

mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New York and

in turn the County of Nassau who under EL §4-138 impose election costs as a

real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark and

segregate amounts; that Nassau county has a duty to maintain the original voter

registration database and with only 3.13% Inactive Voters, the county is due

proper reapportionment of interstate HAVA funds reimbursement which is



effected by the conspiracy by the racketeering enterprise in other municipalities

in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate the number of inactive

voters breech the fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.

d) EDWARD M. PERSON JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Suffolk

County, a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real

property in Farmingville Suffolk County used in the transaction of business,

that has been adversely affected by local government extortion in matter of the

harbor of illegal aliens as well as the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs

by the municipality in the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected

by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the center of the “bi-partisan”

racketeering enterprise whose control over the central database and fiduciary

duty to detect, prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple

registrations and voting inside and outside the state combined with questionable

imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, effects election outcome within

Suffolk County and statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal

aliens, aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if

by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states

and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as

a bill of pain and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden

of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if



reapportioned to New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL

§4-138 impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid

notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Suffolk county

has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database and with only

6.11% Inactive Voters, the county is due proper reapportionment of interstate

HAVA funds reimbursement which is effected by the conspiracy by the

racketeering enterprise in other municipalities in expectation of HAVA funds

disbursement to inflate the number of inactive voters breech the fiduciary duty

under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.

e) CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote in the

city of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn (NYC), a sole proprietor self

employed as an independent contractor, no longer owns real property in NYC

used in the transaction of business, suffers such loss as an extortion matter in a

similar pattern that should reopen the case in EDNY 99-cv-6480 as a

racketeering matter associated with a corrupt state judiciary as seen in Orleans

County, that also involves the unequal matter of concealment of Medicaid costs

by NYC in the annual real property tax levy; that NYC is a national sanctuary

for illegal aliens; wherein elections are paid for by general revenue from excise

tax and user fees, and that Strunk has been effected by breech of fiduciary duty

of NYS BOE at the center of the “bi-partisan” racketeering enterprise whose



control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and

misrepresentation, includes multiple registrations and voting inside and outside

the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting

Machines, whose effects affects election outcome within NYC and statewide

both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting

citizens multiply registering and voting; and that if by a narrow definition of

VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with

imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and

penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and

HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to

New York in turn NYC being is exempt under EL §4-138 imposes election

costs by excise to general revenue as with Medicaid, notwithstanding a local

government empowered real property tax levy; that NYC has 10.28% Inactive

Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however,

acts in conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA

funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-

213 for detecting inactive voters.

f) That Plaintiffs jus tertii fairly represent a class of U.S. Citizens similarly

situated inside and outside of NYC, have standing under the FCA as

whistleblowers beyond 18 USC 1964(c).



(5) Describe in detail the pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debts alleged for each RICO claim. A description of the pattern of racketeering shall include the following information:

(A) List the alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes which wereallegedly violated;

RESPONSE:

18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents)

18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens)18 USC §1341 (mail fraud)18 USC §1343 (wire fraud)18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully)18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim )18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents)18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) –(interstate and foreign travel in aid of

racketeering Enterprise)18 USC §1957 – (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from

specific unlawful activity)

(B) Provide the dates of the predicate acts, the participants in the predicate acts, and a description of the facts surrounding the predicate acts;

RESPONSE: Subsequent to the 1993 enactment of the NVRA continuously

every year before the enactment of the 2002 HAVA and now concurrently

both are involved in annual filing for HAVA reimbursement using the overly

vague VAP formula. That by operation of New York state election law and

believed of other states of the several states, that the system of bottom-up

and or top-down registration and voting compliance as determines

requirements for the number and placement of existing voting machines as



well as proposed EVM, is impacted by individuals being urged to register,

register while signing nominating petitions; and since there is no witness to

mail-in registration may be done by anyone at any time or place inside or

outside the respective state responsible for detecting, and preventing

misrepresentation and fraud.

(C) If the RICO claim is based on the predicate offenses of wire fraud, mail fraud, or fraud in the sale of securities the “circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Identify the time, place and contents of the alleged misrepresentations, and the identity of persons to whom and by whom the alleged misrepresentations were made;

RESPONSE:

1. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY MAIL FRAUD:

a) In the matter of the various New York municipal subdivisions engaged in

a billing pattern of Medicaid by real property tax levy is done without an

earmark segregation to conceal the amount from real property owners

and voters, who if they were informed would act politically and invest

their vote in other candidates who would relieve the burden placed upon

them under Social Services Law by local government

b) Billing of increased HAVA costs without segregation as pre-exists in the

Medicaid billing pattern and previous EL §4-138 levies, done to conceal

the scheme from real property owners and voters who if duly notified



would act politically and invest their vote for candidates promising

Election cost burden relief on owners per EL §4-138.

c) The NVRA mail-in registration Form found by those who would register

at all state and private agencies doing business with the state of each state

of the several states as well as with political committees acquiring ballot

access for candidates in the process of petitioning and building state party

organization.

d) That absentee ballot voting as an accessory associated with NVRA and

HAVA registration has been adopted by each state of the several states

and territories facilitates the pattern and scheme to defraud Plaintiffs.

e) Use of the U.S. Postal Service to bill EAC for falsified HAVA

Compliance figures using broad rather than narrow definition of VAP per

respective state laws, that the amended complaint paragraphs 194 thru

207 give detail in the case of how California, Texas and New York are

affected by a broad to narrow interpretation of VAP based upon rigorous

use of the respective state laws.

2. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY WIRE FRAUD:

a) Use of phones and communications by campaign workers and non-profit

organizations to notify illegal aliens and or illegal registered voters to

vote and or cast an absentee ballot.



b) Use of the news media by the beneficiary of illegal votes and registration

to intentionally tell lies in order to directly assist illegal aliens and those

not entitled to register to in fact register and vote illegally.

c) Use of the media to promote myths of the Florida election debacle in

conjunction with OSCE and other international intentions to interfere

with state and national elections.

3. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD IN EXTORTION USED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS:

a) State Subdivisions taking of real property owners who question Medicaid

and HAVA false billings on both the tax levy by concealment and

subterfuge

b) By government officials acting under color of authority with force of law

(D) State whether there has been a criminal conviction for violation of each predicate act;

RESPONSE: None that Plaintiffs are aware of.

(E) State whether civil litigation has resulted in a judgment in regard to each predicate act:

RESPONSE:

That on March 1, 2006 the DOJ filed a civil complaint in Northern District

of New York against the NYS BOE and associated entities in the case USA

v. NYS BOE 06-cv-263 is seen as prohibited friendly suit by glaring

disparities between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on



March 23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ –

without proper parties and proper jurisdiction over subject matter appears as

a friendly suit.

(F) Describe how the predicate acts form a “pattern of racketeering activity”;

RESPONSE:

1. Malicious refusal of NYS BOE to create a real-time voter registration

database:

a) That NYS BOE and “bi-partisan” agents in regards to 1962 (a)(b)(c)(d)

have since 1993 passage of NVRA until the present have intentionally

failed to developed a real time central voter database as then under

NVRA and now required by HAVA to be done by January 1, 2006 –

intentionally was not done.

b) That NYS BOE and its agents are in conspiracy with the Pataki

Executive as evidenced by 237 pages of Correspondence disclosed by

executive chambers in which 230 of 237 pages of correspondence are

alleged exempt from FOIL - requires release by court order,

c) That NYS BOE delay creates plausible denial to avoid any EL Article 17

enforcement or prevention of registration and voting fraud, in expectation

of Federal reimbursement now available under HAVA.

2. Inflated Registrations used for HAVA Billing



a) That NYS BOE delay intentionally inflated registrations for the purposes

of receiving greater HAVA reimbursement from EAC.

b) That NYS BOE coordinated the intentional inflated registrations with

various municipal sub-division boards of election “bi-partisan” agents.

c) That NYS BOE filed false HAVA compliance billings with EAC, the

DOJ has rubber stamped the submission and certified for EAC for

payment totaling about $221 million that was received by NYS BOE and

placed under the control of the State Controller and Commissioner of

Finance in a commercial Bank accruing interest,

3. Expenditure of Interest on HAVA Principal on Deposit

a) That according to public reports NYS BOE is expending the interest on

the principal held in escrow pending litigation in USA v. NYS BOE

NDNY 06-cv-263,

b) That 06-cv-263 is seen as a prohibited friendly suit by glaring disparities

between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on March

23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ – appears as

a friendly suit.

4. Rigged insiders list of Electronic Voting Machines Vendors

a) That NYS BOE requires Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) from ES&S,

Sequoia, and Liberty international corporations with securities held by



foreign governments and or foreign citizens, were chosen even though

the same companies have been found lacking by Florida and other states

of the several states in meeting compliance, and in the home country of

origin Ireland as well refuses to use Liberty EVMs.

b) That NYS BOE in conjunction with agents of the various Municipal

Defendants, seemingly with the exception of Niagara and Cayuga

Counties, are involved in transactions with the foreign held electronic

voting machine vendors, under rules devised by NYS BOE, to secure

unjust enrichment, and autocratic control over patronage policy and

purse.

(G) State whether the alleged predicate acts relate to each other as part of a common plan. If so, describe in detail.

RESPONSE: Yes, the above predicates relate to each other as part of a

common plan:

1. in New York have two stages first to secure as much money from the

Federal Treasury as possible and in stage two to tighten “bi-partisan” control

over patronage policy and purse for the purposes of taking Real property by

extorting owners and at the same time secure top down control over

individual expectation of suffrage at every election using prime voter lists as

a crib sheet and notwithstanding the absolute myth of a secret vote does in



fact not exist as a matter of voting record from every election by paper tape

coordinated with voter number “bi-partisan” gerrymandering every tens

years by packing racking or stacking total person without regard to actual

eligible voters guarantee by consent not competition re-election of party

sinecures who in super majority like gangster run protection operations to

maintain the non-profit organizations a the local government level to loot the

Medicaid system and every line item on the cooked book budget, spread

walk-around-money buying votes and favors to fix and predetermine

elections.

2. At the National Level there is no accountability for what each state does

within or without and the “Bi-partisan nature of the DOJ acting in a totally

politically motivated fashion in effect run protection for each of fifty

enterprises which are now coordinated for maximum bills of pain and

penalties generated by the Congress who also with the consent nature of

conducting elections in New York state and Plaintiffs are sure exists nearly

as corruptly in the other state of the several state especially California and

Texas feature in comparison in the sixth Cause of Action in paragraphs 194

thru 207.

3. At the International level through the auspice of the U.S. State Department

and Central Intelligence Agency as with the OSCE / ODIHR and other



organizations interfering in other sovereign countries, like the Council for

Hemispheric Affairs is overseeing and interfering in Central American

elections, and that somehow Hugo Chavez of Venezuela with copious oil

reserves, the new Fidel Castro of the hemisphere, has acquired interest in

Sequoia Industries whose employees in March counted the Chicago Election

Votes (9).

9 “CHICAGO BALLOT CHAOS - NEW COMPUTER VOTE MACHINES MALFUNCTION, UNVERIFIABLE”By Christopher Bollyn – American Free press Published March 27, 2006 - COOK COUNTY, Illinois—Chicago’s use of a flawed computerized voting system operated by a privately held foreign company reveals how meaningless and absurd the “democratic” process in America has become. Having observed voting systems across Europe, from Serbia, Germany and Estonia to Holland and France, this reporter has noted that the most honest and transparent elections are also the most simple.

The more complicated methods of voting, such as the unverifiable computerized voting systems widely used across the United States, lack the most essential element of democratic elections—transparency.

The $50 million touch-screen and optical-scan voting system provided by Sequoia Voting Systems failed across Chicago and suburban Cook County during the March 21 Illinois primary. However, the leading corporate-controlled newspapers merely lamented the failures of the system without addressing its fundamental flaws or even reporting that the company running the election is foreign-owned.

The “high-tech” computerized voting system was “cumbersome” and “slow,” one mainstream Chicago newspaper reported. The machines failed across the county causing “plenty of frustration and confusion for voters,” the paper reported. The ballots and votes from more than 400 precincts were still uncounted two days after the election due to machine malfunctions and lost memory cartridges which contain the results.

Reports from other dailies noted that as of noon Wednesday, Chicago was missing memory cartridges from 252 polling stations while Cook County officials “couldn’t find” the results from 162 suburban precincts.

Election officials tried to assure the public that although nobody knew where all the ballots and computerized memory cartridges were, they were “most assuredly not lost.”

“I don’t trust that,” U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said. “This is Chicago. This is Cook County. We created vote fraud, vote scandal and stealing votes. We created that mechanism. It became an art form.”

“Ballot chaos” is how another large Chicago newspaper described the situation in which the votes from hundreds of precincts could not be found or counted on Election Night.

“We have accounted for the votes,” Langdon Neal, city election chairman told the publication. “What we haven’t been able to do is count them.”

In one precinct on the Near South Side, for example, the Sequoia optical scanner failed to register anything but Republican ballots. Although “election officials” tried to repair the machine four times, by the end of the day it had failed to register a single Democratic ballot in a precinct in which some 86 percent of the voters are Democrats.

When this reporter went to vote, the touch-screen machine went completely dead as the voter in front of me pressed the button to print. When the poll workers were asked if other voters had had similar problems with the equipment they said it had happened all day and showed me an unplugged machine that had broken down earlier.

When the polls closed at 7 p.m., American Free Press was at the Cook County Clerk’s office to see how the votes were tallied.

Citizens in Chicago, as in most American cities, are, however, forbidden from viewing or participating in the any aspect of the vote-counting process.



The so-called counting of the votes is managed by some two dozen employees of Sequoia Voting Systems, a privately held foreign company. These employees, many of whom are not even U.S. citizens, have “full access” to the “back room area,” a sealed-off section of the 5th floor of the county clerk’s office which is called the “tally area.”

In Chicago, the person in charge of the tallying of the votes was a British employee of Sequoia named David Allen from London. Allen, who ran the “Sequoia War Room” in an office next to that of Cook County Clerk David Orr, oversaw the “tally room” team, which included a dozen Venezuelan employees, who operated the hidden computer equipment that counts the votes.

As American Free Press has noted before, there are wire services such as the Associated Press, who could be seen having direct connections leading from their computers to the hidden mainframe computer of the Sequoia tallying system located behind the wall on the 5th floor of the clerk’s office.

Senior executives from Sequoia Voting Systems and from its partner company, Smartmatic, such as company president Jack A. Blaine and Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, vice president of special operations, also had “full access” to the tally area.

Sequoia, which was previously held by the British-based firm De La Rue PLC, a company, which produces bank notes, travelers checks and cash handling equipment, was merged or combined with Smartmatic in March 2005.

Smartmatic, which has a U.S.-based office in Boca Raton, Fla., is headed by three young Venezuelans along with Blaine, a former vice president with Unisys. A dozen Venezuelans could be seen managing the most sensitive aspects of the recent election in Chicago.

Smartmatic, the parent company of Sequoia Voting Systems, obtained the company for a “ridiculously low amount of money,” Charles D. Brady, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital Inc., said at the time of the merger.

While De La Rue purchased 85 percent of Sequoia in 2002 for $35 million, it reportedly sold the growing global company for only $16 million in 2005. Tracey Graham, then president of Sequoia, said more than 30 organizations had expressed interest in buying her company, yet no names of other bidders were given citing “confidentiality agreements.”

The chief officers of Sequoia-Smartmatic are two 32-year old Venezuelans from Caracas, Antonio Mugica and Alfredo Anzola. Anzola also works as a Venezuela-based lawyer brokering international oil deals with the Cleveland law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey.

“With the combination of Sequoia and Smartmatic, both proven innovators with accomplished track records in either the U.S. or abroad, we are creating the first truly global leader in providing voter-verified electronic voting systems,” Blaine said in March 2005 when the merger was announced.There is, however, nothing verifiable about the Sequoia voting system used in Cook County. The voter has no way of knowing if his vote has been counted or how it was counted.

The absolute lack of transparency in U.S. voting systems yields unverifiable election results, which can only be accepted on faith. In Chicago voters are asked to trust the results produced by malfunctioning machines operated by a privately owned foreign company.

Asked about the nature of the foreign company that runs elections in Cook County, Scott Burnham, spokesman for Cook County Clerk Orr simply said, “Ask Sequoia” and hung up the phone. Asked about the ownership of the privately held company, Allen, who supervised the tally, refused to answer and handed the phone to Michelle Shafer, the company’s vice president and spokesperson.

Pressed about Allen’s citizenship, Shafer finally admitted that the Sequoia employee who oversaw the tally was, indeed, a British citizen who had been assisted by a team of Venezuelans.

Dimas Ulacio, one of the Venezuelan technicians who worked in the tally area spoke with American Free Press. “Who really owns Sequoia?” Ulacio was asked. “Is Sequoia-Smartmatic truly a Venezuelan company or is it a British-owned company masquerading as a Venezuelan company?”

Ulacio laughed but refused to answer. While a high percentage of the precinct results—about 90 percent—are usually reported within one hour of

the polls closing, the Sequoia system failed to produce any results for nearly two hours. Only 44 percent of the precinct results had been reported four hours after the polls closed.

The widespread failures of the Sequoia voting system in the Cook County election, Shafer said, made for a “very typical Election Day in a jurisdiction where they are changing voting technology.” Rather than blame the machines, Shafer blamed human error. (Issue #14, April 5, 2006) –



(6) Describe in detail the alleged enterprise for each RICO claim. A description of the enterprise shall include the following information:

(A) State the names of the individuals, partnerships, corporations,associations, or other legal entities, which allegedly constitute the enterprise;

RESPONSE: Liberty- each set of Board of Directors, as well as the entity

affiliates of the National Association of Secretaries of States : CT

Corporation System, Dun & Bradstreet, Saber Consulting, West,

Covansys, Hart InterCivic, IBM Government Industry, InfoSENTRY,

ManTech International, NIC, PCC Technology Group, Saber Consulting,

UNISYS, X.Systems, 3M Touch Systems, Accenture eDemocracy Services,

AccuPoll, Inc., Alpha Data Services, Diebold Election Systems, Inc.,

Election Data Services, Inc., Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Indra

Systems, Perfect Voting System, Sequoia Voting Systems (Sequoia),

UniLect Corporation, Caliper Corporation, ESRI, Inc., n-Tier Technology,

Quest Information Systems, VOTEC Corporation, VoteHere, Inc., Bureau

of National Affairs, Inc., CCH, Inc., Altria Corporate Services, Inc., CPS

Human Resource Services, ESRI, Inc. , Alpha Data Services, and the Board

of Directors of each.

(B) Describe the structure, purpose, function and course of conduct of the enterprise;



RESPONSE: To control the outcome of elections on a state and national

level, and unjust enrichment; in the matter of EVM state laws are delivering

too much control of a constitutionally protected right in the hands of private

companies and have weakened the vote verification process.

(C) State whether any defendants are employees, officers or directors of the alleged enterprise;

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs believe there is an overlap among state officials

through the NASS however have not coordinated the overlap between

Defendants and above entities

(D) State whether any defendants are associated with the alleged enterprise;

RESPONSE: Defendants are associated by the nature of the mandate of

Congress to purchase EVM and central database under the vague broad

definition of VAP.

(E) State whether you are alleging that the defendants are individuals orentities separate from the alleged enterprise, or that the defendants are the enterprise itself, or members of the enterprise; and

RESPONSE: there is a commercial relationship between the Defendants and entities.

(F) If any defendants are alleged to be the enterprise itself, or members of the enterprise, explain whether such defendants are perpetrators, passive instruments, or victims of the alleged racketeering activity.

RESPONSE: The various Secretaries of states, Commissioners of the

various Boards are absolutely members of the enterprise, and especially



when acting on a “bi-partisan” basis by consent which omits the general

public notice and makes decisions in a star chamber.

(7) State and describe in detail whether you are alleging that the pattern ofracketeering activity and the enterprise are separate or have merged into one entity.

RESPONSE: Once the EVM are acquired there will not be a difference between

the entities and the public and private side of state and national government;

however at present plaintiffs do not know if the EVM entities are interdigitated

with New York State defendants, and are not informed of the relationship

elsewhere except by press reports as with Chicago’s March 2006 Election, that is

an important example in footnote #9.

(8) Describe the alleged relationship between the activities of the enterprise and the pattern of racketeering activity. Discuss how the racketeering activity differs from the usual and daily activities of the enterprise, if at all.

RESPONSE: In New York unlike in other states of the several states, that the

compliance process is tightly control by unelected “bi-partisan” insiders as

opposed to being done by “non-partisan” professional manner, or those elected

officials without an appearance of impropriety.

(9) Describe what benefits, if any the alleged enterprise receives from the alleged pattern of racketeering.

RESPONSE: Defendant natural persons as a matter of public employment operate

in a quid pro quo within the “bi-partisan” structure in New York, plaintiffs are not



familiar with the public officials of the other states of the several states and

territories, but note that if not operating in a non-partisan fashion lack the

necessary “sunshine” to escape the appearance of impropriety.

(10) Describe the effect of the activities of the enterprise on interstate or foreign commerce.

RESPONSE: The sale of EVM by agents of a foreign government especially

that of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, by active investment, empowers such

foreign government(s) with the capability to effect the outcome of state and

national elections, and creates the basis for every state of the several states to

become subject to the manufacturing requirements of countries and

government not under the authority and jurisdiction of the state and or

United States of America.

(11) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), provide thefollowing information:

(A) State who received the income derived from the pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt; and

RESPONSE:

1. In the state of New York, it is believed that only the State has received the

$221 million in HAVA dollars as yet, however since the 1993

implementation of NVRA the costs for conversion to a central database on a

yearly tax levy basis have been levied paid and dispensed not only to “bi-



partisan” employees of the various Municipal Boards and State Board but to

many private consultants and contractors as well whose names not known at

this time.

2. As for the other states of the several states, who have received compliance

money a long time before New York, money has flowed for purchase of

equipment and compliance software and database outsourcing- however

exact amounts are not known at this time.

3. That NYS BOE has received payment from EAC approximately totaling

$221 million and placed under the control of the State Controller and

Commissioner of Finance in a commercial Bank account now accruing

interest

4. That Plaintiffs are not aware of the exact total received by the other states of

the several states and territories, however in fact is part of the public record

having been published in the Federal Register, and are not aware of the how

the individual sums are being utilized to date.

5. The NYS Sub-division local governments since implementation of the

NVRA in 1993 and since HAVA in 2002 have been on an annual basis

pursuant to EL §4-138 levying the costs of NVRA, HAVA compliance

along with other election costs upon real property within the respective

municipality.



6. That private EVM entities, associated with NASS have received HAVA $$$

from other states of the several states and territories.

(B) Describe the use or investment of such income.

RESPONSE:

1. The $221 million received by the NYS BOE has accrued interest, and

Plaintiffs believe the interest is being spent for operations of NYS BOE

and related activities; plaintiffs do not believe any money has been

disbursed to the State sub-divisions yet.

2. Plaintiffs are not aware how the Election related levied funds paid for by

real property owners has been used; however, contend the funds became

fungible and could have been used for anything except NVRA, HAVA

and Elections costs because they were not earmarked or segregated.

3. Plaintiffs compare how local governments use of EL §4-138 levied

election funds that are questionably fungible in the respective

municipality, as Medicaid funds are paid after levy on real property

before a respective local government actually pays the New York

Commissioner of Finance for the Commissioner of Health overseeing

Medicaid funds, and as such there is not interim accountability



(12) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), describe in detail the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in or control of the alleged enterprise.

RESPONSE:

a) That in New York, the “bi-partisan” nature of the Board of Elections both

at the State and Municipal level, in which 47 municipalities by operation

of law are a nullity under application and administration of the state

constitution; however, appear to be maintained by partisanship much like

appears in a plantation system rather than Homerule autonomous entities

serving the people within,

b) That such a contorted configuration of municipalities shown by the New

York Municipal Subdivision History 1683 thru 2006 Chart in paragraph

175 of the Amended Complaint compared with total population and

persons eligible to vote within each municipality since 1964, and by

operation of law New York absolutely precludes participation by nearly

40% of those Registered and or those entitled to register and vote, and

c) That in New York there is an absolute blur in the difference between

public and private interests in the operation of elections conducted by

local government similarly overlaps state control over ballot access that

circumvents municipal authority under the state constitution, and very

much resembles the blur of authority in the management of the biggest



State Budget line item Medicaid that in 2005 spent $45.5 billion, and in

that regard January 2006 DOJ has been impelled to act, only after being

put through shear embarrassment to find that New York publicly and

privately have committed fraud abuse and profiteering that should be

characterized as racketeering as well as false filings with the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Treasury,

which is the subject of the WDNY case 05-cv-395.

(13) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), provide thefollowing information:

(A) State who is employed by or associated with the enterprise; and

RESPONSE:

1. From the NYS BOE for two tears alone Peter Kosinski and now since

late 2005 Stanley Zalen are active members of the NASS promoting

NVRA and HAVA, traveling nationally and associating with

international efforts around oversight and control of election done by

OSCE / ODIHR associated with equipment manufactures.

2. That outsourcing of database and election management privatizes

otherwise public fiduciary functions;

3. That without creating an actual cause of action under HAVA creates a

firewall protecting the enterprise fraud from normal 42 USC 1983

litigation requires RICO investigation methods.



4. That according to 18 USC §1961(1)(F)

5. That in regards to patterns of fraud:

a.) 18 USC 1961(1) multiple acts in violation of a single statute, and or

b.) multiple acts in violation of more than one statute

(i.)Any RICO pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering, and as

such the patterns existence may turn on the meaning of the term,

and

(ii.) Beyond individual real and personal property used in transaction of

proprietary business, whether individual suffrage is proprietary

property that as with any business may not be passed-on to

another, and the investment of such capital is spent at a primary

and general election that empowers the winning candidate with

authority to fulfill promises made during the campaign that

absolutely effect the individuals liberty and effectiveness of a

citizen in association with like minded individual citizens similarly

invested.

(iii.) In New York the prima facie evidence of multiple and or false

registrations under the NVRA and HAVA having destroyed the

protective firewall afforded in the 1894 State Constitution with

exclusive municipal control over the original database has been



eliminated as exampled in the Amended Complaint Background

examples in paragraphs 54 & 55, indicates the fiduciary duty of

NYS BOE to maintain a central database to check for and prevent

fraud and misrepresentation, would be similarly evidenced in every

state of the several states and territories.

6. Under the Hobbs Act – 18 USC 1961(1) (b) applies when:

(A) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs delays or effects commerce

or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by extortion

or conspiracy to do.

(B) (1) the term (Robbery) means the unlawful taking or obtaining of

personal property from the person under color of official right.

(B) State whether the same entity is both the liable “person” and the“enterprise” under § 1962(c).

RESPONSE:

a) There is a quasi-public side of state entity persons in the form of Election

Board(s), Bureau(s) and Department(s) of Secretary of State, along with

the patronage structure created under Government control that enables

private participation by corporate entities whose employees and directors

collaborate both publicly by public request for proposals (RFP) and

privately at private lobby events generally not open to the public - as

evidenced by the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest



regarding the January 17 thru 20, 2006 Cooperstown New York meeting

in Otsego County of the Organization of County Boards of

Commissioners sponsored by the voting machine manufacturers and

vendors http://www.ntsdata.com/nyseca/index.htm using questionable

lobbying of municipalities, was witnessed by Dennis Karius, while at the

request of the EVM Vendors for example the Women’s League were dis-

invited.

b) That in the matter of public disclosure regarding the state responsibility

to detect and prevent misrepresentation and fraud, is exampled by the

Florida Leon County elections supervisor who had determined that

Diebold had fraudulently maintained proprietary software which allowed

for fraudulent modification of vote results without detection, when

actually hacked was discovered, the software provider refused disclosure,

withdrew, and upon issuing new Request for Proposal (RFP) Sequoia and

ES&S when learning of the disclosure in the specification also withdrew

refusing to allow review of proprietary programs that would allow fraud

to occur undetected- just within the last two weeks Diebold has had

second thought and has in fact complied and provided machines to Leon,

but neither Sequoia nor ES&S have done so in New York under the star

chamber process, as they refused in Florida.



(14) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), describe in detail the alleged conspiracy.

RESPONSE:

a) So-called “Bi-partisanship” by consent not competition barring participation by

nearly 40% of the electorate establishes an inherent conspiracy for control,

especially when not done without sunshine, as referenced by the SOS about

“Executive sessions” in the Amended Complaint on paragraph 181, in which

star chamber control over patronage policy and purse in New York that since

the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in WMCA has created the basis for

backroom government by consent rather not competition - must require strict

scrutiny review of patterns and product of fraud under color of NVRA / HAVA;

b) At the national level the private National Association of Secretaries of State

under its chairwoman, the duly elected SOS of New Mexico herein joined

herein by due service, with private corporate entities, coordinates public private

interstate / international partnerships on basis that applies the glue for the deals

necessary for NVRA, OSCE/ODIHR and HAVA imposition to work outside of

elected representation and effective public oversight in the sunshine.

(15) Describe the alleged injury to business or property.

RESPONSE:



a) Disproportionate Dilution Diminished expectation of Vote effectiveness and

strength of plaintiffs suffrage capital affected differently on a municipal by

municipal basis, statewide and nationally;

b) The scheme to defraud absolutely offsets of votes imposed by citizen(s)

multiple voting, the civilly dead voting and any alien voting and or registering;

c) loss or diminishment of real property and personal property value as a result of

concealment and extortion involved in the local tax levy as under both EL §4-

138 and Medicaid cost imposition, without earmark and segregation;

(16) Describe the direct causal relationship between the alleged injury and theviolation of the RICO statute.

RESPONSE:

a) Congress has used a vague broad use of VAP rather than the narrow CVAP that

would expressly be dependent upon a respective state constitution and related

laws.

b) The Florida 2000 Election process was rigged to produce the end result of

HAVA starting in 1994 by the Clinton administration whose intent with use of

OSCE / ODIHR personnel was to probe the weaknesses and opportunities to

use the media to propagandize for passage HAVA to effect further top-down

control over elections.

c) That Congress intended to circumvent the Federal Constitution Article I section

4 provision of equal time place and manner provision under State plenary



control starting no later than 1991 when the New Europe Charter was entered,

circumvented doing an Article 5 constitutional amendment with NVRA, next

combined with bogus issues using the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)

strawman, that with the Dayton Accords new borders provisional voting scam

now being used in New Orleans following major population relocation due to

the Katrina Hurricane.

d) The EVM industry ongoing coordination with the “bi-partisan” nature of the

conduct of elections which in many states especially New York bars non-

partisan participation are working together to corner the permanent cash flow

for the annual bottom-line made available at each and every local to national

election as a captive profit center for private industry, even if nothing else as a

matter the appearance of impropriety undermining public confidence in

elections are none the less intent on controlling the substantive outcome as

vendors with an inside political track.

e) Absolute refusal of the State BOE and NYSAG to prevent harboring of illegal

aliens, illegal registration and vote fraud associated without a real time central

database.

(17) List the damages sustained for which each defendant is allegedly liable.

RESPONSE: a) As a matter of civil rights injuries under color of the NVRA and HAVA related

state law the amended complaint covers both the 14th amendment violation of



US Citizen rights unequally protect and treating plaintiffs and those similarly

situated by New York State Defendants and would also cover U.S. Citizen

treatment interstate by those state Defendants of the several states to numerous

to name and that Federal Defendants per the Bivens(10) ruling violate 4th 5th 8th

9th 10th 13th and 15th as are all alleged in the Amended Complaint twelve

injuries paragraph 208 thru 221,

b) That in New York under NVRA and HAVA there is a conflict of interest with

“bi-partisan” provision of Elections which bar non-partisan participation that

involves denial of equal treatment; that on its face requires strict scrutiny in

review of a product of fraud.

c) That each Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a jus tertii class in 47

of 58 municipalities with a board of elections within have no dedicated

representative voice in the state assembly for the Homerule interests of the

people within; until merged and or consolidated the municipalities are to be

deemed a nullity by proper administration and application of the state

constitution related laws.

d) That the unjust enrichment of New York Defendants in willful violation of

fiduciary duty in the matter of need to verify citizenship and cross check for

10 Federal civil rights violation - BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) is a 4th and 5th amendment violation of civil rights by Federal officials as opposed to a 14th

Amendment violation by State officials, - differentiated from the RICO matter of Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Banks of Fla., Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 908 (11 Cir. 1998); see at 496-97 Sedima,

S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3285 (1985) –as both apply differently herein.



multiple residency registration with a central database, that since no later than

implementation of the NVRA, the state of New York has promulgated dilution

and offset of Plaintiffs suffrage capital; and

e) As a simple compensable amount, as if the dollar figure were to be applied to

say equal the total spent on campaign finance matters, both public and private

expenditures for any general election by all candidate committees appearing on

the ballot, is not at all a nominal amount place upon plaintiffs and those

similarly situated as part of total damages, and would have to be offset by a

commensurate amount for alternative results for competitive expectation of

plaintiffs vote effectiveness;

f) In New York actual financial injury must be factored into long-term neglect of

the “bi-partisan” to correct and implement not only the need for an economy of

scale that economic merger and consolidation of municipalities, but for reform

of the Judiciary to provide equal plain speedy and efficient remedy in the

various Judicial Districts pertaining to real property but in the 20 year neglect of

budgetary reform and cost of government is a burden passed down to real

property owners differently on a municipal by municipal basis;

g) Easily, the loss of Plaintiffs vote investment capital without free and fair

elections under New York “bi-partisan” autocracy as a parallel compared to the

Medicaid fraud proof established, is believed to impose no less than an annual



10% surcharge over above the rate of inflation upon plaintiffs’ revenue and cost

of living so that a person with a mean per capita income of say $24,000.00 per

annum has a rate of loss of capital worth imposed at say $2,400.00 per year

compounded annually, pro-rated and accruing increasingly since 1996 that

would total an a significant sum;

h) Variation in the intrastate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138

differently than in NYC;

i) Variation in the interstate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138

differently than in NYC, however is alleged to be increased overall to the state

of New York;

j) The transfer of HAVA funds in the purchase of EVM effects the trade balance;

(18) List all other federal causes of action, if any, and provide the relevant statute numbers.

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs are not aware of any other than those six causes presented

here, which involves 42 USC 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 (1988); 31 USC 3729 thru

3733, and under the INA the Logan Act applies when aliens are enticed with social

services, education, housing employment and citizenship privilege and harbored,

given sanctuary without permission of Congress, violates 18 USC 953.

(19) List all pendent state claims, if any.

RESPONSE: We are not aware of any in the State of New York Supreme Court;

however, In California, paper voting is making a comeback. The Associated Press



reports in the Monterey Herald that seven California counties sued for using

disputed Diebold touch-screen machines have removed themselves from the

lawsuit by promising to use paper ballots in their next election. Alameda County,

on the other hand, has chosen on its own to return to paper, as noted in The Contra

Costa Times. In 2004, Alameda's previous vendor, Diebold, paid over two million

dollars to settle a lawsuit involving false claims made when the machines were

sold. The county hopes these problems "are behind them" as Election Day

approaches.

(20) Provide any additional information that you feel would be helpful to the Court in processing your RICO claim.

RESPONSE:

a) In regards to illegal provision of Medicaid to any illegal alien the state has

recently had $32.5 million offset by the HHS; although the same state agencies

are not involved, nevertheless the sub-division municipalities are presenting

exhibiting a similar pattern of tax levy as with the EL §4-138 whose ongoing

predicates are expected in provision of HAVA false billing.

b) That the city of New York in City of New York v. United States in SDNY Case

96-cv-7758 (JGK), and U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit 97-6162 (closed), has been

admonished by the Federal courts for its “don’t ask don’t tell” policy as an

unwarranted obstruction of INA in harboring illegal aliens;



c) However, despite the censure NYC continues the “don’t ask don’t tell”policy

especially in regards to provision of education, Medicaid, involving Federal

matching assistance to minors within the K thru 12 school system operating

under a state issued identification system (much like that imposed by HAVA)

with intent to circumvent the Social Security Act system to harbor illegal aliens,

who according to the NYS Court of Appeals Decision in the CFE case in NYC

minor aliens constitute of 80% of all children in the system (notwithstanding

Plyler v Doe which is not meant to be enabling legislation merely and

interpretation narrowly defined for those plaintiffs that should be revisited);

d) That a seditious New York State Supreme Court Justice held the executive

policy to withhold of drivers licensure from illegal aliens as unconstitutional

and therefore a result there is no objective barrier for illegals to pose as US

Citizens in New York and elsewhere, and as such facilitates illegals registering

and voting;

e) That Additional information that would be helpful for the Court is set forth in:

1) the Chart of Challenged HAVA Funds Distribution Based upon the State of

New York Board of Elections 31 December 2004 Central Database for Voter

Registration sorted by Percentage of Inactive Persons registered to vote in

one or more municipalities maintained by a total of 62 questionable Boards


of Election with the Fiduciary Duty to maintain an original registration

database for Bottom-up suffrage shown in paragraph 169,

2) The Census Table 1.1 in Amended Complaint Paragraph 197;

3) The California, Texas and New York state comparison chart of "eligibles" in

Amended Complaint paragraph 200; 1

4) The comparison of HAVA b d i n g difficulty between California, Texas and

New York when different interpretations of VAP are used in depicted in

paragraph 206, of the Amended Complaint; and

5) That a schedule of claims has yet to be produced and awaits discovery of the

actual use of the VAP formula of each state of the several states must be

ordered by the DOJ and EAC to comply, then only to be compared with that

which has been actually billed to EAC for reimbursement.

Dated: ~ ~ r i l w, 2006 Clarendon New York

Clarendon New York 14429 5 85-72 1 -7673 1 [email protected]

Dated: A p r i l g o , 2006 Brooklyn New York

without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -28 1 Brooklyn New York 1 1238 845-389-0774 / [email protected]


EXHIBIT D

1 :06-CV-00080-R J A Forjone v California

Certificate of Service On the dates noted below under penalty of perjury I caused to be mailed postage prepaid via USPS (receipts attached) a copy of a Summons and Complaint along with a postage prepaid envelop and copy of a letter from Christopher Strunk to Judge Arcara explaining voluntary acknowledgement of mail service.

On Feb 18th 2006 via Certified Mail signature return requested to the following: Secretaries of State and Attorney Generals of the states of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Oregon, California.

On Feb 19th, 2006 via Certified Mail with signature return requested to the following: US Attorney General Gonzalez, US Election Assistance Corp., NYS Board of Elections, NYS Attorney General, NYS Secretary of State.

On Feb 21st, 2006 via first class mail to the corporation counsel or county attorney of each an every NYS county and NYC each having a local board of elections, as well as serving by Certified Mail signature return requested to Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz.

Defendant County of Allegany

Defendant County of Monroe

Defendant County of Chemung Defendant County of Cortland Defendant County of Chenango

Defendant County of Otsego Defendant County of St. Lawrence

Defendant County of Cayuga

Defendant County of Onondaga Defendant County of Albany

Defendant County of Franklin

Defendant County of Clinton Defendant County of Essex

Defendant County of Dutchess

Defendant County of Columbia

Defendant County of Saratoga Defendant County of Washington Defendant County of Rensselaer

Defendant County of Fulton

Defendant County of Orange Defendant County of Rockland

Defendant County of Tompkins Defendant County of Schuyler

Defendant County of Herkimer Defendant County of Livingston

Defendant County of Greene

Defendant County of Westchester

Defendant County of Steuben

Defendant The City of New York

Defendant County of Broome Defendant County of Ontario Defendant County of Yates

Defendant County of Ulster Defendant County of Delaware

Defendant County of Montgomery Defendant County of Oneida

Defendant County of Nassau Defendant County of Suffolk

Defendant County of Orleans Defendant qounty of Oswego '

Defendant County of Hamilton

Defendant County of Niagara

Defendant County of Seneca

Defendant County of Schenectady

Defendant County of Putnam '

Defendant County of Genesee Defendant County of Wyoming Defendant County of Chautauqua

Defendant County of Wayne Defendant County of Jefferson Defendant County of Lewis

Dcfendant County of Schoharie Defendant Country of Sullivan

Defendant bounty of Tioga Defendant County of Warren Defendant County of Erie

Defendant County of Cattaraugus

Defendant County of Madison

Dated April 4, 2006

7taAm&B//,,&,

-0

il P 0- rn

m 0 0 Return Receipt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required)

Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)

d

il il Total Postage & Fees

rn Postage ( E J 5 I UN rn Certified Fee 0 0 Return Receipt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required)


il d Total Postage & Fees

Postage

Certified Fee

Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)

Reslr.cted Del very Fee IEnaorsemenr Req,.reu,

0 0 Return Recelpt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required)

0 0 Return Recelpt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required)

il Fl Total Postage & Fees

C] Return Receipt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required)

Restricted Delivery,Fee 4 (Endorsement Requ~red) il

0 U

0 Return Receipt Fee 0 Return Receipt Fee

(Endorsement Required) (Endorsement Required)

il Total Postage & Fees

Is) Is) Is) EO

il P D- m

m 0 0 0

0 4 il il

0 Certified Fee 0 O Return Receipt Fee

(Endorsement Required)

WIINI TK 71Ylll-Z%8 Postage $

Certified Fee

Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Reauired)

2.

+a 1. . .


0

Total Postage & Fees

? 8 2005 1 Postmark Id

Here

rn 0 Certified Fee A-

Return Recelpt Fee (Endorsement Requlred)

Restr~cted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Requlred)

.to

rn

rn 0 Certif~ed Fee 0 0 Return Rece~pt Fee


a Restricted Delivery Fee 5 (Endorsement Required)

. . Postage

rn 0 Certlhed Fee 0 0 Return Receipt Fee


Restricted Dellvery Fee 4 (Endorsement Requlred) 2

il Total Postage B Fees

a Restricted DeliveryFee Jl (Endorsement Required) il

. - Total Postage & Fees [ $ z : . ;,

0 Postmark

a Restricted Delivery Fee -I] (Endorsement Required)

m

m 0 - 2.40 Postmark U

Return ~ e c e ~ p t f & , Here (Endorsement Required)

t3 Restrbcted Dellvery Fee 5 (Endorsement Required) I 1

UMTEL) smns Pdf RlL SERUEE ***** WELCOME TO *****

HURLEY MPO HURLEY NY 12443-5 105

02/21/06 10 : 42AM

Store USPS Trans 25 kkstn ~ ~ ~ 5 0 0 2 Cashier KC5R5S Cashier's Name DIANA Stock Unit I d SIADIANA PO Phone Number 800-275-8777 USPS # 3590960246

1. F i r s t Class Destination:

: !$ay~%I{~e :

Base Rate: 2. F i r s t Class

Destination:

r;~~yg[~;{~e :


Destination:

f;&y;o;r~e I , i I , ' Base Rate:

4. F i r s t Class 1 Destination:

, ;;fa yf0;fpe :


Destination:

' $&ygi0,{pe :


Destination:

we'?ht: , ;;;ayg;o;f~e :

Base Rate:

10924 6.40 02, PVI 1.83 1,83

10956 6.40 02. PVI 1.83 1,83

1060 1 6.40 02, PVI 1,83 1,83

10007 6.40 02. PVI 1.83 1,83

11501 6.40 oz. PVI 1,83 1.83

1 1788 6.40 02. PVI 1.83 1.83

F i r s t Class Destination:

!::?!$ Type: Total Cos : Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination:

!;:a!:; Total Cos Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination:

: Pos age T pe: Total cosy: Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination: Wei h t : ~os?age T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination :

Wei?ht : Pos age T pe: Total cosy: Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination:

I::?!:; T pe: Total Cosy: Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination:

, ;;farg!,:rpe :

Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination:

I:;?$; T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination :

Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination:

: Pos age T pe: Total COSY:

Ra\e: F i r s t C ,ass Dest i na t j on :

' Pos age T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination:

Pos age T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination:

POS Wei?ht: age T pe: Total COSY: Base Ja te :

14020 5,130 az, PVI 1.59 1.59

13367 6.30 oz. PVI 1.83 1,83

1360 1 6.40 02. PVI 1,83 1,83

12414 6.50 oz. PVI 1.83 1.83

13350 6,50 oz. PVI 1,83 1,83

12842 6.30 oz, PVI 1.83 1.83

14020 6.30 oz. PVI 1,83 1.83

12095 6,40 02. PVI 1.83 1.83

12953 6,30 oz. PVI 1.83 1.83

12932 6,30 oz, PVI 1.83 1,83

14202 6-40 oz, PVI 1.83 1.83

13753 6.40 02. PVI 1.83 1,83

13045 6.30 02. PVI 1.83 1.83

Other Mail Pick Event Code: Del Other Mail Pick Event Code: Del F i r s t Class Destination:

!::?!:A Type : Total Cos : Base Rate: F i r s t Class Dest inat ion :

!::?!:; Ttpe : Total Cos : Base Rate : F i r s t Class Dest inat ion:

, ;;sargeOE~pe :

Base Rate : F i r s t Class Dest inat ion: Wei h t : . ? POS age Type: Total Cos : Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination:

!::?!:; Trpe : Total Cos : Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination:

!$!;; Type: Total Cos : Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination:

!::?!:; Type : Total Cos : Base Rate: F i r s t Class Dest inat ion:

, ;gaygeoEy~e :

Base Rate : F i r s t Class Dest inat ion :

!8:?!$ ~y pe : Total Cos : Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination:

!8:?!:: TYpe: Total Cos : Base Rate:

, F i r s t Class Destination:

POS age Type: Total Cos : Base Rate:

, F i r s t Class Dest inat ion:

!:if!;; Type : Total Cos : Base Rate : --

UP ivered .UP ivered

13617 6,30 oz. PVI 1,83 1.83

12180 6.40 oz. PVI 1,83 1.83

10512 6,30 oz. PVI 1,83 1,83

13326 6.30 02. PVI 1.83 1,83

13126 6.30 02. PVI 1.83 1.83

14103 6.30 oz. PVI 1,83 1.83

14424 6,40 oz. PVI 1,83 1.83

13501 6.30 oz. PVI 1,83 1.83

14094 6.20 oz. PVI 1.83 1.83

12068 6.30 02, PVI 1,83 1.83

13163 6,40 02. PVI 1,83 1.83

12401 6.30 oz. PVI 1.83 1.83

F i r s t Class Destination:

: Pos age T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination:

: Pos age T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination:

F;;ay;o;l~e :

Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination: Weieht : ;;;afg;oIy ~e :

Base Rate : F i r s t Class Dest inat ion :

: Pos age T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate: F i r s t Class Dest inat ion :

POS age : T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate : F i r s t Class Destination:

!:A?:& T pe: Total COSY: Base Rate : F i r s t Class Dest inat ion : Weiiht : Pos age Tylje: Total Cos Base Rate: F i r s t Class Destination: Weiant: POS age Type: Total Cos Base Rate :

Subtotal Total

13827 6.30 oz PVI 1,83 1,83

14850 6,30 oz PVI 1,83 1.83

1270 1 6,40 oz PVI 1.83 1.83

14810 6.30 oz PVI 1,83 1,83

13165 6.30 oz PVI 1.83 1,83

1489 1 6.30 oz PVI 1,83 1.83

12043 6,30 oz PVI 1,83 1.83

12020 6,30 oz PVI 1,83 1,83

12845 6.40 02 PVI 1.83 1 .83

VISA 99.17

<23-903612430-98, VISA ACCT. NUMBER CLERK I D XXXX XXXX XXXX 9026 03 AUTH 110688 CREDIT TRANS # 400

ALL SALES FINAL ON STAMPS AND POSTAGE, REFUNDS FOR GUARANTEED SERVICES ONLY.

Pickup Date/Time : 02 21/06 10 : 56AM Number of Mailpieces 6 rocessed: 2

Number of Items Sold: 54

Thank You Please come again!

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

1

EXTREME MAKEOVER: ALBANY a state of dysfunction

Excelsior, New York's motto of 'ever upward,' has evolved to mean ever outward,' as tens of thousands of people flee Albany's tyranny; it's time to get them back

By KEVIN WALTER News Editorial Writer4/30/2006 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060430/1071401.asp

The decision to move from New York could hardly have been more agonizing for Connie and Tony Toledo, but they felt they had no choice. Tony had been laid off, and the state's hostile business policies undermined the towing business he subsequently started. So the family left Buffalo for North Carolina.

It was 2001 when Tony said goodbye to his lifelong hometown and Connie's adopted home of 15 years. The move devastated everyone: Tony, a product of Lafayette High School and a devoted Bills fan; his father, Daniel, distraught over his son's departure; and the couple's oldest child, Rachelle, a high school freshman and cheerleader who tumbled into a yearlong depression.

"It was rough," remembered Connie.

The Toledos and other families whose experiences are recounted here are but a few of hundreds of thousands of people who fled upstate New York over the past 40 years. They didn't leave because of too much snow, or the Bills' Super Bowl frustrations, or lack of a new Peace Bridge; they didn't decamp for Florida, North Carolina or Arizona because they liked hurricanes, drought and wildfires.

They left to survive, to find work and an affordable cost of living, with a survivable tax burden. They relocated to escape a state government that's beholden to special labor, lawyer and lobbying interests and pays scant attention to taxpayers' needs.

It's not new that New Yorkers pulled up stakes - Excelsior, the state's motto, meaning "ever upward," seems modified to "ever outward" - or that Albany's government continually undermines its people. But the time is long past to try to fix it.

In this article and in editorials today through Thursday, The Buffalo News sets out to offer solutions to a dysfunctional state government. They include a constitutional amendment on term limits; objective redistricting to create competitive elections; further breaking the power of three leaders in Albany; developing electoral accountability, rather than responsiveness to special interests; and re-establishing a two-party system, with legitimate divergent philosophies that give voters a choice and legislators a vision. Finally, and perhaps most doable, voters need to

2

shrug off their slumber and fight back, taking power and demanding meaningful reforms after they throw the bums out.

For their part, the Toledo family tried to stay, wanted to stay. Unable to find work after he was laid off from International Imaging - just eight months after the birth of the couple's third child -Tony cashed in his retirement savings and borrowed $25,000 from his parents to start a towing business. But he said that under the weight of the region's weak economy and New York's exorbitant worker's compensation costs, the venture collapsed. They had to go.

Here is the difference between the economies of Buffalo and Greensboro, N.C. Once Tony started looking for work there, it took only a couple of days to land a job and a relocation package. He now works for Golden State Foods, a supplier to McDonald's, and Connie works as an account representative for a national mortgage company.

Rachelle, now 18 and adjusted to her new life, is a college student (education costs are lower, the Toledos say). Finally, Tony's parents, also lifelong Buffalonians, packed up and headed South to be near their family.

It was an ordeal, its pistons driven by the Albany job-killing machine. Still, Connie said, the Toledos agree that their anguish never altered this fundamental fact: Because of this region's feeble economy and the obstacles New York puts in the way of business, they were left without an alternative.

"It was the best decision we could have made," she said.

Numbers set the stage

The numbers only begin to tell the woeful tale of New York, but they make a stark beginning. The figures - on tax burdens, public spending and population transfer, among others - outline a story of a government run amok and a state run into the ditch.

But numbers are cold. They only hint at the repercussions they have dealt to the residents of this woefully mismanaged state: fractured hopes, lost opportunities, divided families. The reasons behind those misfortunes are multiple and complex, but from a public policy standpoint, they distill to Albany's deluded belief that New York is still the Empire State, a realm so splendid that Americans will pay any price to live within its golden borders.

The numbers give the lie to that milk-and-honey fantasy, as well. Here are some, from Governing magazine's State & Local Source Book for 2005 (figures are per capita, unless otherwise noted):

* Total tax revenue, state and local, was the nation's highest, $4,645.

* Property tax revenue was fifth-highest, $1,402.

3

* Total spending was second highest, $10,376.

* State and local debt was second highest, $10,306.

* Welfare spending was highest, $1,699, even though the number of recipients per 10,000 residents was only 16th highest.

* K-12 education spending (state and local) was second highest, $2,001, even though school enrollment as a share of total population was fourth lowest. Spending per-pupil was highest, $12,059.

* The average pay of state and local employees was second highest, at $52,450.

* The state was 40th in "economic momentum," a ranking of one-year changes in employment, personal income and population. (It's not about cold and snow, either. Wyoming, Minnesota and New Hampshire ranked 16, 17 and 18. The Dakotas were 7 and 8.)

The consequences of such numbers are both pernicious and predictable. People are leaving. New York's share of the national population has steadily eroded, from 9.8 percent at mid-century to 6.5 percent last year, according to the U.S. Census.

Then, New York controlled 43 of Congress' 435 seats. Today it holds 29. That's a 32 percent decline. Less representation, less power; less power, less money.

Growth is slow

It's not that the state isn't growing; it's just that others are growing much faster, a trend that is expected tocontinue. Census projections are that from 2000 to 2030, New York will grow more slowly than all but four states. Meanwhile, some areas within New York - including Buffalo - are, in fact, shrinking, leaving fewer residents to pay the ever-rising tax bill.

New York is the alcoholic among the states, not simply unable to moderate its self-destructive behavior but uninterested in doing so. What's needed is an intervention. New York needs to treat not just the symptoms of its compulsion but the underlying disease. It needs to revitalize its enervated democracy by injecting healthy doses of competition - which is to say, fear - into the political process.

Independent redistricting, an effective Legislature committee system and a spirited opposition party are three of the most important reforms needed, but none will happen unless voters scream it into Albany's besotted face.

Otherwise, it's pass the bottle.

Families split up

4

It doesn't sound like a mother's fondest wish, but Kathleen Jarnot says she's glad her children moved away.

Glad is a relative term, of course. Jarnot would rather her children lived nearby, but jobs are scarce. Things would have been difficult for them had they remained in Western New York, where the children and their parents were born. So her son Jeff left for Virginia while daughters Susan and Jennifer headed west to California.

"We have wonderful colleges here, but the jobs are there, and I'm glad they went there," said Jarnot, who lives with her husband Daniel in Cheektowaga.

Daniel Jarnot understands that reality, as well, but he is less forgiving of it. Not only are his children far away, his only grandson lives in California.

"You lose the normal family life," he said. "I don't like it at all."

For his part, Jeff has few regrets about his move to Reston, Va., where he works in sales for Oracle, the software giant. Now 36, he worked in sales here for 11/2 years after graduating from the State University of New York at Potsdam, but soon realized opportunities for advancement were scarce in Western New York.

In 1995, while visiting a friend in Reston, he saw that the Washington Post's "help wanted" section was overflowing with ads. He quit his job, sent out six resumes and quickly landed a new position after just two interviews.

"In Buffalo, you could spend a long time finding a job," he said.

Jarnot has lived in Virginia for 11 years and, but for lingering sorrow over leaving an area he still loves, never looked back. Why would he? He is selling a house whose value has risen 300 percent since he bought it in 1997. In Cheektowaga, the sale price of the average single-family home rose just 14 percent over the same period, according to the Buffalo Niagara Association of Realtors. That's less than one-twentieth the rate of increase.

Badly out of step

New York didn't get this way by accident. In almost every way - economically, culturally, politically, municipally - the state is in a class by itself. It contains within its borders extremes of wealth and poverty. It was, and continues to be, a primary port of entry for immigrants. It includes a spectacularly complex city that is far-and-away the nation's largest, an economic engine and power base unto itself.

As one former state legislator observed, it's no surprise that a state so steeped in diversity - and in so many forms of it - would look different at the governmental level.

5

But it's one thing to expect the occasional departure from national norms, and far more consequential when government becomes a compendium of radical departures, most moving it in damaging directions for its people's welfare.

How consequential? Enough to spawn a Legislature so deviant it has been crowned as the country's most dysfunctional.

That's a disorder with its own consequences, including a penchant for restricting the flow of information from, to and within the Legislature, and for delivering squeaky-wheel policies that benefit favored groups even as they drive out jobs, opportunity and population.

Much of the reason for New York's idiosyncratic government traces to downstate, a region of enormous political clout, vast disparities of wealth and about zero interest in Albany. Overwhelmingly Democratic, it elects liberals who have so weighted state government to the left that Republicans - never too conservative to begin with - are satisfied with playing me-too politics.

Instead of offering a competing, perhaps healthier, vision of state government, the putatively conservative party has at best surrendered and at worst joined the opposition. New York Republicans are the ideological prisoners of their political adversaries, and content to be so.

Unchecked Republican control could be awful, too, of course (see Washington). The problem arises from the failure of a democratic imperative: a vigorous opposition.

A spending machine

With virtually no political competition to restrain the wild horses of the Democratic left, state government is a runaway spending machine devoted first to self-preservation, second to its sugar-daddy sponsors and, lastly, to the New Yorkers they are sworn to represent (and then, often with an asterisk attached). Consider:

* Spending: Even with two-thirds of the government in Republican hands (the party owns the Senate and has held the governor's office since 1995), state spending has nonetheless risen by an average of 6.5 percent a year, 21/2 times the average rate of inflation.

And that's with the conservatives holding sway. During the 12 years Mario M. Cuomo was governor, when Democrats held the balance of power, annual spending increases averaged a dizzying 11.6 percent percent, though the ratio to inflation was about the same.

And remember: Those feverish growth rates are for a state whose per-capita spending is already the nation's second highest.

* Self-preservation: New York lawmakers are expert at drawing "designer districts" - with oddly drawn boundaries whose purpose is to deliver to incumbents of both parties legislative districts that only a cadaver could lose.

6

In complying with the constitutional requirement to ensure proportional representation, states must draw new districts after each census. Like many states, though, New York turns what should be a civic act into a political one, bending lines to pack enough partisans into any given district that a candidate of the wrong party has no chance of winning. Democrats keep the Assembly and Republicans the Senate.

As Barbara Bartoletti of the New York State League of Women Voters told a local audience this year: "Your elected officials get to choose you before you choose them."

That's only the start of how lawmakers in New York maneuver to protect their electoral flanks. Strategically lax rules on lobbying, fund-raising and ethics give them a huge advantage over challengers, enough to discourage many potential opponents even from running.

In addition, New York is one of the few states with an unregulated system of "member items" -tax dollars given to individual legislators to distribute as they see fit. It's a kind of legalized vote-buying.

* Favored groups: If you're a health care worker, a trial lawyer or one of a few other special interests, good news. The levers of influence are within your grasp. If you're but a taxpayer, or a small business owner trying to make it in an unfriendly state, you'll have to get in line. Your problems may not be completely irrelevant to lawmakers (then again, they may), but they are of decidedly less interest.

A couple of examples: Until Congress invalidated an antiquated state statute last year, car companies could be held liable, sometimes for millions of dollars, if one of their leasing customers injured someone while driving the vehicle. Part of the reason that law remained on the books is the political clout of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, which wanted to retain a law that gave them easy access to potentially rich lawsuits. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a lawyer, is associated with a personal injury law firm.

Even more scandalously, the state's most powerful health care labor union, SEIU Local 1199, drove a massive increase in the state's Medicaid program a few years ago. Sitting at the public negotiating table as Gov. George E. Pataki and the two legislative leaders hammered out the bill was the union president, Dennis Rivera. The reason: State leaders, especially Pataki, were intimidated by the public beating Rivera and his wealthy organization could give them. Rivera and his interests cut to the front of the line.

* The public interest: Fair-minded people would acknowledge that the 1999 expansion of Medicaid, which created an insurance program known as Family Health Plus, included a legitimate public component - even if it was rammed through the Legislature for political reasons with no hearings, no debate and no real sense of its implications. The program, serving New York's working poor, had a March enrollment of more than half a million people.

Ah, but that asterisk. The program was, at its inception, an expensive payoff to an unelected powerbroker. Hofstra University law professor Eric Lane is more caustic about it. A former chief

7

counsel to the State Senate minority and primary researcher on the report that tagged the Legislature as "dysfunctional," Lane calls the Rivera power grab a "sleaze job."

If an essential part of lawmakers' job is to be good and honest stewards of New Yorkers' tax dollars, then they failed. It's not a recent problem, either.

High taxes a burden

It didn't take Gary Newton long to figure out he was going to have to leave Western New York to pursue a career in agriculture. Unable to find work after he graduated from the State University of New York at Geneseo with a bachelor of science degree, he left Niagara County for the Peace Corps.

He returned to Middleport two years later but stayed less than half a year. With his best job prospect setting out rat bait in Niagara Falls, he left again, this time to pursue his doctorate.

That was 27 years ago. In more than a quarter century, things haven't changed in upstate New York. Or in Albany, which he believes shares responsibility for the region's economic blight.

"I have cousins and an aunt and uncle still in Western New York," said Newton, a researcher and professor at Prairie View A&M University near Houston. "They complain about the high taxes."

High is right, especially compared to Texas, with no income tax and property tax rates that would make a New Yorker swoon. Newton and his wife own an 1,800-square-foot house that sits on half an acre. Their combined property tax bill - county, city and school - is $1,500.

A quarter century on, Newton says he still misses the area, and as recently as a year ago was looking for ways to return. A possibility at SUNY-Geneseo didn't pan out, so it's on to year 28.

Excelsior.

A history of corruption

A thread of corruption runs through the history of government in New York, especially over the past century or so. And while today's corruption is less about criminality than it is about sustaining a purposefully anti-democratic power structure, the roots of the tree reach deep into the soil of a feloniouspast.

Tammany Hall is a prime example. The corrupt Democratic political machine that ruled New York City politics for decades was a de facto influence on Albany, as well.

Under the influence of Tammany Hall and its then-leader, William Marcy Tweed - "Boss Tweed" - the governor and Legislature passed laws specifically designed to give Tammany greater ability to ply its corruption, including the outright thievery of public money.

8

If that kind of overt criminality has largely bleached out of state government, its stain lingers in a conspiracy of practices designed to stifle democratic debate by concentrating power in the two legislative leaders.

Other, more legitimate reasons may also help explain that kind of autocratic power structure. By some observers' reckoning, for example, the state's vast scale of social and economic diversity requires a strong leadership model to prevent the chambers from splintering into hostile factions.

Nevertheless, the parallels between the Legislature and the corrupt political boss system are evident. In each, the leader calls the shots, and the followers - that is, the remaining 215 state legislators - do as they're told, or else they're punished. They don't ask too many questions and they don't have too much power, but they hold safe seats, draw healthy paychecks and, for better or worse, leave some kind of mark on the history of New York.

"You can see Tammany Hall, without the corruption," said Lane.

A network of abuses

The Brennan Center for Justice detailed this and other government disorders two years ago in an explosive report called "The New York State Legislative Process: An Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform." The report, which famously (and accurately) tagged the New York State Legislature as the nation's "most dysfunctional," contained a laundry list of offenses that empower the leaders, penalize taxpayers and insulate the institution from the competition of adversaries and, worse, of ideas.

These include:

* A sham system of legislative committees that rarely considers pending bills and whose staffs are beholden to each chamber's leader.

* An approval system that discourages or prevents debate on pending legislation.

* Unequal funding of legislators' staff costs, depending on their political party.

* Iron control by each leader over which bills make it to the floor for a vote. That ensures that only bills the leaders favor can become law, and given the unhealthy influence leaders exert over their timorous members, that every bill that comes to a vote passes.

Most broadly, the report cites five fundamental values served by a well-functioning legislature -representativeness, deliberativeness, accessibility, accountability and efficiency - and concludes that New York's Legislature flunks all of them. The report is available online at www.brennancenter.org.

9

The report caused a flurry of activity in Albany, where the state budget, late for 20 consecutive years, arrived on time in 2005, as it did this year. And some legitimate reforms followed, including an end to "empty-seat voting" in the Assembly. That's the process by which lawmakers who sign in for the day were automatically counted as having voted with the majority unless they make a point to show up and vote otherwise. The Senate's response was muddier, but Bartoletti, of the League of Women Voters, said she's seen no substantive change.

But the history of Albany reform is to do as little as possible, declare a new day and go about business as usual. That's what has happened since the detonation of the Brennan Center report.

Departing is such sorrow

It pains Thomas Mullane that he had to leave his native Buffalo. And it distresses him that he may never be able to return to an area he calls home to "some of the nicest people in the world."

But in North Carolina, Mullane found professional success that he says would never have been his had he remained in the economic wasteland of upstate New York. He also found lower taxes, a friendlier business climate and citizens who do not make a lifelong project of hindering their region's progress.

Mullane, his wife Kim and their two young children left Buffalo for Winston-Salem last May. The 39-year-old insurance investigator saw no prospect of professional advancement anywhere in upstate New York and made the wrenching decision to leave behind not only the city he loves, but his larger family.

It was the right choice, he said. In Winston-Salem, his family settled into a 2,100-square-foot home, about 25 percent larger than the home he left but with a tax bill almost 60 percent smaller.

"It's amazing to me," said Mullane, who keeps up on Buffalo. "Taxes are still in the forefront of the news there, but they're not a story in North Carolina. They're just not an issue."

As with the Toledo family, the Mullanes' move had a domino effect. Not long after he left, his wife's parents made the jump, too, partly to find work and partly to be near their grandchildren. One family fled New York, pulling another in its wake.

Mullane says his mother still hopes he'll return to this area, but he's doubtful.

"I love Buffalo," he said, "and I like New York State . . . If they just made it friendlier to live there . . ."

e-mail [email protected]

EXHIBIT G

Terry Goddard Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General State of Arizona Direct Line: 602-542-7993

Fax: 602-542-8308

March 24,2006

PTA FIlPST CLASS MAIL

Ad Hoc NYS People Nationwide P.O. 28 Clarendon, NY 14429

Re: John Joseph Forjone, et al. v. Stale of Cal fornia, et a1 . - Case No. 06 CV 80.

Dear Sir or Madam:

We received a copy of a summons and complaint that you delivered by mail in connection with the above-referenced matter. You enclosed what appeared to be a request for waiver of service on a form prepared pursuant to New York law.

We do not believe that your form is sufficient to affect a waiver of service of the summons and complaint in this matter. Nonetheless, the State of Arizona agrees to waive service of your summons and complaint as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Rules of Civil Procedure in Arizona.

The State of Arizona agrees to waive service without waiving any objection to the venue or jurisdiction of the court, and without waiving any other objection or defense that the State of Arizona may assert as provided by law. Indeed, because the State of Arizona is not a proper party to your action, I encourage you to dismiss your claims without delay.

Sincerely, 1

~iiii& Varela Assistant Attorney General

1275 West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Phone 602-542-3333 a Fax 602-542-8308


Relators’ MOL Response to NYS MTD – Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et.al.

Plaintiffs} v.

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMASWILKEY, et.al.

Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RELATORS’ RESPONSE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL’S NOTICE

OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

We are Plaintiffs pro se without either being an attorney, as Relators jus

tertii under the False Claims Act 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA) produce this

response Memorandum of Law in opposition to the state of New York’s

Secretary of State Randy Daniels (now Christopher L. Jacobs) and Attorney

General Eliot Spitzer, (NYS) Defendants’ counsel, NYS Assistant Attorney

General Peter Sullivan’s Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint

filed pursuant to the Court’s May 4, 2006 Text Order of all Defendants herein to

respond by June 1, 2006 accordingly, and NYS Defendants’ Memorandum of

Law with two Points of Argument to which we respond.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This Relators Law Memorandum with seven Exhibits is filed in

conjunction herewith the Co-chairmen Relators’ Response Declarations with



eight Exhibits for a total of Fifteen (15) EXHIBITS as both a jus tertii

association and individually jus tertii pursuant of a declaratory judgment in the

matter of overly vague and broad use of the Help America to Vote Act (HAVA)

Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow respective state law

determinant definition of “Voting Age Population” (VAP), as well as being

relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA); and that

a Declaratory Judgment and need for equity relief warrants a Court order of the

DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance plans in light of the

declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and penalties to be

levied under the FCA. That NYS Defendants’ MOL alleges two points of

argument to wit Relators respond with the following:

Table of Contents:

I. Relators Response to NYS MOL Point I

II. Pattern of conduct by Secretary of StateA. Fiduciary Duty under NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5AB. Randy Daniels’ response v. Christopher L. Jacobs’response

III.Orleans not a municipality is subject to a Principality in factA. NYS Association of Counties and the NYMIR –conflict of interestB. Municipalities must qualify for a Board of Elections within C. Questionable “Bipartisan” County Party structure EL 2-100

IV. Proposed Municipal merger and consolidation law (EXHIBIT 9)A. NYS Constitution Article III and IX B. Greater Batavia solutionC. Northwest District of New York



V. Patterns of Conduct by NYS AG Eliot Spitzer

A. Harbors Illegal Aliens w/ social assistance and employment (a copy of 3 October 2002 NYSAG Press Release herewith marked EXHIBIT 11)

B. Aids and abets HAVA Racketeering enterprise(a copy of 12-Feb-2001NYSAG Press release herewith marked EXHIBIT 13.)

C. Peter Lance on Eliot Spitzer and Dietrich Snell 1993 to the present

VI. Relators Response Summary in Favor of Equity Relief

AUTHORITIES:

In regards to plenary Federal authority over aliens- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1940),

HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

(535 U.S. 137) Argued January 15, 2002–Decided March 27, 2002 (Herewith marked

EXHIBIT 10); Sanango v 200 E. 16th St. Hous. Corp. 2004 NYSlipOp 09716 December

28, 2004 Friedman, J. Appellate Division, First Department; Majlinger v Cassino Contr.

Corp. 2005 NYSlipOp 06785 September 19, 2005 Prudenti, J. Appellate Division, Second

Department (a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 12),

In regards to gerrymandering the dissenting opinion in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725

(1983), in regards to the role of the central data base Schulz v. Berman, (NDNY 94-CV-

1201, aff’d, 2nd Cir. 1994), in regards to Federal Elections per se Adams v. Clinton, DCDC

Civ. No 98-1665, Alexander v. Daley, DCDC Civ. No. 98-2187, Molinari, et al v. Powers,

et al., 99-CV-8447 (DCEDNY 2000), BUSH v. GORE December 12, 2000, Wood v.

Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932), Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S.

375 (1932), Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), Wesbury v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964),

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964), In the jus tertii matter –Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190

(1976)



I. Relators Response to NYS MOL Point I

The mandatory existence of the Secretary of State (SOS) historically since the

April 20, 1777 founding of the state of New York, as the Federally essential

State voice mediating the external affairs of the State per se is the essential party

defined in Federal Law and State Law that by operation of the Constitution

under article I, II and VI, predates that of the Attorney General and under girds

the legitimacy and broad definition of “Fiduciary Duty” separate and apart from

that of the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” the Attorney General. Plaintiffs

allege no less than substantive violation of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6

Article 5A (CRL), (cited by Forjone in his Declaration) by both SOS Daniels

and NYSAG Spitzer, and with even more machinations have materially

participated as willing participants in the enterprise and racketeering activity

associated with harboring of Illegal Aliens as is associated with plaintiffs injury

directly along with those similarly situated, and that by substantively denying

due process in regards to the sanctity of the municipal provision of suffrage for

the people resident within who have in effect been reduced to peons on

plantations not municipalities subject to princes and principalities in violation of

US Citizens 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th 8th 9th 10th 13th amendment rights as guaranteed and

protected for equal treatment under the 14th herein denied by the SOS and

NYSAG.



II. Pattern of conduct by Secretary of State

A. Fiduciary Duty under NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A-

that each and every supposed municipality since the 1777 founding must

be duly recorded and maintained, whether as a quasi-corporation, full

corporation and or association as defined by the statute. That the CRL

clearly establishes a clear standard of review and performance for both the

SOS and NYSAG who are alleged to have not only failed, but have acted

individually in a partisan manner in breech of their oaths of office.

B. Randy Daniels’ response v. Christopher L. Jacobs’ response - the

significant prima facie evidence of intentional and willful lack of response

starting no later than April 22, 2002 by Mr. Daniels as a partisan serving

to disassemble and misconstrue the state record in the matter of plenary

provision of bottom-up suffrage in “Homerule” municipalities with a

Board of elections within as to the implementation of NVRA and HAVA,

and by denying Plaintiffs’ civil rights against the intrigues associated

with the so-called municipalities and agents acting in violation of CRL.

We refer to the stark contrast between the response shown as EXHIBIT 2

to the CRL FOIL in Declarants’ EXHIBITs 1 and 4, versus that afforded

by SOS Jacobs shown in EXHIBIT 3.



III.Orleans not a municipality is subject to a Principality in fact- that based

upon the response shown as EXHIBIT 3 Plaintiffs are hard pressed to

characterize what exactly “Orleans” per se is or is not, and certainly is prima

facie evidence of everything that is alleged of both the complaint and is in stark

contrast to the requirement of the operation of the State Constitution and Law,

especially its agents are in violation of CRL.

A. NYS Association of Counties(NYSAC) and the NYMIR – conflict of

interest the role of NYSAC and NYMIR by operation of the CRL must be

receive strict scrutiny review for a product of fraud.

B. Municipalities must qualify for a Board of Elections within the fact

that the NYS Board of Elections has classified ALL the so-called

municipal Boards of Election as non-complying with not only HAVA but

state Election Law as well as shown by the compliance submission

submitted to the court in NDNY 06-cv-263 herewith marked as

EXHIBIT 15, must receive strict scrutiny review for a product of fraud.

C. Questionable “Bipartisan” County Party structure EL 2-100 that the

ongoing jurisdiction by Judge John Gleeson in the Torres et.al. v. NYS

et.al. EDNY 04-cv-1129 Brooklyn Democratic Party Committee as a

questionable association acting as a racketeering enterprise is germane



herein especially when ,measured by operation of the EXHIBIT 3

disclosure and statute.

IV. Proposed Municipal merger and consolidation law (EXHIBIT 9) the

fact that Strunk in spring of 2004 interviewed State Senator Little in Her Capitol

Office before She sponsored the merger bill goes to the absolute recognition and

admission that there is unequal provision of law for the People resident within

existing so-called municipalities with a Board of Elections within; absolutely

goes to the fiduciary duty of both the SOS and NYSAG to provide a heightened

standard of care to protect civil rights under CRL – isn’t done.

A. NYS Constitution Article III and IX –ipso facto without belaboring

the operation of law is essential for any review by the Court herein; and

that with special reference to the history of local government with

background associated with the syllabus provided by Buffalo University

in the study of Local Government remarkably lacking substantive review

of the role of legislative representation dedicated to the people within any

such municipality entitled to control of bottom-up suffrage; we reserve

further discussion and elaboration for our response to the various

Defendant State Subdivisions accordingly.



B. Greater Batavia solution presented by Forjone to the SOS Foil shown

as EXHIBIT 1 is essential to be properly understood and goes to

Amended Complaint paragraph 175 in the Historical review of the

creation of New York sub-division municipalities from 1683 through

1914. In short Genesee County (1802) is created from Ontario County

born in 1789 of Montgomery County born in 1784 of Albany County per

se, and in conjunction with Federal Fort Stanwix treaty of the Six Nations.

Thereafter, Allegany (1806), Cattaraugus (1808), Chautauqua (1808),

Niagara (1808) are spawn; and then thereafter subdivided from Genesee,

Niagara creates Erie in 1821, and then jointly Genesee and Ontario in

1821 spawn Livingston, Monroe, and then Genesee spawns Orleans in

1828 and then Wyoming in 1841 as a development of economic growth

associated with the Erie canal. The EXHIBIT 1 solution is entirely

grounded on real history and substantive law must be seen by both SOS

and NYS AG under the CRL as essential.

C. The Northwest District of New York characterization herewith by

Plaintiffs based upon the discovery of May 6, 2006 response to the March

27 2006 FOIL request coincidently the same day that the NYS MOL was

entered herein no less than 5 weeks late by operation of state law goes to

the prima facie non-existence of 47 State Subdivisions as alleged in the



Amended Complaint leaving only those entitled to a Board of Elections

with reference in Amended Complaint paragraph 17(a) thru (k) draws into

question the continued intent of Congress when it enacted 28 USC 112

June 25 1948. There are no boundary conditions separating the so-called

Northern from Western District per se only the Northwestern District is

separated by Boundary defined by Orange and Dutchess County per se of

the Southern District of New York notwithstanding the configuration

within also being questionable within the city of New York per se and the

actual legal boundary of Eastern District accordingly herein challenged

per the ramification associated with EXHIBIT 4. This is a serious Federal

matter only to be resolved in Federal Jurisdiction of this court within

Second Circuit. When and IF DOJ should respond at the direction of the

Court Plaintiffs reserve the opportunity to develop this matter further with

leave of the Court as pertains to provision of plain speedy and efficient

remedy within this circuit now in question.

V. Patterns of Conduct by NYS AG Eliot Spitzer

As provided by the Strunk Declaration the Pattern of NYSAG Spitzer Actions

with the enterprise per se referenced in the RICO Statement in the

two categories studied in the matter of His breech of Fiduciary duty under CRL

are AG Spitzer's political decisions to act in the matter of Medicaid Fraud



and recovery of Alien Labor "wages" . With particular note is the rate of

percentage change as a result of the whistleblower Medicaid Fraud case Forjone

v Leavitt WDNY 05-cv-395, wherein both the Medicaid and HAVA cases both

involve harboring of illegal aliens by the AG et.al. the chart follows:

Annual Pattern of NYSAG Spitzer Action by Category 19

99 % 2000 % 2001 % 2002 % 2003 % 2004 % 2005 % 2006 %

TO

TA

L

PR

ESS

R

EL

EA

SES

ME

AN

%

Medicaid Fraud

6 3.1%

21 7.8%

18 5.9%

11 4.2%

8 2.9%

9 3.3%

18 7.2%

14 14.3

%

105

5.5%

Alien Labor “Wages”

1 0.5%

3 1.1%

5 1.6%

4 1.5%

9 3.2%

8 3.0%

15 6.0%

2 2.0%

47

2.4%

Annual AG Press Releases 193 268 306 260 277 270 250 98 1922

A. Harbors Illegal Aliens w/ social assistance and employment as the

copy of the 3 October 2002 NYSAG Press Release herewith marked

EXHIBIT 11 connotes and the long-overdue review of the matter

requiring strict scrutiny review for a product of fraud as the referenced

authorities used in State Supreme Court plaintiffs believe cross into the

area of Federal Judiciary plenary jurisdiction as properly defined under

the “Lincoln and Eisenhower doctrine” as the State court are a seamless

extension of jurisprudence nationwide that has gone astray since 1964 in

our experience at least.



B. Aids and abets HAVA Racketeering enterprise as a copy of 12-

Feb-2001 NYSAG Press Release alleging “Finds Changes Are Needed to

Ensure Full and Fair Elections” herewith marked EXHIBIT 13 that the

“bi-partisan” effort as referenced by the release quoting Senator McCain

whose friendly suit in Molinari v. Powers skirting the collapse in the

enforcement of Election Law Provision under both EL §2-100 and EL §

4-100 after the WMCA v. Lomenzo 377 U.S. 633 case in 1964, which in

the creation of the state constitutional “bi-partisanship”, however

outrageously missing, has NEVER been addressed even by Judge Korman

or now Judge Gleeson - both whistle past the issue for partisan

Democratic party gain. That the pattern of partisanship must be seen in

conjunction with the admission on the transcript of proceeding in NDNY

06-cv-263 (a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 14) that NYSAG is unable

to represent the interests if the people of New York as The Amended

Complaint in the Background Facts and RICO Statement overall are dead-

on in the matter of the conspiracy to impose top-down Federal Control

over elections and with final elimination of the Electoral College and the

willful and partisan conspiratorial role of Eliot Spitzer is more than

apparent on February 12, 2001 especially after the Kabuki drama having

been forced upon the public in Bush v. Gore.



C. Peter Lance on Eliot Spitzer and Dietrich Snell 1993 to the present

Is a matter which will be discussed at length in the response Plaintiffs

will submit in conjunction with DOJ involvement.

CONCLUSION IN SUPPORT OFDECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITY RELIEF

Relators urge the court to deny NYS Defendants MTD and grant a declaratory

judgment in the matter of overly vague and broad use of the Help America to

Vote Act (HAVA) Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow

respective state law determinant definition of “Voting Age Population” (VAP), as

well as being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733

(FCA); and that a Declaratory Judgment and need for equity relief warrants a

Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance plans

in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and

penalties to be levied under the FCA. Believe as apropos to point out and argue

herein that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,

against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual

wickedness in high places and as such are entitled to further and different relief

deemed justice by this Court. The Foregoing is certified and declared to be true

and correct under penalty of perjury and respectfully submitted by:

Dated: May _16_, 2006 --/s/-- Clarendon New York _________________________ JOHN- JOSEPH FORJONE, pro se

Dated: May _16_, 2006 --/s/-- Brooklyn New York _________________________ CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, pro se


Forjone Declaration Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)

JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et.al. Plaintiffs}

v.


Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE RESPONSE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO

DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Accordingly, I, John Joseph Forjone, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

1. I am a Plaintiff pro se without being an attorney and produce this response

declaration in opposition to the state of New York’s Secretary of State Randy Daniels (now

Christopher L. Jacobs) and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, (NYS) Defendants’ counsel, NYS

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sullivan’s Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended

Complaint filed pursuant to the Court’s May 4, 2006 Text Order of all Defendants herein to

respond by June 1, 2006 accordingly.

2. That declarant is the co-chairman along with Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk of

the AD HOC NYS People’s Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds

Distribution Equity Nationwide without an attorney as a jus tertii association and individually

jus tertii pursuant of a declaratory judgment in the matter of overly vague and broad use of the

Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow

respective state law determinant definition of “Voting Age Population” (VAP), as well as

being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA).



3. This Declaration is filed in conjunction with the Co-chairmen Relators’ Law

Memorandum in Opposition to Dismissal and in support of a Declaratory Judgment and

equity relief with a Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance

plans in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and

penalties to be levied under the FCA.

4. On 19 September 2005 in conjunction with the Medicaid tax Levy Case Forjone

et.al. v. Leavitt et.al. WDNY 05-cv-395, Samantha Marie Forjone and I submitted an

application to the NYS Secretary of State, Defendant Randy Daniels, in the matter of FOIL

and NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 5A protection involving municipal overreaching by

Orleans County, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 1.

5. The New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A is as follows:

ARTICLE V-A.

MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS.

Section 53. Copies of documents and statements to be filed. 54. Resolutions concerning political matters. 55. Anonymous communications prohibited. 56. Offenses; penalties. 57. Additional penalties.

§ 53. Copies of documents and statements to be filed. Every existing membership corporation, and every existing unincorporated association having a membership of twenty or more persons, which corporation or association requires an oath as a prerequisite or condition of membership, other than a labor union, a fraternity or sorority having chapters composed only of students in or alumni of colleges and universities in this and another state or states, or a chapter of such fraternity or sorority, or a benevolent order mentioned in the benevolent orders law, within thirty days after this article takes effect, and every such corporation or association hereafter organized, within ten days after the adoption thereof, shall file with the secretary of state a sworn copy of its constitution, by-laws, rules, regulations and oath of membership, together with a roster of its membership and a list of its officers for the current year. Every such corporation and association shall, in case its constitution, by-laws, rules, regulations or oath of membership or any part thereof, be revised, changed, or amended, within ten days after such revision or amendment file with the secretary of state a sworn copy of such revised, changed or amended constitution, by-law, rule, regulation or oath of membership. Every such corporation or association shall within thirty



days after a change has been made in its officers file with thesecretary of state a sworn statement showing such change. Every such

corporation or association shall at intervals of six months file with the secretary of state a sworn statement showing the names and addresses of such additional members as have been received in such corporation or association during such interval.

§ 54. Resolutions concerning political matters. Every such corporation or association shall, within ten days after the adoption thereof, file in the office of the secretary of state every resolution, or the minutes of any action of such corporation or association, providing for concerted action of its members or of a part thereof to promote or defeat legislation, federal, state or municipal, or to support or to defeat any candidate for political office.

§ 55. Anonymous communications prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any such corporation or association to send, deliver, mail or transmit to any person in this state who is not a member of such corporation or association any anonymous letter, document, leaflet or other written or printed matter, and all such letters, documents, leaflets or other written or printed matter, intended for a person not a member of such

corporation or association, shall bear on the same the name of such corporation or association and the names of the officers thereof together with the addresses of the latter.

§ 56. Offenses; penalties. Any corporation or association violating any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars. Any officer of such corporation or association and every member of the board of directors, trustees or other similar body, who violates any provision of this article or permits or acquiesces in the violation of any provision of this article by any such corporation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who becomes a member of any such corporation or association, or remains a member thereof, or attends a meeting thereof, with knowledge that such corporation or association has failed to comply with any provision of this article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

§ 57. Additional penalties. In addition to the penalties provided by section fifty-six of this article, a violation of the provisions of this article may be restrained at the suit of the people by the

attorney-general.

6. On 26 September 2005, an unnamed agent of the Office of the Secretary of State

responded to the application shown as EXHIBIT 1 with an unsigned letter denying both FOIL

and any obligation to respond under NYS Chapter 6 Article 5A, a copy herewith marked

EXHIBIT 2.

7. On 27 March 2006 in conjunction with the WDNY 05-cv-395 case following the

receipt of the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and sanction by Jeremy Colby who represents

Fo done et.al. v. EAC et.d. WDNY O k - 8 0

s the County of Orleans, and h d e k the County Legislature Administrator who also serves as

a Member of the Board of Directors of the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal

and NYMlR insurance Risk Assessor, I filed a FOIL application to the SOS for

obtaining a certification of Orleans County incorporation papers and or authorities.

8, The NYMIR is a non-profit entity operating under the auspice of the NYS

Association of Counties with headquarters located in Albany County, and operates with

oversight of the N Y S Department of hwmce who conduct audits.

9. On 6 May 2006 Lawrence Sombke the SOS Records Access OGcer responcled to

my FOIL request of 27 M m h 2006, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 3.

10. The 6 May 2006 SOS Letter (shown as EXHIBIT 3) states that the SOS has no

authorities for the existence of Orleans County on Record, and suggest that the NYS

Association of Counties may have records.

1 1. I have read the foregoing, and h o w the contents thereof; the same is true to my

own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and

belief, md as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my belief& as to dl

matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3". parties, books and records,

and personal knowledge.

The Foregoing is certified and declared to be tnre and correct by:

/ I

Dated: May 2006 Clamdon New York

Clarendon New Yurk 14429 585-72 1-7673 / [email protected]



Strunk Declaration Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)

JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et.al. Plaintiffs}

v.


Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK RESPONSE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL’S NOTICE OF MOTION

TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

1. I am a Plaintiff pro se without being an attorney and produce this response

declaration in opposition to the state of New York’s Secretary of State Randy Daniels (now

Christopher L. Jacobs) and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, (NYS) Defendants’ counsel, NYS

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sullivan’s Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended

Complaint filed pursuant to the Court’s May 4, 2006 Text Order of all Defendants herein to

respond by June 1, 2006 accordingly.

2. That declarant is the co-chairman along with Plaintiff John Joseph Forjone of the

AD HOC NYS People’s Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds

Distribution Equity Nationwide without an attorney as a jus tertii association and individually

jus tertii pursuant of a declaratory judgment in the matter of overly vague and broad use of the

Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow

respective state law determinant definition of “Voting Age Population” (VAP), as well as

being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA).



3. This Declaration is filed in conjunction with the Co-chairmen Relators’ Law

Memorandum in Opposition to Dismissal and in support of a Declaratory Judgment and

equity relief with a Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance

plans in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and

penalties to be levied under the FCA.

4. On 29 September 2005 Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier and I submitted an application

to the NYS Secretary of State, Defendant Randy Daniels, in the matter of FOIL and NYS

Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 5A protection involving municipal overreaching by the city of

New York, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 4.

5. An unnamed agent of the Office of the Secretary of State responded to the

application shown as EXHIBIT 4 with an unsigned letter denying both FOIL and any

obligation to respond under NYS Chapter 6 Article 5A, with the identical language of

EXHIBIT 2.

6. On 14 May 2006 in conjunction with the WDNY 05-cv-395 case following the

receipt of the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and sanction by Defendants’ counsel Jeremy

Colby who represents the County of Orleans, and Dudek the County Legislature

Administrator who also serves as a Member of the Board of Directors of the New York

Municipal Insurance Reciprocal (NYMIR) and NYMIR Insurance Risk Assessor, and in

WDNY 06-cv-80 also represents various Municipalities who are underwritten by the NYMIR

who had referred Jeremy Colby to represent its clients as approved counsel in lieu of each

respective County Attorney, and in the matter of investigating a “conflict of Interest” with that

in mind as such I obtained a copy of the latest published NYS Department of Insurance Audit

of NYMIR for the Year 1999, a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 5.



7. The NYMIR website is linked to that of the NYS Association of Counties,

physically the Directors of both entities occupy the same headquarters near Albany Municipal

Airport.

8. According to the NYS DOI 1999 Audit of NYMIR shown as EXHIBIT 5, the

Table of Contents on page 2 in the matter of “Conflict of Interest” on Page 15 Item Paragraph

Item G the report states quote:

9. The NYS DOI 1999 Audit of NYMIR, shown as EXHIBIT 5, in the Summary and

Comment Section on page 24 reiterates quote:

10. On 5 April 2006 Newsmax.com published an Article entitled Non-Citizens

Expected to Get Voting Rights in NYC reported by Carl Limbacher, a copy herewith marked

EXHIBIT 6.

11. On 28 April 2006 the Office of the New York State Attorney General issued a

press release entitled STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE

REGARDING MAY 1 "NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR IMMIGRANT

RIGHTS , a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 7.



12. On 12 May 2006 I received from Plaintiff Gabe Razzano a copy of the NYS AG

FOIL Response letter #03363 dated 25 September 2003 therein with a copy of 1 October

2002 Assurance of Discontinuation settlement in lieu of litigation between NYS AG and ADC

Contracting and Construction, Inc. who had employed illegal aliens and covered in the

October 3 Press Release by the NYSAG, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 8.

13. In light of the RICO Statement in the Forjone v EAC case WDNY 06-cv-80

requiring demonstration of a pattern of conduct by Attorney General Spitzer as part of the

enterprise in support of Harboring Illegal Aliens as a part of Racketeering Activity in

violation of :

18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity inconnection with identification documents) 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens)18 USC §1341 (mail fraud)18 USC §1343 (wire fraud)18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully)18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim )18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents)18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) – (interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering Enterprise)18 USC §1957 – (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from specific unlawful activity)

14. As such I have done a first approximation statistical study of the annual press

releases by the NYS AG Spitzer from 1999 thru 2006 currently totaling 1922.

15.The two categories studied are AG Spitzer's political decisions to act in the matter

of Medicaid Fraud and recovery of Alien Labor "wages" . With particular note is the rate of

percentage change as a result of the whistleblower Medicaid Fraud case Forjone v Leavitt

WDNY 05-cv-395, wherein both the Medicaid and HAVA cases both involve harboring of

illegal aliens by the AG et.al.; the chart follows:


16. Note that when the Medicaid case was filed complaining of Medicaid for Illegals

aliens resulting in a DOJ investigation and fine in January 2006, the AG nearly tripled

m $

2

s 2

s 2

the annual litigation over that of the 8 year mean in both categories; however, in the Alien

wage recovery matter thru January 2006 still was an increasing matter, but culminates in his

O

s C? f

s

4-28-06 threat to employers not to fire illegal aliens on May 1 for those protest marching on

$ 8 3 gE,

105

47

1922

s ' s 9

rn

cr

18

" 1 5 =

250

company time or else suffer litigation - which ips0 facto is prima facie evidence of extortion

Z

14

2

98

17. I have read the foregoing, and know the contents thereof', the same is true to my

~r

cr

9

8

270

own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and

s C? "

s 9

m g $ g $ g $ g s g $ X s = s 0 T - 3 cr

9

277

belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all

s a

s * "

cr

cr

,,

4

260

s a

s 9 "

matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd. parties, books and records,

s 2

s 'f! "

Annual Pattern of NYSAG Spitzer Action by Category

Medicaid Fraud

Alien Labor "Wages"

Annual AG PressReleases

and personal knowledge. The Foregoing is certified and declared to be true and - correct by:

o

cr

21

a 3

268

' 5 2 0 0 6 Dated: May ,

1

6

, 193

Brooklyn New York

s i

s " " '

s " "

s

without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -28 1 Brooklyn New qoik 1 123 8 845-389-0774 1 [email protected]

1

cr

,,

5

306




EXHIBIT 1

AD HOC COMMZTTEE TO INCORPORATE THE MUNICIPALITY OF GREATER BATAVIA

P.O.B. 28, CLARENDON, NEW YORE; 11429

September 19,2005 CERTIFlED R E m RECELPT

The Secretary of the State of New York 7005 0520 GcO? 149k 49&3 The New York State Department of State 4 1 State Street Albany, NY 1223 I-000 1

Regarding: The New York State Constitution, and N Y S Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5a.

Subject: Application for the MuniciaalitY of Greater Batavia The Secretary of State,

We are the AD HOC Committee to incorporate the MunicipaZip of Greater Butavia by application hereby. We are residents of the existing municipality of Orleans, and are representative of a class of People denied equal treatment in suffrage and autonomy Homerule therein, and denied our 14* Amendment right to speech guaranteed by the State Constitution Article I, 11, Article III Section 5, Article IX fundamental right to at least two Assembly representatives coterminous within any municipality with State suffrage guarantee, and denied as such without a dedicated voice for Homerule needs in the Assembly since no later than 1962. F h e r , we are denied a "Bi-partisan" Board of Elections capable of creating Election Districts per Election Law ("EL") 4-100 and elections per EL 8-100. The People of the adjoining Municipalities of Genesee and Wyoming also suffer similar sueage and autonomy injury, md accordingly along with the People of the Ofleans municipality MUST dl have six (6) Assembly Districts ("ADS") conterminous within, don't - are not in conformance with the Law. Furthermore, the class has been denied equal protection, substantive due process, and speech infringement by Misters Silver, Bruno and Pataki et.al., since no later &an ApriI 2002.

That notwithstanding anything that the State Legislature has or has not done, it is our understanding that the Secretary of State ("SOS") has the jurisdiction and authority to protect our civil rights under the above referenced Civil RightsLaw, and in conjunction with any corporation and or association requires registration, SOS may incorporate and dissolve any artificial person or association that is determined not to conform with the proper administration and application of the State Constitution and Laws - Orleans, Genesee and Wyoming inter alia among no less than 37 such municipalities that do. not comply with formation of Election Districts ("EDs"), Assembly Districts, Senate Districts f 'SDs"), and Judicial Districts ("JD") with multi-representative elections within an entity.

The State Constitution Article Ill Section 5 mandates both dissolution of any nonconforming entity, and requires any &l%Wmunicipality be defined per Article IX and Article I1 with sufficient numbers of People resident within for at least one representative in the Assembly, notwithstanding any remainder shared with an djoining municipality, and notwithstanding those incarcerated in State penitentiaries that must be enumerated at the domicile of conviction only. Furthermore, the NYSC Article I1 and Election Law requires that the Office of the Secretary of State has the power to create and maintain a new Board of

Elections within any new municipality or existing tnunicipality to conform with the Constitution and Election Law, that shall meet the Bottom-up suffrSlge and Homerule autonomy now missing in the non-conforming municipalities inter alia of Orleans Genesee and Wyoming.

The existing Boards of Election in the municipalities of Orleans, Genesee and Wyoming, among others, must be decomnissioned and replaced, as done by the city of New York Board of Elections for those of the Boroughs of New York, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island, so that the NEW Board of Elections of fhe Municipality @"Greater Batavia shall contain the Boroughs of Orleans with 26,084 People of 44,17 1 total persons, Genesee with 38,363 People of 60370 total persons, and Wyoming with 26,680 people of 43,424 total persons, or sufficient PEOPLE that wouid be say 9 1,127 of the say 74,636 statewide mean required for any AD using current Active Voter roles from the State Board of Elections. notwithstanding total persons ineligible to vote or those incarcerated in State penitentiaries domiciled at the location of their conviction. That any class of People with suffrage witbin an existing entity based upon a total of 150 ADS must be say 149,272 plus those eligible however inactive and or unregistered are the People, to meet the 42 USC 1 973 Voting Rights Act f'VRA") 1 0% deminimus variation MUST have two (2) AD representative voices, or if in a NEW entity at least one AD within. Further, that any NEW entity's Board of Elections, in the interim MUST be under SOS dominion and control until such time that the Muraicipalify of Greater Batavia legislative body provides for Homerule due process for the People's sufliage and autonomy thereafkr.

That after formation, the MunicipaIit,~ (?fGreater Bntavia if by the Census 20 10 enumeration of persons has nut increased its total population, that then entitles the People to at least two ADS, that in lieu of the State Legislature increasing the totai representatives in the Assembiy beyond the present 150, fhe Mitnrcipality ofGreater Balavia shall acquire dominion over any adjacent non-conforming municipality or any town or towns for a total People for two ADS. or in the absence of non-conforming municipdity(ies) shall itself be incorporated into an adjoining conforming municipality with a total number of People. That those People within shall be entitled to at least two representatives in the Assembly coterminous within the enlarged territory. That hrthermore, the Board of Elections with legd dominion and control shall supplant or be supplanted accordingly for the benefit of the People within there entitled to "bi-partisan" Bottom-up s u h g e , and home rule autonomy thereafter.

Please provide this Ad HOG Committee with a SOS opinion in this matter along with the necessary information under the Freedom of Information t aw to complete this transaction by no later than the close of the November 2005 election cycie.

Respectively submitted by:

Dated: September fi 2005 Holley New York

Dated: September 14 2005 Clarendon New York

CC: Corporzltion Counsels of Orleans, Genesee and Wyoming Municipalities u



EXHIBIT 2

STATE OF N E W YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE

4 I STATE STREET ALBANY, NY 1223 1-0001

September 26,2005

Samantha Marie Forjone John-Joseph Forjone Ad Hoc Committee to Incorporate the Municipality of Greater Batavia PO Box 28 Clarendon, NY 1 14 19

Dear Ms. and Mr. Forjone:

This is in response to your letter dated September 19,2005, in which you request (1) an opinion regarding the Ad Hoc Committee to Incorporate the Municipality of Greater Batavia and (2) "the neccssary information under the Freedom of Information Law to cornpletc this transaction . . . ."

With regard to your request for an opinion, please be advised that the Department of State does not provide opinions of the type you appear to be requesting.

With regard to your request under the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"), please note that such requests must comply with the provisions of the applicable statute (Public Officers Law Article 6) and the provisions of the applicable regulations (19 NYCRR Part 80). In particular, but not by way of limitation, please note that a FOIL request must "reasonably" describe the records sought (Public Officers Law Section 89(3)). See also 19 NYCRR Section 80.4(~)(4), which provides that a FOIL request must be "sufficiently detailed to identify the records and shall include the article and section of the law to which the requested record relates. In addition, if pertinent to the request, the requester shall include descriptive words and dates or other information which will help to identify the record or records."

The rcquest set forth in your lctter is unacceptably vague, does not rcasonably describe the documents sought, and docs not provide sufficient detail to allow this officc to identify the documents sought.

Thc New York State Department of State is unable to respond to your FOIL requcst for the reasons described abovc.

You may appeal this response to your FOIL request by writing to Robert Leslie, Acting Gencral Counsel, NYS Department of State, 41 State Street, 8th Floor, Albany, New York 1223 1-0001 within 30 days of the date of this letter.

We hope you find this information to bc of assistance.

Sincerely,

New York State Department of State



EXHIBIT 3

CHRISTOPHER L. JACOBS SECRETARY OF STATE

May 6,2006

Mr. John-Joseph Fojone -- p-28 -- - - - -- - - . - - . . -- .- - -. - - - .-

Clarendon, NY 14429

Dear Mr. Forj one:

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request dated March 27,2006 requesting an documentation on the creation of the county of Orleans in the State of New York. Please be advised we have no record of this.

You may want to check with the New York State Association of Counties, by writing to 1 1 Pine St., Albany, NY 12207 or by calling ( 5 18) 465-1 473.

Sincerely,

(- h Laurence Sombke Records Access Officer



EXHIBIT 4

AD HOC COMMITTEE TO INCORPORATE THE MUNICIPALITY OF GREATER BROOKLYN

25 Hattie Jones Circle, Brooklyn, New York 1 1213

September 29,2005 CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT

The Secretary of the State of New York 7005 1820000726566597 The New York State Department of State 7005 1820000726566610 41 State Street Albany, NY 1223 1-000 1

Regarding: The New York State Constitution, and NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5a.

Subject: Application for the Municipalitv of Greater Brookhn The Secretary of State,

We are the AD HOC Committee to incorporate the Municipality of Greater Brooklyn by application hereby. We are residents of the existing municipality of the city of New York within the Borough of Brooklyn that is without Homerule autonomy, and are representative of a class of PEOPLE "' denied equal treatment in suffrage and autonomy therein the 1 gth Senate District ("SDs"), that violates the 42 USC 1973 Voting Rights Act ("VRA) with a derninimus variation exceeding the 10% from the mean number of Eligible Voters active, plus inactive or unregistered notwithstanding total persons; and further, therein are denied our 1 4 ' ~ Amendment right against speech infringement guaranteed by the State Constitution Article I, 11, Article 111 Section 4 inter alia by the 1/3 Rule, Article IX fundamental right to have ALL Election Districts ("EDs") created per Election Law ("EL") 4-1 00, are denied a "Bi-partisan" Election Districts ( 2 ) and elections per EL 2-1 10,3-300, 3-400,3-401, EL 6-124, EL 6-140, EL 8-202- infringes the PEOPLE'S speech and expectation of effective suffrage. That the People of the adjoining Boroughs of Staten Island, Qaeens, Bronx, w i t h the Municipality of the city of New York by its municipal Board of Elections in Manhattan also suffer unequal protection for suffrage and autonomy injury are without equal treatment and substantive dues process - are not in conformance with the Law. Furthermore, the class has been denied equal protection, substantive due process, and speech infringement by Misters Silver, Bruno and Pataki et.al., since no later than April 2002, use the Federal 2000 Census enumeration total population ignore Eligible Voters in reapportionment of municipalities' Senate Districts and Assembly Districts ("ADS"), are not coterminous w i t h the respective SDs also effects Congressional Districts per US Constitution Article 1 Section 2.

' New York State Constitution Article IX "Local Government" definition of the "PEOPLE" (d) Whenever used in this Article the following terms shall mean or include ... (3) "PEOPLE." Persons entitled to vote as provided in section one of Article two of this constitution.

' Bottom-up versus Top-down suffrage and autonomy in each munic~a) entity MUST be done first by creating ALL the EDs under EL 4-100 in every legitimate municipal entity around the State MUST be either 950 active voters each or if approved by a County Legislature the COUNTY Boards (28 of which are illegal because each does not a have an Assembly district to oversee within) are allowed to maintain EDs up to 1150 Active voters each not to vary more than 50 active voters each - systematically missing throughout the state despite requirements of law. The additional problem of inactive voters and those eligible however not registered have been neglected by Defendants

especially the Governor - under the NVRA and HAVA- don't promote suffrage participation and their location.

That notwithstanding anything that the State Legislature has or has not done, it is our understanding that the Secretary of State ("SOS") has the jurisdiction and authority to protect our civil rights under the above referenced Civil Rights Law, and in conjunction with any corporation and or association requires registration, SOS may incorporate and dissolve any artificial person or association that is determined not to conform with the proper administration and application of the State Constitution and Laws - the city of New York contains the boroughs within without Homerule that do not comply with formation of Election Districts ("EDs"), Assembly Districts. Senate Districts ("SDs"), and Judicial Districts ("JD") with multi-representative elections within an entity.

That the State Constitution Article I11 Section 4 per the 1/3 Rule and the $5 Rule mandates dissolution of any nonconforming entity, in that NYC per se unconstitutionally has 26 Senators rather than the 20 of 62, requires reconstituting a Homerule entity. Therefore, we require that the NEW municipality ofGreater Brooklyn contain the existing Borough of Brooklyn that lost Homerule under Mayor Wagner, that now per Article 111, Article VI, Article IX and Article I1 has sufficient numbers of PEOPLE within as part of the total 62 SDs to support no less than say 7 SDs within, notwithstanding .45 SD remainder, and at least 17 ADS within of 150 total ADS notwithstanding say a .75 AD shared, and notwithstanding those incarcerated in State penitentiaries that must be enumerated at the domicile of conviction only. Furthermore, the NYSC Article I1 and Election Law requires under CRL that the Secretary of State has the power to create and maintain a new Board of Elections within any new municipality or existing municipality to conform with the Constitution and Election Law. That conformance shall meet the Bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy now missing in the municipality of the city of New York when it allows the existing non-conforming Boards of Election in Brooklyn, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Manhattan to each operate differently without legislative oversight denies unequal protection for partisan rather than "Bi-partisan" provision of suffrage.

The existing Boards of Election in the municipalities of Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island and Brooklyn, as among others, must be made conforming or decommissioned. That the NEW Board of Elections of the Municipality of Greater Brooklyn with Homerule must be separate NYC; with Homerule has say 1,220,75 1 active Eligible Voters plus those eligible but inactive and or unregistered are PEOPLE within say 2,465,326 total persons enumerated by Census 2000, notwithstanding total persons ineligible to vote or those incarcerated in State penitentiaries with domicile at the place of conviction. That any non-conforming Board of Elections in the interim MUST be under SOS dominion and control until such time its legislature assures Homerule due process for People's Bottom-up suffrage and autonomy thereafter.

Please provide this Ad Hoc Committee with a SOS opinion in this matter along with the necessary information under the Freedom of Information Law to complete this transaction by no later than the close of the November 2005 election cycle. Respectively submitted by:

Dated: septemberA2 2005 Dated: September ' 7 2005 Brooklyn Ndw York Brooklyn New York

ROY-P1Em D E T I E ~ CORMER C ~ S T O P H E R EARL STRUNK

CC: the Honorable Michael Cardozo Corporation Counsel for the city of New York



EXHIBIT 5

REPORT ON EXAMINATION

OF THE

NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INSURANCE RECIPROCAL

AS OF

DECEMBER 31, 1999

DATE OF REPORT DECEMBER 21, 2000

EXAMINER VERONICA DUNCAN-BLACK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO. PAGE NO.

1. Scope of examination 2

2. Description of Reciprocal

A. ManagementB. Territory and plan of operationC. ReinsuranceD. Significant operating ratiosE. Abandoned propertyF. Custodian agreementG. Conflict of interestH. Accounts and records

3

4781313141515

3. Financial statements

A. Balance sheetB. Underwriting and investment exhibit

18

1820

4. Losses and loss adjustment expense 22

5. Market conduct activities 22

6. Compliance with prior report 22

7. Summary of comments and recommendations 23

STATE OF NEW YORKINSURANCE DEPARTMENT

25 BEAVER STREETNEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004

December 21, 2000

Honorable Neil D. LevinSuperintendent of InsuranceAlbany New York 12257

Sir:

Pursuant to the requirements of the New York Insurance Law, and in compliance with the

instructions contained in Appointment Number 21592 dated September 7, 2000, attached hereto, I have

made an examination into the condition and affairs of the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal as of

December 31, 1999 and respectively submit the following report thereon.

The examination was conducted at the Company’s home office located 377 Oak Street, Garden

City, New York 11530.

Wherever the designations “the Reciprocal” or “NYMIR” appear herein without qualification, they

should be understood to indicate the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

Wherever the designation “NYSLGF” appear herein without qualification, it should be understood

to indicate the New York Local Government Services Foundation, Inc., Attorney-in-Fact for the New

York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

Wherever the designation “WRM” or the “Manager” appear herein without qualification, they

should be understood to refer to Wright Risk Management Company, Inc., Manager for the New York

Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

2

1. SCOPE OF EXAMINATION

The prior examination was conducted as of December 31, 1994. This examination covers the five

year period from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999 and was limited in its scope to a review or

audit of only those balance sheet items considered by this Department to require analysis, verification or

description, including: invested assets, losses, and loss adjustment expenses. The examination included a

review of income, disbursements and Reciprocal records deemed necessary to accomplish such analysis or

verification and utilized, to the extent considered appropriate, work performed by the Reciprocal’s

independent public accountants. A review or audit was also made of the following items as called for in

the Examiners Handbook of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners:

History of ReciprocalManagement and controlCorporate recordsFidelity bond and other insuranceTerritory and plan of operationMarket conduct activitiesGrowth of ReciprocalBusiness in forceReinsuranceAccounts and recordsFinancial statements

A review was made to ascertain what action was taken by the Reciprocal with regard to comments

and recommendations contained in the prior report on examination.

This report on examination is confined to financial statements and comments on those matters

which involve departure from laws, regulation or rules, or which are deemed to require explanation or

description.

3

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECIPROCAL

The New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal is an insurer, as defined in Section 107(a)(37) of

the New York Insurance Law and organized pursuant to the provisions of Article 61 of the New York

Insurance Law. As provided by the provisions of Section 6102(b) of the New York Insurance Law the

declaration creating a municipal reciprocal was approved by Superintendent on August 23, 1993. The

Reciprocal was licensed on August 31, 1993 and commenced operations on the same day.

The Reciprocal was organized to provide a market source for New York State counties, towns,

villages, cities or district corporations organized and existing under the Finance Law of the State of New

York. NYMIR’s policyholders engage in the business of inter-insurance on the reciprocal plan, through

an Attorney-in-Fact. Each policyholder is a subscriber and only policyholders may be subscribers. The

subscribers share proportionately in all losses, expenses, and profits of the reciprocal, based on the

percentage their premium represents to the total written premium by NYMIR. To provide surplus,

NYMIR requires each subscriber, as a prerequisite to the initial purchase of an insurance policy, to

contribute to the surplus of NYMIR in accordance with such plan as developed by its Board of Governors.

Subscribers are required to contribute 20% of their initial surplus contribution or 8% percent of gross

premiums in each of the first five years, or at their option accelerate such contributions.

In accordance with Section 6102(12) of the New York Insurance Law, NYMIR has selected not to

be subject to coverage by the Property/Casualty Insurance Security Fund under Article 76 of the New

York Insurance Law. Accordingly, NYMIR issues assessable policies which provide for unlimited

contingent several liability for assessment of its subscribers.

4

A. Management

(i) Board of Governors

Pursuant to a declaration executed by the Superintendent of Insurance and Section 6102 of the

New York Insurance Law a board of governors was elected to act on behalf of the subscribers with powers

to supervise and control the Attorney-in-Fact and to control investment of the assets of the reciprocal

insurer, along with such power as may be conferred by the articles of association and the Subscribers’

Agreement. The Articles of Incorporation and the Subscribers’ Agreement specify that the board of

governors should consist of no fewer than nine members. As of December 31, 1999, the board of

governors was comprised of thirteen members.

As of December 31, 1999, the members of the board of governors together with their residence

and principal business affiliations were as follows:

Name and Residence Principle Business Affiliation

Kenneth Charles AndrewDewitt, New York

Town Councilman,Town of Dewitt

Robert James BondiMahopac, New York

County Exective,Putnam County

Stanley John DudekMedina, New York

Chief Administrator,County of Orleans

Robert Watson ElliotCroton, New York

Mayor,Village of Croton-On-Hudson

Sandra Lynn FrankelRochester, New York

Supervisor,Town of Brighton

John Joseph GilfeatherRed Hook, New York

Supervisor,Town of Red Hook

Gale Marie HatchIlion, New York

Village Clerk/TreasurerVillage of Ilion

5

Name and Residence Principal Business Affiliation

John Russell LapointePutnam, New York

Supervisor,Town of Putnam

John Charles LayneAirmont, New York

Mayor,Village of Airmont

Dominic Francis MazzaAvon, New York

County Administrator,Livingston County

Thomas Richard MoranJava Center, New York

Supervisor,Town of Java

Jon Raymond SteadJohnstown, New York

Clerk of the Board,Fulton County

William John WoodCortland, New York

City Clerk,City of Cortland

The minutes of all of the meetings of the board of governors held during the examination period

were reviewed. The review indicated that the board held twenty regular meetings during the period,

January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999, and that such meetings were well attended by the members.

The principal officers of the Reciprocal as of December 31, 1999 were as follows:

Name Title

Dominic F. Mazza PresidentJohn Gilfeather Vice- PresidentGale Hatch SecretarySandra Frankel Treasurer

(ii) Attorney-in-Fact Agreement

The New York State Local Government Service Foundation, Inc. (“NYSLGF”), a New York not-

for-profit corporation, was appointed as the Attorney-in-Fact for NYMIR pursuant to an organization

meeting held on August 24, 1993. This appointment authorized the Attorney-in-Fact to enter into all

6

contracts necessary for the operations of NYMIR. In March 1995, a formal agreement was executed by

NYMIR to confirm the appointment of NYSLGF as the Attorney-in-Fact.

The members of the board of directors and the officers of NYSLGF as of December 31, 1999 are

as follows:

Directors

Jeffery HaberEdward FarrellRobert Gregory

Officers

G. Jeffery Haber PresidentEdward Farrell Vice-PresidentRobert Gregory Secretary and Treasurer

(iii) Management Agreement

Pursuant to a management agreement dated August 27, 1993, Wright Risk Management (f/k/a

Wright Municipal Company, Inc.) was appointed to manage the day to day operations of NYMIR and to

assist the Attorney-in-Fact and the board of governors in the performance of their responsibilities pursuant

to the Subscriber’s Agreement and the New York Insurance Law. This agreement was renewed in 1998

with an effective date of July 1, 1998, for a five year term. In accordance with the terms of the new

agreement, the general scope of services to be rendered by the Manager includes staffing and facilities,

underwriting and policyholders services, engineering and management services, claims and loss control

services, and accounting services. The agreement also states that WRM shall receive a fee of 15.5% of all

gross written premiums, except that the fee shall be 17.5% of gross premium for any new business for the

first year only.

7

In addition, the management agreement contains a provision regarding the settlement of claims.

This provision, however, is not specific as to WRM’s responsibility for the run-off of NYMIR’s claims in

the event of termination of the management agreement. It is recommended that the Reciprocal take the

necessary steps to amend its management agreement to provide more precise wording in regard to WRM’s

responsibility for the running-off of both known and incurred but not reported claims in the event that the

management agreement is terminated.

B. Territory and Plan of Operation

As of the examination date, the Reciprocal was licensed in the State of New York pursuant to

Article 61 of the New York Insurance Law to transact only the kinds of insurance as defined in the

following numbered paragraphs of Section 1113(a) of the New York Insurance Law:

Paragraph Kind of Insurance

4 Fire 5 Miscellaneous property 6 Water damage 7 Burglary and theft 8 Glass 9 Boiler and machinery 10 Elevator 13 Personal injury liability 14 Property damage liability 19 Motor vehicle and aircraft

physical damage 20 Marine and inland marine

Based upon the line of business for which the Reciprocal is licensed and pursuant to the

requirements of Article 61 of the New York Insurance Law, the Reciprocal is required to maintain surplus

to policyholders in the amount of $1,800,000.

8

The Reciprocal is licensed to write business only in the State of New York. Most of its business is

produced either directly or through a network of brokers.

It was noted in the prior report on examination that the Reciprocal was accepting policy

applications and collecting premiums for certain lines of business that it was not licensed to write (boiler

and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine insurance) and remitting such premium amounts to

other insurance entities. It was recommended in the prior report on examination that the Reciprocal

refrain from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers, and that they devise an alternative method of

enabling their policyholders to obtain boiler and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine

coverage.

It was noted during this examination that the Reciprocal has partially complied with the above

recommendation. The Reciprocal is now licensed to write boiler and machinery and inland marine

business. The Reciprocal, however, continues to accept applications and premiums for fidelity and surety

insurance and a certain parts of inland marine insurance for which it is not licensed. It was noted that the

premium collected for these lines of business have been reduced substantially. It is, however, again

recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the prior report on examination recommendation in that

the Reciprocal should refrain from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers, and devise an

alternative method of enabling its policyholders to obtain fidelity and surety, inland marine (earthquake)

insurance coverages.

C. Reinsurance

The Schedule F data as contained in the Reciprocal’s annual statements filed for the years within

the examination period was found to accurately reflect its reinsurance transactions.

9

The examiner reviewed all ceded reinsurance contracts effected during the examination period.

All of these contracts contained the required standard clauses, including insolvency clauses meeting the

requirements of Section 1308 of the New York Insurance Law.

It was noted that two of the Reciprocal’s automatic facultative agreements (first property excess of

loss and casualty excess of loss) included an offset clause that was not compliance with Section 7427 of

the New York Insurance Law. The clause in the contract reads as follows: “ In the absence of applicable

law, either party may offset mutual debts and credits.” It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend the

captioned agreement to include the following wording, “In the event of the insolvency of either party to

this agreement then offsets shall be allowed to the extent permitted by the provisions of the New York

Insurance Law Section 7427”.

A review of the Reciprocal’s boiler and machinery reinsurance agreement shows that such contract

was still in draft form and was not signed by each respective party. Chapter 22 of the National

Association of Insurance Commissioners Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual states the

following:

“…if a contract entered into, renewed or amended on or after January 1, 1994 has not beenfinalized, reduced to a written form and signed by the parties within nine months after the commencementof the policy period covered by the reinsurance arrangement, then the arrangement is presumed to beretroactive and must be accounted for as a retroactive reinsurance contract.”

A review of Schedule F, Part 3 of the Reciprocal’s annual statement shows that the amounts ceded

and recoverable under this agreement are not material and no change has been made to the financial

statements in this report. It is, however, recommended in the future that the Reciprocal comply with

Chapter 22 of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Accounting Practices and Procedures

Manual and record its reinsurance transactions accordingly.

10

As of the examination date, the Reciprocal had the following working excess of loss and quota

share reinsurance program in place:

Type of Contract Limit and Retention

Property

First Property Excess of Loss

Four LayersAutomatic facultative reinsurance andFacultative property reinsurance100% Authorized

Limit of $50,000,000 blanket limit risk or peroccurrence excess of $100,000 blanket limit risk per riskor per occurrence, subject to an occurrence limit of$1,250,000.

The captioned property automatic facultative reinsurance treaty provides four layers of coverage.

Layer one is placed at 100% percent. The second, third and fourth layers are placed at 75%, 86.67% and

75%, respectively with the automatic facultative treaty and 25%, 13.33% and 25%, respectively with a

facultative property agreement directly placed with American Re-Insurance Company.


Boiler and Machinery

Equipment Breakdown (Boiler and Machinery)Quota Share Excess of loss Treaty

100% AuthorizedSection ALimit of up to 95% part of $5,000,000, net loss perpolicy per accident.

Section BLimit of $25,000,000 net loss per risk per occurrenceexcess of $5,000,000, net loss per policy per accident.

11


Casualty

First Casualty Excess of Loss (Policy limitsequal $1,000,000)

100% Authorized Limit of $750,000 ultimate net loss each and everyoccurrence excess of $250,000, ultimate net loss eachand every occurrence.

Casualty Excess of Loss( Umbrella Policy)

100% AuthorizedGeneral LiabilitySection (i)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained for an amount of $900,000 in excess of$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000 eachoccurrence, per person or organization personaladvertising and products completed operations annual(aggregate) and the first $2,000,000 annual (aggregate).

Section (ii)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 inexcess of $1,000,000 each occurrence, per person ororganization personal and advertising injury andproducts completed operations annual aggregate(general) and amounts of up to $18,000,000 excess of$2,000,000 annual aggregate (general).

AutomobileSection (i)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of$100,000 as respects the first $1,000,000, eachoccurrence.

Section (ii)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 inexcess of $1,000,000, each occurrence.

12


Public Officials LiabilitySection (i)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000, any oneclaim and the first $1,000,000 annual aggregate.

Section (ii)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 inexcess of $1,000,000, any one claim and amounts of upto $9,000,000 in excess $1,000,000 annual aggregate.

Law Enforcement LiabilitySection (i)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000, eachoccurrence and the first $1,000,000 annual aggregate.

Section (ii)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 inexcess of $1,000,000 each occurrence and amounts ofup to $9,000,000 in excess $1,000,000 annual aggregate.

Casualty catastrophe excess of loss (clashcover)

100% Authorized Limit of $1,000,000 excess of $1,000,000, ultimate netloss each occurrence.

The reinsurer’s liability is limited to $1,000,000 in anyone occurrence and is limited to $3,000,000 in respect toall losses in any one contract period.

Health Care Facility

Health care facilities professional liability

100% Authorized A maximum limit of 90% of 1,000,000 any one loss anyone insured, subject to $3,000,000 in the aggregate anyone insured.

13

D. Significant operating ratios

The following ratios have been computed as of December 31, 1999, based upon the results of this

examination:

Net premiums written in 1999 to surplus as regards policy holders 96.14%

Liabilities to liquid assets (cash and invested assets less investments in affiliates) 68.47%

Premiums in course of collection to Surplus as regards policyholders 1.59%

The above ratios fall within the benchmark ranges set forth in the Insurance Regulatory

Information System of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

The underwriting ratios presented below are on an earned/incurred basis and encompass the five-

year period covered by this examination:

Amounts Ratios

Losses incurred $14,059,463 37.74%Loss adjustment expenses incurred 12,416,912 33.34Other underwriting expenses incurred 10,008,819 26.87Net underwriting gain (loss) 763,444 2.05

Premiums earned $37,248,638 100.00%

E. Abandoned Property

Section 1316 of the Abandoned Property Law requires insurance companies to report to the

comptroller’s office annually on or before April 1 any properties that are deemed abandoned and have

14

been unclaimed for a three- year period. This filing is required by all companies regardless of whether

they have any abandoned property to report.

It was noted that the Reciprocal did not file an Abandoned Property report with the state

comptroller’s office as required by Section 1316 of the Abandoned Property Law for any of the years

under examination.

It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the Abandoned Property Law and file the

required reports.

F. Custodian Agreement

As of the examination date, the Reciprocal’s securities were held with a bank pursuant to a

custodial agreement. A review of the Reciprocal’s custodial agreement indicated that the agreement was

lacking several protective covenants that this Department deems necessary to safeguard the Reciprocal’s

assets, as follows:

1. The bank shall have in force, for its own protection, Bankers’ Blanket BondInsurance of the broadest form available for commercial banks and will continue tomaintain such insurance. The bank will give the insurer 60 days written notice of anymaterial change in the form or amount of such insurance prior to termination of thiscoverage.

2. Maintain records sufficient to verify information that the insurer is required toreport in Schedule D of the Annual Statement blank of the Insurance Department of theState of New York.

3. Furnish the insurer with the appropriate affidavits in the form as may beacceptable to the New York Insurance Department in order for the securities referred to insuch affidavits to be recognized as admitted assets of the company.

4. There should be a provision in the agreement that would give the insurer theopportunity to secure the most recent report on the review of the custodial system ofinternal controls, pertaining to custodian record keeping, issued by internal or independentauditors.

15

It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its custodial agreement to include the above

provisions in order to provide its assets with the necessary safeguards.

G. Conflict of Interest

The Reciprocal adopted a policy statement pertaining to conflict of interest for its directors and

management. It was, however, noted that the Reciprocal failed to provide conflict of interest statements to

its directors and officers for the calendar years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

It is recommended that the Reciprocal require its directors and officers to complete conflict of

interest statements on an annual basis.

H. Accounts and Records

i. Cash

In reviewing the cash on hand and on deposit it was noted that a discrepancy existed between the

Reciprocal’s authorized signature listing and the banking institution’s listing for specific cash accounts.

The Reciprocal’s cash represents an important part of its assets and it is extremely vital that the proper

internal controls be in place.

It is recommended that the Reciprocal review and update its authorized signatories with the

appropriate banking institution.

16

ii. Regulation 30

A review of the Reciprocal’s compliance with the Department Regulation 30 was performed as

part of this examination. Regulation 30, Part 107.3 states that the composition of each expense group shall

be categorized under investment expenses, loss adjustment expenses, taxes, general expenses, and

acquisition, field and collection expenses. Management has indicated that, “NYMIR pays contractually

agreed upon fees to two entities: Wright Risk Management Company and The New York State

Government Services Foundation.” NYMIR records it entire management fee paid to WRM in its

underwriting and investment exhibit – Part 4 Expenses, under the captioned category – general expense

and acquisition, field and collection expense or other underwriting expense. The annual statement for

NYMIR does not include any allocation of fees paid to the entities for the administrative functions that

carried out on behalf of NYMIR.

Based upon the Management’s representation and a review of the expenses reported in its filed

annual statements, it appears that the Reciprocal did not comply with Department Regulation 30. It was

also noted that the Reciprocal did not provide a proper allocation of its expenses as required by the

National Association Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) - Annual Statement Instructions. The annual

statement instructions provide specific instructions for the allocation of expense payment made to any non-

affiliated entity that provides management, administration, or services in whole or part to a Reciprocal’s

business or operations.

It is recommended that the Reciprocal undertake a study to determine the proper amounts to

allocate between expenses classified pursuant to Department Regulation 30, Part 107.3 and comply with

the NAIC Annual Statement Instructions with respect to expense classification accordingly. It is also

17

recommended that the Reciprocal comply with Regulation 30, Part 107.4(e)(1), which states in part “that

the method and bases followed in allocation to expense group shall be described, kept and supported.”

18

3. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

A. Balance Sheet

The following shows the assets, liabilities and surplus as determined by this examination and is the

same as reported by the Reciprocal on its December 31, 1999 annual statement.

AssetsLedgerAssets

Non-ledgerAssets

Not-AdmittedAssets

AdmittedAssets

Bonds $19,439,603 $ $ $19,439,603Cash & Short-termInvestments 2,456,782 2,456,782Agents’ balances or uncollected premiums:Premiums and agents’ balances in course of collection 170,289 53,944 116,345Premiums, agents’ balances and installments booked but deferred and not yet due 612,271 612,271

Reinsurance recoverable on loss and loss adjustment expense payments 13,472 13,472Interest, dividends and real estate income due and accrued 330,270 330,270Fees 420 46 374Recoverables __________ (426) _________ (426)

Total assets $22,692,417 $ 330,264 $ 53,990 $22,968,691

19

Liabilities

Losses $ 7,865,917Loss adjustment expenses 4,177,190Contingent commissions and other similar charges (311,131)Other expenses 200,104Unearned premiums 2,420,374Excess of statutory reserves over statement reserves 1,285,000Total liabilities $ 15,637,454

Surplus

Gross paid in and contributed surplus $ 3,721,046Unassigned funds (surplus) 3,610,191

Surplus as regards policyholders, December 31, 1999 7,331,237

Total liabilities and surplus $ 22,968,691

20

B. Underwriting and investment exhibit

Surplus as regards policyholders increased $4,863,139 during the five-year examination period,

January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999.

Statement of Income

Underwriting Income

Premiums earned $ 37,248,638Deductions: Losses incurred $ 14,059,463 Loss adjustment expense incurred 12,416,912 Other underwriting expense incurred 10,008,819Total underwriting deductions 36,485,194

Net underwriting gain 763,444

Investment Income

Net investment income earned 3,674,232Net realized capital gains 50,958

Net investment gain 3,725,190

Other Income

Miscellaneous 26,776

Total Other Income 26,776__

Net Income $ 4,515,410

Note: The Reciprocal is exempt from federal, state and local income taxes.

21

Capital and Surplus Account

Surplus as regards policyholders, December31, 1994 per prior report on examination $ 2,468,098

Gains in Losses inSurplus Surplus

Net income $ 4,515,410 $Unrealized capital gains 282,074Change in not admitted assets 53,990Change in excess of statutory reserve over Statement reserve 1,257,000Surplus paid in 3,176,854Change in capitalization receivable 1,788,511Prior year adjustment ___________ 11,698__

Total gains and losses $7,974,338 $3,111,199

Net gain in surplus 4,863,139

Surplus as regards policyholders, per report on Examination as of December 31, 1999 $ 7,331,237

22

4. LOSSES AND LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSES

The examination amount for loss and loss adjustment expense reserves, $7,865,917 and

$4,177,190 respectively, are the same as those reported by the Reciprocal as of December 31, 1999. The

examination analysis was conducted in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and

practices and was based on statistical information contained in the Reciprocal’s internal records and in its

filed annual statements as verified by the examiners.

5. MARKET CONDUCT ACTIVITIES

In the course of this examination, a review was made of the manner in which the Reciprocal

conducts its business and fulfills its contractual obligations to policyholders and claimants. The review

was general in nature and is not to be construed to encompass the more precise scope of a market conduct

investigation which is the responsibility of the Market Conduct Unit of the Property Bureau. No problems

were encountered during this review.

6. COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR REPORT ON EXAMINATION

The prior report on examination contained four recommendations and comments. The current

status of these matters is as follows (page numbers refer to prior report):

ITEM PAGE NO.

A. Territory and Plan of Operation

It is recommended that in the future the Reciprocal should refrainfrom collecting premiums on the behalf of other insurers, and thatthey devise an alternative method of enabling their policyholders toobtain boiler and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marinecoverage.

The Reciprocal has not complied with this recommendation.

8

23

ITEM PAGE NO.

B. Maintenance of Subscribers’ Separate Account

1. It is recommended that NYSIR comply with Section 6112(a) ofthe New York Insurance Law and with Item 5.2 of thesubscribers’ agreement and keep a separate account for eachindividual subscriber.

The Reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.

12

2. It is recommended that NYSIR comply with Item 5.3 of thesubscribers’ agreement and render a statement to each subscribershowing a summary of collective transactions of the Reciprocaland also a statement of subscriber’s separate accounting.

The Reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.

12

C. Losses and loss Adjustment Expenses

It is recommended that the Reciprocal should report all losses andloss adjustment expenses gross of all unfunded deductibles.

The reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.

16

7. SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ITEM PAGE NO.

A. Management

It is recommended that the Reciprocal take the necessary steps toamend its management agreement with Wright Risk Management toprovide more precise wording in regard to Wright Risk’sresponsibility for running off both known and incurred but notreported claims in the event that the management agreement isterminated.

7

B. Territory and Plan of Operation

It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the prior reporton examination recommendation in that the Reciprocal should refrainfrom collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers and devise analternative method of enabling its policyholders to obtain fidelity andsurety, and inland marine(earthquake) insurance coverages.

8

24

ITEM PAGE NO.

C. Reinsurance

It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its first casualty excessof loss and casualty excess of loss agreement to include theappropriate offset language pursuant to Section 7427 of the NewYork Insurance Law.

9

It is recommended that in the future the Reciprocal comply withChapter 22 of the NAIC accounting practices and procedures manualand record its reinsurance transactions accordingly.

9

E. Abandoned Property

It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the AbandonedProperty Law and file the required reports.

14

F. Custodian Agreement

It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its custodial agreementto include the provisions as provided in Section 2(F) herein in orderto afford its assets the necessary safeguards.

15

G. Conflict of Interest

It is recommended that the Reciprocal require its directors andofficers to submit conflict of interest statements on an annual basis.

15

H. Accounts and Records

i It is recommended that the Reciprocal review and update itsauthorized bank signatories with the appropriate banking institution.

15

ii It is recommended that the Reciprocal undertake a study to determinethe proper amounts to allocate between expenses classified pursuantto Department Regulation 30, Part 107.3 and comply with the NAICAnnual Statement Instructions accordingly.

16

iii It is also recommended that the Reciprocal comply with Regulation30, Part 107.4(e)(1) and provide proper supporting documentation forits expense allocation.

16

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Veronica Duncan-Black

Senior Insurance Examiner

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS. ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

VERONICA DUNCAN-BLACK, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the foregoing report submitted

by her is true to the best of her knowledge and belief.

/S/ Veronica Duncan Black

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this day of 2001.



EXHIBIT 6



Non-Citizens Expected to Get Voting Rights in NYCNewsMax ^ | April 5, 2006 | Carl LimbacherPosted on 04/05/2006 12:16:42 PM PDT by Icelander

Legislation granting non-citizens the right to vote is expected to pass in New York City this year, immigration rights advocates tell the Amsterdam News.

"We’re very excited and very optimistic that this will pass," New York City Councilman Charles Barron said at a recent press briefing. "We see this as the historical launching of something that should have happened a long time ago," the outspoken Democrat added.

Dubbed the "Voting Rights Restoration Act," the measure would permit immigrants who have a green card to vote in municipal elections, including for mayor, comptroller and city council, after having lived in the city for six months.

The New York Coalition to Expand Voting Rights sees the measure being extended one day to state and even federal elections. "There is nothing in either the U.S. or the New York State Constitution that prevents us from expanding the franchise to include non-citizen residents," a spokesman for the group argued in January. Story Continues Below

Advocates claim that 22 states and federal territories allowed non-citizen voting during the 18th and 19th centuries. In New York, non-citizen residents were denied the right to vote in 1804. According to the Caribbean news service, Heartbeat News, the measure's impact on New York City elections would be substantial, adding up to 1.5 million voters to rolls. Most of the new voters, experts predict, wouldcast their ballots for Democrats.

While New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has voiced opposition to the proposal, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn told the Amsterdam News that she's "open to talking about passage."

In a statement issued by her office, City Council Member Melissa Mark Viverito praised the measure, explaining:

"East Harlem, Mott Haven and the Upper West Side are home to at least 25 thousand non-citizens of voting age who contribute in countless ways to the economic, social and cultural vitality of District 8 and NYC as a whole. Unfortunately they are not allowed to directly participate in choosing the municipal representatives who make the policies that affect their daily lives."



EXHIBIT 7



Department of Law120 BroadwayNew York, NY 10271

Department of LawThe State CapitolAlbany, NY 12224

For More Information:(518) 473-5525

For Immediate ReleaseApril 28, 2006

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE REGARDING MAY 1 "NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS"

This Office has received inquiries about the legal obligations of employers to accommodate employees’ requests to take time off to participate in activities scheduled for May 1 recognizing the contributions of working immigrants to the national economy and local communities. Some businesses will be closing for the demonstrations, while others will remain open.

My office has received information that some employers are threatening to fire or take other action against employees who take time off for this purpose. There have been reports in the press that workers who attended previous demonstrations were fired solely for their attendance at those events.

Federal labor law protects every employee’s right to engage in concerted activities for "mutual aid and protection," including calling for change in existing laws to improve working conditions. The courts have held that participation by employees in demonstrations and rallies like those planned for May 1 are protected activities under that provision.

Employers may impose reasonable requirements needed to keep their businesses functioning, and employees must comply with those requirements. However, if adverse action, including discharge, is taken against employees solely because of their participation in these activities, the employer may be found to have violated the rights of those employees and could be subject to legal action.

Employers need to carefully consider what reasonable limitations on their employees’ participation are truly necessary to the functioning of their businesses. Employers and employees are urged to cooperate to avoid violations of law.

---- 30 ----



EXHIBIT 8.

STATF OF NEW ~ R C OFFICE OF THE .4TTOF;NEY G E Y E R . ~ ~

SrAcEv B. RO~<ILVP Iiccords Acorsr Officer

September 25,2003

Mr. Gabriel R. Razzano 135 Gordon Place Fresport, NY 11 520

RE: Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) # 03363

Dear Mr. Kazzano:

This is in response to your letter dated August 15, 2003 regard~ng the above FOIL request.

Enclosed are the documents 03-363-0001 through 03-363-0008 which you requested

This FOIL request IS now closed

B. Rowland Assistant Attorney General

Enclosure

ATTORNEY GENERRL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of an Assurance o f Discontinuance Pursuant to Executive I ASSURANCE OF Law B 63 (15) in Lieu of Commencing a I DISCONTINUANCE Proceeding Under Executive Law 5 ! PURSUANT TO SECTION 63 (12) against i 63, SUBDIVISION 15, OF

j THE EXECUTIVE L A W ADC CONTRACTING AND CONSTRUCTION, IW.*

Respondents.

WHEREAS, the Attorney General of the State of New York

commenced an investigation pursuan t to New Yorlc State Executive Law

f 63(12) of the above-named ~eapondents; and

WHEREAS, the Attorney ~eneral's investigation revealed the . . .

following :

1. ADC CONTRACTING AND CONSTRUCTION, I N C . (hereinafter,

"ADC'') is the general contractor on a public work project, the Town

of Southampton Animal Shelter, PRC No. 0 0 0 0 0 $ 2 9 (hereinafter, "the

project" ) . 2. The eighteen workers named in Attachment "A" to this

Assurance of Discontinuance (hereinafter, 'the eighteen workers")

were laborers or workmen on the project within the meaning of

article 8 of the New York State Labor Law.

3. Article 8 of the New York State Labor Law was violated

when the eighteen workers were paid less than the required

prevailing wages and supplements for their work on the project.

- -

4. ADC acknowledges that the amounts listed in Attachment "a"

to this Assurance of ~isco~tinuanceaxe due and owing to the

workers for their work o n the project.

5. The Bureau of Public Work of the State of New York,

Department of Labor (hereinaftey, "BPW"), issued to the Town of

Southampton a Notice to Withhold Payments due to ADC f o r the

proy ect .

6. . Pursuanr to that Notice to Withhold, the Town of

- : SoutKSrnpton withheld those funds (hereinafter, '\the withheld

funds" ) ; and

WHEREAS, ADC asserts that it engaged LSBF ConsuLting ("LSBF")

as a masonry subcontractor on the project, that LSBF is owned,

controlled or under the general management of Gregory Fasano, and

that the eighteen workers were employed b y L S B F ; and

WHEREAS, Executive Law 3 63 (15) provides for the Attorney ., . . , . .. . . .

General, in lieu of institucing a civil action or proceeding in

connection with the enforcement of a law of this State, to accept

an assurance of discontinuance of any act or practice in vio la t ion

of such Law from any person engaged or who has engaged in such act

or practice;

aom; THEREFORE, IT IS BEREBY AGREED:

1 . A13C will sign a consent allowing BPW to direct the Town of

Southampton to release to the Office of the Attorney General, State

of ~~h York (hereinafter, "the Attorney General's office") , the sum

of $75,811.80 from the withheld funds. BPW will issue that

direction tothe Town of Southampton.

2 . Within ninety days after the date t.hat the Attorney

General's Office receives the $75,811.80, the Attorney General's

Office shall attempt to contact in writing each of the eighteen

workers. The Attorney General's Office will distribute to each

contacted worker a check in the amount llsted for him in Attachment

3. Forty-five days after the Attorney General's Office

distributes the checks, the Attorney General's Office will stop

payment on all of the checks that have not been cashed.

4. Within anemhundred and sixty' days. after .the' Attorney

General's Office has distributedthe checka, the Attorney ~eneral'a

Office will' deliver copies of the cancelled checks to Steven M. . . , .

Coren, ADC's attoxney, and BPW.

5. I f the total amount distributed, as reflected by the

cancelled checks of contacted workers, is less than $75,811.80,

then the Attorney General's Office will turn over the remainder to

the Town of southampton. Upon consent of ADC. or final

determination of the Commissioner of Labor any such funds may be

released by the Town of Southampton to satisfy A I ) C 1 s obligations in

connection wlth the New York State Department of Labor's

investigation of whether prevailing wages and supplements were

provided to workers on the project.

6 . Compliance with tkiis ~ssurance of Discontinuance will

resolve only the issue of A n C ' s financial obligations for work on . , . .

the project by the eighteen workers. The claims of the eighteen

workers shall be deemed resolved and ADC is discharged from further

financial obligation to those eighteen workers in connection with

the BPW audit, however, any worker who does not collect his money

as provided in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Assurance of

Discontinuance retains any additional right, if any, he may have to . .

collect. The signing of this Assurance of Discontinuance,shall

limit the EPW in that no additional flnanclal obligation is due

from ADC to the eighteen workers but shall not affect or limit, in

. , . ,

. ., 'any way, any other aspect of BPW's' investigation or any o t h e r . , . . . ~. ... :: .?,+

determination made by the ~ommissionar of Labor of the ~"ca t&Nev.

York, or by any other authority, including but not limited to

. . whether ADC owes any amounts to any other workers an the project, : , .

:. . . has wilfully violated the Labor Laws, has falsified payroll

.. . . .... . . :2 . records, and/or should be debarred from performing public 'work in

< ' . .I.. :

. ,

the State of New York. : ,,:

7 . Within sixty days of the date of this agreement, the

,, Office of the Attorney General shall request the BPW to send ADC a . .

form that would provide for AnC's consent to release $75,831.80

from the withheld Funds and, after the Office of the Attorney

General receives that signed form f.rom ADC, the Office of the

Attorney General shall issue a written direction to the Town of

southampton LO release the s u m of $7'5,811.80.

8 . Within one-hundred and twenty days of the date of this , .

agreement, i f the Town of Southampton has not released the sum of . .

. . $75,811.80 to the Office of the Attorney General, State of New

York, then the Attorney General maydeclare this agreement null and , .

. . . void. , , _ . ' , . .

' ' 9. ADC shall refrain from all violations of article 8 of the

, , New York Stare Labor Law.

. , , . 10; . .. The Attorney . General .a.ccepts this Assurance of

Discontinuance in lieu of instituting a civil proceeding in

connection with the enforcement of the Labor Law of this 'state. " . ,

Evidence of a violation of this Assurance of Discontinuance shall r. ..' : . constitute prima facie proof of a violation of the applicable law

.. .

. . in any .civil action ' or proceeding hereafter commenced by the . .

. . 'Attorney General.

+ -

WHEREFORE, this Assurance of Discontinuance has been executed

on the 1 day o f k T , 2 0 0 2 .

AGREED :

ELIOT SPITZFR . .

'attorney General of the State of New kork

M. PATRICIA SMITH Assistant Attorney General in Charge, Labor Bureau 120 Broadway New York, New Y o r k 10271

. . . -- Assistant Attorney General

ADC CONTRhCTING AND CONSTRUCTION, I N C . 15-01 132nd Street

bOQANNE GOODWIN NOTARY PUBLIC. State of New "lolk . . .

No. 01~65043520.. '

Qua!lfied in N ssau Cauniy W ~ s s l o n ~ x p r R ~ a y 8-

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of an Assurance of piscontinuance Pursuant to Executive I ASSURANCE OF Law d 63 (15) i n L i e u of Commencing a j DISCONTINUANCE Procaeding Under Executive Law § j PURSUANT TO SECTION

. . . , 63 (12) against ! 63, SUBDIVISION 15, OF '... . .

. . THE EXECUTIVE L A W

ADC CONTRACTING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC . , ! . .

Worker . " . , . . .

.,.. , :(.; ~aniel Alvarez . . , > .. . .,

? _ . ,. .. Juan ~ernai Bernal

i '1.. . $>;. . Israel Berrera Bernal ,. ,.. <,. t:3"> .... C e s a r Bernal Rios

:' .> j , Jorge Bustamonte .:: !... ,. . ,.. . J

;\,, ' ' Hugo Dominguez Hernandez :.* . . I '

.. .

. . Juan Lugo

.. . -

,, . , .,

Emeterio Martinez .*

:":'. > , . . . . Ruben ~ i r a n d a

' 3 . . . ., . Q,:; ; ' C 1;. Benjamin Montes @ .': . . >.., .. >.: >,. ?'.

Delfino Oropeza ..,<?< . ' :?ti', . . . . . y...i LuisOsnaya i :,.i. . g4;,: ., > . . '

. : Juan Perez Luna C'T. . . . r i , i. ' , ' t

: . ; , . C e s a r Reyes Beltran :it::.<- >;..

. Alf redo Rios Oropeza .." . . <!:.,,. '. ' . :, . .> .:. . >h . , >-..,,:

. . , ~. . . . :,. . . ' , . , . . . .. < ,,. .,<.< ,. . . , C

*tT?:y . .

.,y>:w... .-:*,>;,: : . ..I ' , .~ . i : ' . ' I

".. : . : ./ .Y. ,

;5:5 :, ,,,'.', ! , :

- u-

:: <. 8;';: ,, ,.: :,:,+, Guillerrno Rodriguez *$: , . ;.

6 , 4 8 0 . 5 2 g; . - ' .. ...-.. ..,. , ;f::

Gabino ?,. . .

1,031.64 v;,..: . ' :;$:-..,., Y'+,c Joel 3 6 2 . 4 8 *. 7 TOTAL $75,811-.80

:$$ $",\!! i ..: .,ye:"::. .. . P'. ,.. * . %

?&,,>. . . . . &,:c . T:.' ,$?.?:.?. @~,.<:.:> @y;?, ...

1. / ""."..; :; $,. . . ., - . i:& R. +';; ,?,.

@,! :',',Y - '

8: <,.' '. g :I b. . . * I Q.;<:. .. >% ,,,' .. ' 23, i :;, ?P, ... @,: . , . ;.*.;,, ji7" w. .%'

I ' , '

.... .. . i. I,, . ,:' , '%. .. !$ .!:'.

.,: . . ,vx,$:i: ,' : : ...p . .

...,,. > .. , .< .,.

<.,? . .?,,

.2;,Y :+: <; ..:: "5 ,;. &>.. . .. ir., ... . , ... . . , , . . , ;-;;$,:. ., .. .: >, . . .... - ,:;.y ..; .:.. ,,,,... . . >j. :.'.;.::,::":< , . {;;;;Y?.';... T .+<, , ., ,

;.;... . - .1: %'j :: ., :x: . : . ,

, . : :- <. .,' . . .. . . . . . . 3 ..!.,. .: 8

. , . . ,

+ ...., . . . 03-363-0008 . .

. . ,. .. ,.

OI 'd SS: 80 900Z ZI . 808£-6IL-9IS:xeJ 9NIS013 lSOd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York Case 06-cv-80

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and USPS MAIL

On May 3 1,2006 and under penalty of perjury, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, caused to be Electronically e-mailed the Strunk Letter Motion to the Court in WDNY 06-cv-80 signed May 3 1,2006 to Defendants' attorneys:

Jeremy A. Colby - jcolby@websterszan~i.com Kathleen M. Dougherty - kdougherty@,ongov.net Michael E. Davis - mdavis~monroecount~.gov John V. Hartzell - - JohnH@,co.iefferson.nv.us .

David W. KIoss - dwkloss@,klosslaw.com Aaron J. Marcus - [email protected] Alan R. Peterman - apeterman@,hiscockbarclay.com -

Joseph F. Reina - [email protected] Michael G. Reinhardt - michael.reinhardt@,co.ontario.ny.us - Peter B. Sullivan - [email protected],v.us - Plaintiffs: Tina M. Wayland-Smith - twslaw@,twcnv.rr.com - Carol Fumanti Arcuri cfal~,westchestergov.com medicaidtaxlevv@,yahoo.com Stephen M. Sorrels - ssorrels@,,fkhattys.com captgabe I @,),yahoo.com

And postage prepaid by First Class U.S. Mail to be sent to all the below 6 listed counsels.

Francine A. Chavez , Esq. NM Attorney General's Office P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504 US

Wylie E. Kumler, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, TX 7871 1-2548 US

Aven Rennie, Esq. of Counsel to Magavern, Magavern & Grimm, L.L.P. 1 I00 Rand Building- 14 Lafayette Square Buffalo New York 14203

Diana Varela, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Arizona 1275 West Washington Phoenix Arizona 85007-2926

Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr. Assistant County Attorney- Suffolk County Attorney's Office H. Lee Dennison Bldg. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 1 1788-0099

Ester Miller, Esq, Assistant Co~lnty Attorney Nassau County Attorney's Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 1 1501

I do declare and certify under penalty

Dated: May 3 1,2006 Brooklyn New Y

Appellants Brief and Appendix Forjone v California 10-822 112910

Documents

Transcript of Appellants Brief and Appendix Forjone v California 10-822 112910