UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshalt U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

MOTION INFORI\.lATION STATEMENT

Docket Number(s): 08-3242- Caption [use short title1

Motion for: ~e&st to have ~ppellant ~ r i a f before the - Panel as in 08-432- Sf run k V . US PS et al.

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: 1 Appellant Brief was submmed and scheduled to be heard January 15.2010 on submisskm

without oral argument Tho subjecl malter is related to the Appeal 054323-cv and should be heard

at the &me time by the samo Panel of God-feating Judges falher than Gnostic and or non-believers.

E ' - - . 9 .- - MOVING PARTY: OPPOSING PARTY: m e city d ~ e w y e Y . I .

- Plaintiff Defendant %>70 TI _ I -. Appellanfletitioner AppelleelRespondent w-oz' =K -

wc> - , z

mr.: .. MOVING ATTORNEY: Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse OPPOSING ATTORNEY: MICHAEL A. CAR CorpoRldr - Counsel d me Clty d New Yo*

[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] CJI u i I

Christopher-Earl : Strunk In esse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue - %281

Brooklyn New York 11238

(845) 901-6767 email: chris@sbunkws

100 Church Street

New York. New York 10007

Telephone: (212) 780-0849

Email: SKitzing63law.nyc.gov

Court-JudgeIAgency appealed from: USDC of the Eastern DisMcl of New Ywk Order to Dismiss of Judge Allyne R. Ross in NDNY 08-1~-1744. I Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND

INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has request for relief been made below? yes NO

Yes No (explain): Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? 63 Yes No Requested return date and explanation of emergency:

Opposing counsel's position on motion: Unopposed b p o s e d on't Know P

Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: Yes NO O ~ o n ' t Know

Is oral argument on motion requested? m ~ e s n N o (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Has argument date of appeal been set? q Yes No If yes, enter date: Jan~aV 15.2010

0 D a t e : J M q y IdI u1 Has service been effected? q YCS No [Attach proof of service]

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion is GRANTED DENIED.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court

Date: By: 1

Form T-1080

1

STRUNK’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE T1080 MOTION REQUEST TO HAVE APPELLANT BRIEF FOR 08-3242-CV HEARD

THE SAME DAY BEFORE THE SAME PANEL AS IN 08-4323-CV I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28

USC §1746:

1. Declarant is the Appellant/Petitioner herein Appeal Case Strunk

v. USPS et al. 08-3242-cv, and with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt

Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238.

2. Declarant files this declaration in support of the T1080 motion

request to have the Appellant Brief of 08-3242-cv Appeal heard on the same

day before the same panel as in Appeal Case 08-4323-cv.

3. That the Hearing date on submission for the 08-3242-cv Appeal

Case is scheduled for January 15, 2010 and hereby is requested to be

coordinated for a different date at the Court’s choosing, in that Declarant is

one of three Appellants in the appeal case Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. 08-

4323-cv.

4. Declarant has spoken with Appellants, H. William: Van-Allen

in esse, and John-Joseph: Forjone in esse who are all members of THE AD

HOC NYS (New York State) CITIZENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL

LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING, an un-incorporated membership

association of Plaintiffs, and neither oppose this motion request to have

2

Appellant Brief of 08-3242-cv heard on the same day before the same panel

as in 08-4323-cv.

5. Declarant is an active voter within the New York (NY) 57th

Assembly District (AD), NY 18th Senate District (SD) and NY 11th U.S.

House District created in April 2002 and is affected by the same questions

before the Appeal Court Panel in the Appeal Case Loeber et al v. Spargo et

al. 08-4323-cv.

6. Those as a matter of economy of Court time and consistency of

the Appeal decision, as both are directly related, must be heard together; as

both would be the subject of a consolidation motion for Certiorari Writ from

the U.S. Supreme Court were it necessary.

7. That as a ninth amendment injury issue before this Court also,

the nature of the matter before this Court requires any Judge to absolutely

believe in God, in that the Preamble to the New York Constitution states

quote:

“We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION. “ 8. That Declarant’s inalienable rights are given by Almighty God

not a man, men or entities, and contends that any Gnostic un-believer must

recuse him or herself in that such Judge by default accepts a usurper

temporal power in provision of rights, whose one world temporal and

spiritual leader over all men contrary to requirements of the Declaration of

Independence of July 4, 1776 thereafter incorporated into each Constitution

of the, founding colonies including the April 20, 1777 New York

Constitution, that thereafter broke with King George 111.

9. Declarant as a matter of epistemological proof and logic, knows

as to his 9" amendment right that there is no possible way Appellant(s) may

obtain a fair hearing without a Judge@) dedicated to Almighty Godfor our

freedom and the Original Constitution, and which is diametrically opposed

to the Jesuit Doctrine of ggSocial Justice " that has permeated the Court

system and governance since 1868 and is synonymous with the

unconstitutional heresy of the "the Living Constitution ".

Respectfilly submitted and certified to be true under penalty of

perjury 9

Dated: January 8,201 0 Brooklyn, New York

593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 1 1238 (845) 901-6767 . Email: chris@,strunk.ws

08-3242-cv ________________________________________________________________________

US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ________________________________________________________________________

Christopher Earl Strunk,

Appellant / Plaintiff,

-versus-

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS), James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS

Board of Directors; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC); NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony

Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O’Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher, Gregory C. Soumas, Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and

Individually;

Appellees / Defendants,

New York State Board of Elections, New York State Attorney General, and the United States Attorney General,

Parties-in-interest

________________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT BRIEF

(errata corrections)

________________________________________________________________________

Christopher Earl Strunk pro se without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281

Brooklyn New York 11238 (212) 307-4444 uncasvotes2@yahoo.com

Appellant / Plaintiff

Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281

Brooklyn New York 11238 (212) 307-4444 email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com

Appellee / Defendants:

James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS Board of Directors

United States Postal Service 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW. Washington, DC 20260

by

Benton J. CAMPBELL United States Attorney

United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of New York

271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201-1820

Phone: (718) 254-6024

THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC) Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo

NYC Law Department 100 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS NYC BOE Commissioners

32 Broadway New York, NY 10004.

Parties-in-interest

Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General

State of New York, Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway

New York, NY, 10271

Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. Special Counsel

New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben St.

Albany, NY, 12207

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................……………………....iii

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..……………………………… 1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................……………………... 2

• Court Jurisdiction over United States Postal Service under 28 USC 1339 with Issues 1- 4 ….2

• Court Jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service agents under Bivens with Issue 5.…2

• Court Jurisdiction over the Constitutionality of 39 USC 201 as to the process appointing

directors for the “independent” United States Postal Service agents with Issue 6………….……..4

• Ballot Access and Suffrage injury with Issues 7 thru 12………………………………………5

• Court jurisdiction over the question of first impression of what is Voting Age Population of

NVRA and HAVA that does affect ballot access and suffrage with Issues 13 thru 15………..…..7

• Court jurisdiction over gerrymander injury to ballot access and suffrage with Issues 16 – 19..8

• Court jurisdiction over supplemental injury that must be ancillary to a related case request for

a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel with Issues 20 thru 21……………………………………........9

• Court disparagement of claim of civil rights conspiracy of secret organizations w/ Issue 22..10

STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION......................................………………………10

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .................................………………………11

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................………………………11

STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................…..………………......12

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………...18

CONCLUSION...........................................…………………...........................................………..20

JURAT…………………..………........................................………………...................................20

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Federal Authorities: Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)………..3 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)……………………………….19 Kalson v. Patterson U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit No. 07-1243-cv (9/9/08)…………7,19 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ………………………………………………...…………10,19 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)……………………………………………..……………19, WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964)…………………………………………………10,19 Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983): revisit equal eligible voters …………………..…9,10,19 Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966)………………………………………………….……...19 Rodriquez v Pataki USDC SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284)…………………………………10,19 Davis v. Bandemer 478 U.S. 109 (1986)…………………………………………………...……. 19 Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1946)…………………………………………………………..19 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13 n. 16 (1976)……………………………………………..………3 Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 61 n.13 (2d Cir. 1994)…………………………………..……….6 Luther v. Borden (1842) – Republican form of government question………………………….…19 Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) ("Shaw II"): voting civil rights involved in redistricting Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 652 (1993) ("Shaw I"): voting civil rights involved in redistricting Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. ("PRLDEF") v. Gantt et al. EDNY 92 cv 1521 / 92 cv 1776 by minority reapportionment complaints Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992): “Usual Residence” definition by 8 Justices Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 Gray v. Sanders, 372 US 368 (1969) Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Article I Section 3 Cl. 4 - Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate…...4 Article 1 Section. 8 Cl. 1- Congress shall have Power to lay & collect Taxes, Duties, ……………5 Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 - regulation of commerce clause……………………………………..5

iii

Postal Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 7…………………………………………….…………5 Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5 - No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State…5 Article II: Section 2 Clause 2 - [the President] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,………………………………………………………………………………5 Article IV Section 2-1: Citizens of each State enjoy equal privileges and immunities………. Article IV Section 4: Guarantee of Republican form of government………………………..….19 First Amendment: People right to assemble / petition government to redress grievance ………….3 Fifth Amendment: no deprivation w/o due process of law…………………………………………3 Ninth Amendment: certain rights shall not deny/disparage rights retained by People…….……….3 Tenth Amendment: Powers not granted Federal nor prohibited reserved by People…....................3 Fourteenth Amendment: Citizen due process and equal protection……………………………. NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION The amended New York State Constitution

NYS Constitution Article III Section 4………………………………….…………………………9 Article III the State Legislature Sections 5 ……………………………………………. 8,9 NEW YORK STATUTES NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 . sovereignty in the people NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Art 5A Section 53 thru 57 NYS Election Law: §1-104(3) for qualifications of state parties §3-102 (granting the State Board the power to "issue instructions and promulgate rules . . . relating to the administration of the election process," to "direct" that county board procedures be modified, and to "perform such other acts as may be necessary") §3-104(1) (granting the State Board responsibility for "statutes governing campaigns, elections and related procedures")§ 4-100 (creation of election districts)..............................………………………………….. §5-304 (3), EL §5-210(g), EL §5-604, EL §5-606 certification of lists as apply to NVRA and HAVA, EL §6-136(1), EL §6-136(2) (h), EL §6-136(3)………………………………….……….6 §5-602 - voter enrollment list………………………………………………………………..…..…6 §6-124 for the Republican Party Judicial Convention to choose Republican Judges………..……..1 FEDERAL STATUTES • 28 U.S.C. § 1291..................................................................................……………..……….1,10 • 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) …………………………….……………………….……3,7,19

iv

• 1965 Voting Rights Act Section 5 review……………………………………..…………9,14,17 • Civil Rights Act pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Sections §1983, §1985, §1988…………………..3 • National Voter Registration Act 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg (NVRA) .................………….2,3,7,13,18 • Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) under postal service treaty with the State of New York,

NYC and NYC Board of Elections for equal protection under 42 USC §1973..……2,3,7,13,18 • The Hatch Act 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508 for State employees…..2,3 • The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (ch. 27, 22 Stat. 403) of 1883………………………3 • the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, (P.L. 92-225), 86 Stat. 3,

enacted 1972-02-07, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.)……………………………………………….…..3 • 28 USC §1339…………………………………………………………………………….……3, • 28 USC §1343 (a) (1) (2) (3) (4); 28 USC §1331; 28 USC §1357. • 28 USC 2284 for three judge panel……………………………………………….………2,9,10 • 39 U.S.C. : § 201 There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive

branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service………….….4 FEDERAL RULES • USPS Non-profit Standard Mail Rule 703…………………………………………..…..….2,3

• 2nd Circuit Rule §.27 - Certification of an Issue to the NYS Court of Appeals……..............20 • Fed. R. Ap. P. (FRAP) R. 34, oral argument in re USPS Non-profit Standard Mail Rule 703

• Fed. R. Ap. P. R. 44(a), Constitutional question when USPS is party • Fed. R. Ap. P. R. 44(b), Constitutional challenge to gerrymander by state laws

RELATED CASES (Appellant as direct party): • Rodriquez v Pataki - SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284) • Arbor Hill et al. v. Albany County et al. NDNY 03-cv-502 (NAM) and at 2 Cir 04-9132 nd

• Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193………………………………..………2,7 • Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002………………………………2,7,14 RELATED APPEAL CASES: Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193 with appeal case 08-4323-cv with an emergency motion for expedited hearing of three judge panel issue…………………………11

v

1

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Appellant, Christopher Earl Strunk (Strunk), below appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, with the Notice of Appeal filed 6/30/08 (A-17) from the Order and Civil Judgment of

6/11/08 (A-18) of Judge Allyne R. Ross for the case in the Eastern District of New York along

with the underlying Memorandum and Order of 5/9/08 (A-20) as to the underlying Amended

Complaint (AC) of 08-cv-1744 filed 6/9/08 (A-26).

That Strunk had filed a T1080 emergency motion for ballot access for the Republican

Primary on September 9, 2008, and other relief 7/3/08 (A-4) that was denied by the Hon.

Barrington D. Parker, Circuit Judge on 7/15/08 (A-3); and that thereafter 2nd Circuit Clerk

9/5/08 Order to Show Cause for Dismissal on Default of Appeal Case 08-3242-cv Strunk v

USPS (A-1), requires that this Appellant Brief and Appendix annexed be filed on or before

9/19/08 accordingly.

That Strunk is a legitimate Republican Party Candidate with important issues including:

the Election Law (EL) §6-124 Judicial Nominating Convention for which Strunk also sought to

be a Republican Delegate from the 57th Assembly District (AD) to be put on the agenda in

Albany involving Brooklyn Home rule; various legislative initiatives; preparation for the 2010

Federal Census that would lead to the 2012 redistricting of all State and U.S. House seats; most

importantly for facilitating the 2016 State Constitutional Convention; and therefore, I sought

ballot access for the September 9, 2008 Primary and November General Elections for election to

the New York State Senate from the extremely gerrymandered political district of the 18th Senate

District (SD) within the Borough of Brooklyn within the City of New York and have been helped

by Republicans outside NYC having provided Strunk with a gratis website at www.strunk.ws .

That Strunk had filed the complaint informa pauperis, and that although having been

granted the opportunity to amend the complaint, nevertheless the Judge dismissed the exparte

2

action sua sponte as being irrational and frivolous with prejudice, without reaching the merits of

the complaint. That this complaint has supplemental injuries associated with the gerrymandering

and federal issues related to those alleged in Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193

and Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002; both requesting a 28 USC §2284

three judge panel on statewide districting.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Court Jurisdiction over United States Postal Service

under 28 USC 1339 with Issues 1 thru 4

ISSUE 1: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the conclusive

presumptive evidence of injury when eligible voter lists are systematically maintained with

between 20% and 35% inactive voters as impacted wrongly by dicta associated with the NVRA

and HAVA in which the USPS has a direct duty and authority to act with the NYS BOE and

respective local Boards including the NYC BOE to ascertain the actual certification and

eligibility of those qualified to vote, and duty failure directly injures and burdens Plaintiff along

with those similarly situated.

ISSUE 2: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon his challenge to

the applicability of the Hatch Act 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326 to the USPS in regards to Rule 703 and

that the USPS in that regard must not be exempt under Section 7324 of the Hatch Act that

provides an exemption to the ban on political activities to:

(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or

(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the

Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be

pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.

3

ISSUE 3: That the Judge erred by dismissing the complaint as to the USPS despite 28 USC

§1339, USPS Board of Directors are a return to the spoils system in that without a meritorious

competitive hiring with an appointment system that violates the Pendleton Civil Service Reform

Act (ch. 27, 22 Stat. 403) of the year 1883 as the United States federal law that established the

United States Civil Service Commission, which placed most federal government employees on

the merit system and marked the end of the so-called "spoils system." The act provided for some

government jobs to be filled on the basis of competitive exams.

ISSUE 4: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon his challenge to

the applicability of USPS Rule 703 under the Federal Election Campaign Act Among the act's

major features are the creation of the Federal Election Commission and rules concerning

disclosure, public financing, and contribution limits: while the Hatch Act pertains to only the

Federal workforce, the Federal Election Campaign Act (or FECA) regulates all activities

associated with federal elections—Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional races.

Court Jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service’s agents under Bivens with Issue 5

ISSUE 5: That the Judge erred by dismissing the complaint as to the USPS despite 28 USC

§1339, in that USPS and its agents as of right as against the Director(s) and their agents under

Bivens, as of right as under congressional enabling legislation under the NVRA and HAVA

provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) have violated the 1st, 5th 9th and 10th amendment

rights of Plaintiff and those similarly situated, and as a matter of denial of substantive due

process and equal protection under the law enabled by Congress, Strunk alleges a conspiracy

with state action as applies under 42 USC 1983 and 1985. Discovery would have proven such.

4

Court Jurisdiction over the Constitutionality of 39 USC 201 as to the process appointing directors for

the “independent” United States Postal Service agents with Issue 6 ISSUE 6: There is a case of first impression challenging independence of the USPS Directors

from the executive branch appointment that now by advise and consent with the Executive VP as

President of the Senate does not conform with the law for an independent establishment;

whereby, control by members of two federal political parties is a matter of misadministration and

misapplication and or unconstitutionality of 39 U.S.C. § 201 as would apply to appointing

directors.

When the Congress established the USPS as an independent establishment of the

executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service, it

requires unlike that of the Court system as if a fourth branch of government to be separate from

manipulation by the executive; now in fact is not an independent body from the Executive

different than from the Justice Branch must at least have election of all USPS Director of the

board by the entire Congress not just the Senate when members are proposed by the Executive:

a. Nine members are selected from the Republican and Democratic Party appointed

by the President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate only.

That the activity of the USPS by the very nature of its mandate interferes with interstate

commerce, individual rights and directly conflicts with:

Article I Section 3 Clause 4 - The Vice President of the United States shall be President

of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. Means that the vote of the

Senate alone is not independent entirely of the executive requires a votes of the House unlike that

of the Executive officers who serve at the pleasure of the President and of Judges who once

approved are not part of the Executive or Congress however may be limited as to jurisdiction by

the entire Congress with a two thirds vote.

5

Article 1 Section. 8 Clause 1 that the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect

Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and

general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform

throughout the United States;

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 – that congress has the power to regulate Commerce with

foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes, not the USPS;

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7- To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5 No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any

State. – The USPS affects such activity directly. albeit first class mail in the same from every

state some state sin the matter of USPS Rule 703 burdens some more than others in the elective

process in other states, in that the subsidy is not done on upon a per capita basis; and therefore,

singles out and injures political opponents to incumbents of specific smaller State parties.

Article II: Section 2 Clause 2 - [the President] He shall have Power, by and with the

Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present

concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall

appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all

other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,

and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of

such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the

Heads of Departments.

Ballot Access and Suffrage injury with Issues 7 thru 12

ISSUE 7: The Judge erred in dismissing when there is conclusive evidence of speech and

association injury from the burden imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents, as

complained of in AC. See paragraph 43 (A-13) in Strunk’s Affidavit in Support of Relief that

6

starts at (A-6) therein Petitioner has been injured by denial of ballot access, and is entitled to a

certified voting list as required by this court in the appeal case Schulz v. Williams 44 F.3d 48. 6 1 n.

13 (2d Cir.1994). and therein this Court stated that EL Section 5-602 provides in relevant part:

"The board of elections shall prepare at least fifty copies of such pamphlet and shall send at least one copy of each such list to the state board of elections. at least two copies to the county chairman of each political party, and shall keep at least five copies for public inspection at each main office or branch of the board. Other copies shall be sold at a charge not exceeding the cost of publication."

ISSUE 8: That the Judge erred in dismissing sua sponte when there is conclusive presumptive

evidence which is rebutable by the NYC BOE misapplication and misadministration of active

voters list shown by the facts and allegations asserted in the AC starting at paragraph 23 (A-34).

ISSUE 9: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the alleged facts

of the Brooklyn BOE office manager denial of access to the active Republican Party voter

enrollment, alleged at AC paragraphs 54 through 59 (A-40).

ISSUE 10: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon unlawful denial

of enrollment and voter list at the cost of reproduction alleged at AC paragraphs 59 (A-41).

ISSUE 11: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the NYC BOE

denial of a certified enrollment and voters list on digital media at the cost of production of $1

cost of a CD.

ISSUE 12: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the

constitutionality issue of capping signatures for those State Parties while burdening minor or

smaller State Parties with significantly more signatures under the 5% of enrollment rule related

to EL §5-304 (3), EL §5-210(g), EL §5-604, EL §5-606 in which certification of lists apply to

NVRA and HAVA, EL §6-136(1), EL §6-136(2) (h), EL §6-136(3).

7

Court jurisdiction over the question of first impression of what is Voting Age Population under NVRA and HAVA

that does affect ballot access and suffrage with Issues 13 thru 15.

ISSUE 13: That the matter of Voting Age Population (VAP) used by the HAVA, has been

misconstrued by bad actors to mean all persons of Voting Age rather than all persons qualified

under law to vote; and under Federal Law as well as State Law that means only those qualified to

vote, which is at the center of the controversy burdening Plaintiff herein; and remains a question

of first impression complained of in the case Loeber v. Spargo in NDNY 04-cv-1193 now on

appeal from an order to dismiss and is related to the supplemental injury to plaintiff herein. The

two cases are inseparable and have interlocking issues yet to be heard by a three-judge panel.

That the VAP issue as a matter of first impression has been alleged in Loeber et al. v.

Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193 and Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002;

however, has never been heard on the merits of the injury involved, should be heard herein,

especially since the matter has been discussed in the affirmative in the appeal case Kalson v.

Patterson U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit No. 07-1243-cv with a decision issued 9/9/08.

.ISSUE 14: That the Judge fails to guarantee Petitioner’s equal treatment of fundamental rights

as applies to Citizens of each State for suffrage and autonomy excluding non-citizens, who

absolutely have no right to vote; and therefore, aren’t part of the Voting Age Population at all.

ISSUE 15: That the Judge fails to recognize that Petitioner is a member of the Voting Age

Population that by gerrymandering, varies wildly from one district to the next, suffers from

Disproportionate Diminished Dilution of voting power, notwithstanding total persons, within

any total population district as a result of mechanistic malfeasant dicta set forth under the VRA.

8

Court jurisdiction over gerrymander injury to ballot access and suffrage with Issues 16 thru 19.

ISSUE 16: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon an ongoing

conclusive presumption of gerrymandering injury in that the 57th AD is subdivided by the 18th

SD that imposes an unreasonable burden upon petitioner's ability for ballot access as the

Republican Party Judicial Convention delegate from the 57th AD, and that when the 57th AD is

not wholly within the 18th SD as required by the New York State Constitution Article 3 Section

5, quote:

“Assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable, each of which shall be wholly within a senate district." "In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be evenly divided among the senate districts of any county."

ISSUE 17: That the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing with evidence that the 18th SD

does not have a minimum number of ADs wholly within as required by the State Constitution for

mandatory equal protection, that provides AD residents a reasonable expectation to unify the AD

with the adjoining ADs to effect control over the respective corresponding senator .

ISSUE 18: That the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing despite evidence that the 18th SD

does not have the same number of ADs wholly within equal to the other existing SDs within

Brooklyn as a matter of equal treatment and burden upon petitioner and those similarly situated

as a gerrymandering injury. That in regards to the Strunk Affidavit in support of relief from

paragraph 13 on A-8 that in general as to gerrymandering injury, is shown starting at A-63,

compares the 17th SD has portions of 7 ADs; at A-64, the 18th SD has portions of 8 ADS; at A-

66, the 19th SD has portions of 8 ADs; at A-67, the 20th SD has portions of 10 ADs; at A-69, the

21st SD has portions of 9 ADs; at A-71, the 22nd SD has portions of 9 ADs; at A-74, a part of the

9

23rd SD has portions of 6 ADs; at A-74, a part of the 25th SD has portions of 4 ADs; and at A-

75, the 27th SD has portions of 9 ADs..

ISSUE 19: That the Judge erred in dismissing when there is prima facie evidence of

misapplication and misadministration of the State Constitution Article III Section 4 as to

redistricting of Senate. and as directly coincides with Article III Section 5 for Assembly

redistricting, related to county home rule as well as to U.S. House seats that shall be drawn

together and have from the April 2002 redistricting, notwithstanding any pre clearance process

under the limited purpose of the Voting Rights pre-clearance process for which any seat within a

Voting Rights Act (VRA) covered county specifically dealing with home rule boundaries without

recognizing the interrelation of the two branches of the state legislature and House seats, that

mindlessly calculates an arbitrary guidelines without proof of any injury 40 years after some

minorities in jurisdiction long resolved complained with reason long forgotten, appears a knee

jerk exercise to gerrymander for unjust enrichment and a dynastic political autocracy under its

control using backroom computer programmers for redistricting.

That Justice Rehnquist in the decision for the case Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725

(1983), stated that county political boundary lines are a legitimate concern in districting and that

even with total population being equal, voters may be effectively disenfranchised and chosen by

an incumbent using a sophisticated computer program; and that the Justice refers to New York as

traditionally cunning in that regard.

Court jurisdiction over supplemental injury that must be ancillary to a related case

request for a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel with Issues 20 thru 21 ISSUE 20: That the Judge erred even when notified of the supplemental injury affected by the

related case request for a 28 USC 2284 panel; must be seen as ancillary to such actions.

10

ISSUE 21: This case is dispositive to the related case Loeber v. Spargo in that facts associated

with the injury support the claim here, that there is a substantial issue for creation of a three

Judge Panel and requires a narrow interpretation of the State Constitution and related remedies

available to a Federal judge as created under Baker v Carr, and Karcher v. Daggett that kept

home-rule state political Boundaries when drawing districts.

Court disparagement of claim of civil rights conspiracy of

secret organizations with Issue 22.

ISSUE 22: The judge erred when it characterized as irrational and frivolous the claim that asserts

there is an underlying civil rights conspiracy to deprive rights involving the York and Scottish

Rite Freemasonry of the Free and Accepted Fraternity of Masonry operating with those of the

Sovereign Military Order of Malta in conjunction with State action based upon available history.

STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION

Certainly Circuit has jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 USC 1291; and in regards

to whether or not the District Court has jurisdiction over these above matters it clearly does and

that as to the ancillary matter of the supplemental injury associated with the request for a three

judge panel this case absolutely does apply to the jurisdiction that the district judge would have

under 28 USC 2284. However, herein it gets complicated by related cases. Circuit must have

jurisdiction at this point to resolve this complicated matter. Especially since the related case

decision shown at A-123 alleges such a request is insubstantial uses the WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo,

377 U.S. 633 (1964) and Rodriquez v Pataki SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284) too broadly; and

needs review herein whether in a panel on the same day or jointly since Strunk is also a Plaintiff.

11

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

When I got the fax from Circuit Emergency Motion Counsel on July 16, 2008, evidenced

by the date stamp on the faxed page shown at A-2, I was not aware that on the same day there

had been a Schedule issued requiring that I had to provide my brief by 8/15/08. I don’t remember

seeing any such paper and I get a lot of legal paper and realize how important it is. I have all my

mail delivered to my facility where it may take service. However, because I have been working

up in Massachusetts last week, I did not receive the OSC date 9/5/08 shown at A-1 until

Wednesday whereby I am to deliver my brief by 9/19/08 or else. I did not start to work on this

brief and appendix until Wednesday afternoon and as such it is both abbreviated and possibly

will go without response by respondents; and therefor whether or not I am able to Reply per se to

a non response is also up in the air.

Therefore, I believe it essential that I be allowed both a reply to a non response; and

furthermore, be granted the opportunity for oral argument even if respondents do not appear, and

that I be granted an extended oral argument time at the hearing, to be expedited to occur before

the election in November 2008, and on the same day before the same panel as that of the appeal

with an expedited emergency three judge matter before it in Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in

NDNY 04-v-1193 with appeal case 08-4323-cv with an emergency motion for expedited hearing

of three judge panel issue

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is not a simple informa pauperis case of an inexperienced pro se litigant as the

record will show. This is also not the first time that I have had a case before Judge Ross, who in

fact has three such cases that under the district dicta to assign a judge to a pro se and poor

person. I am hit with an additional burden because I am involved in issues that no bread and

12

butter attorney would touch with a ten foot pole, but perhaps would wish they had the

opportunity to do so without losing their law practice because of retribution from the bench. I

was one of three plaintiffs in a matter in which they sued the Federal Reserve Bank and some

very lofty defendants. The plaintiffs in their first complaint were granted copious amounts of

time and energy by the magnanimous court including all parties in a phone conference for as

much as two hours; wherein, the judge made every effort for the minority plaintiffs. However,

district ordered Plaintiffs to amend the complaint. Thereafter, because I was a party in interest to

the outcome, I joined in the amended complaint, which eliminated defendants as the court

requested, but kept the Federal Reserve Bank and the lofty defendants, and the case was

dismissed with prejudice; and that we had no money to launch an appeal.

I have been at this for a long time and I am well aware for how everything works. But as

a pro se litigant whose every effort is to save this state by using every opportunity including

running for office with little or no funds is what I have to do; and that I should not be penalized

for having no funds under the conditions that I am subjected to here in this particular district

where I reside. If I were to have money or be a minority and have an attorney, I would get better

process and hearing; however, haven’t and rather than commiserate the merits or circuit dislike

of pro se cases, which should be apparent, I merely request my day in court as if I had money.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

There is a statement of a series of facts stated both in the Amended Complaint starting at

A-26 and in the Strunk Support Affidavit for emergency relief starting at A-6. I am not going to

repeat all the facts since District hasn’t seen them, and since the ballot access effort is moot for

this year; however, injury is not moot, will repeat time and time again, and must be corrected.

1. I am an active voter within the New York 57th Assembly District (AD) and NY 18th

Senate District (SD) created in April 2002.

13

2. I am an enrolled New York State Republican Party member actively seeking ballot access

as the Republican Candidate for election to the 18th S D and as a Republican Party Delegate or

alternate from the 57th AD to the Republican Party Judicial Nominating Convention at the

September 9, 2008 and or General Election of November 4, 2008.

3. For a state candidate in a district which the local state party in very small and in the

minority, That the basis to get a candidate on the ballot is to collect designating petition

signatures equal to 5% of the respective state party enrollment list within a political district.

4. However, the dominant State Party has benefited by gerrymandering, and in this case is

the Democratic Party that doesn’t have to get 5% of the enrollment; because, the signatures are

cappped on signatures for membership over a certain size. There is a serious ballot access

problem for challengers especially when the enrollment lists are inflated 30% illegally as is

going on statewide, and can only be confirmed by the discovery process under subpoena.

5. I am the challenger to anyone not a citizen to keep them from participating illegally in

elections unlike a majority of Democrats and past President like Mr. Clinton and the current crop

of open border, ‘let them all in’, presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle.

6. I have credentials in fighting vote fraud and am associated with controversial people in

that regard including my good friend the Honorable Robert K. Dornan as referenced at A-91 thru

A-96.

7. When a challenger to any incumbent especially within a party has no money or very little

money to wage an expensive campaign and petition effort, then the USPS becomes essential for

mailing which is the least expensive and most efficient way to seek office; and given the fact that

the 18th SD involvement is enormous and would involve expenditure of an inordinate amount of

time without an accurate certified enrollment list. The USPS Rule 703 is a burden.

8. Since enactment of the NVRA and the fallout from HAVA operates so that when the

14

state and localities deal with the voting lists without oversight of the EAC and DOJ, can get more

money by maintaining false listing in exchange for Federal dollars, in part is what the Forjone et

al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002 case is about, and in which I am a plaintiff; the end

result is an inaccurate enrollment list with up to 30% or more false names of the dead, moved,

homeless, duplicates and or outright illegal alien or say felons and the excluded included.

9. I performed a series of mailings that prove such facts, and because it is all done by the

USPS, provides presumptive evidence that gives me standing for the complaint to go forward.

10. Because the effort for ballot access was ongoing, the Judge never saw the evidence

gained by my campaign and petition activity, represent supplemental facts to the amended

complaint filed June 9, 2008.

11. In the Strunk Affidavit in support of emergency relief (A-6) there is a chart of the 66

USPS Returned Mailings within the 57th AD of the 18th SD (see A-99) compiled based upon 420

individual mailings posted with the USPS from June 6, 2008 through June 18, 2008, and

delivered by the USPS to active Republican Party members of the 57" AD in the 18th SD with a

conformed copy of the Designating Petition (shown at A-86 thru A-88) mailed out with a return

envelope addressed to petitioner sender campaign for the candidacies.

12. That there is prima facie evidence of misapplication and misadministration of the State

Constitution Article 3 Section 4 as to redistricting of Senate, Assembly, and House seats from

the April 2002 redistricting, and must be notwithstanding any pre clearance process under the

Voting Rights Act (VRA) or review performed by the US Department of Justice.

13. There is conclusive presumptive evidence that is rebutable by the NYC BOE

misapplication and misadministration of active voters list.

14. There is conclusive evidence of speech and association injury as a result of the burden

imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents.

15

15. That under USPS Rule 703 for Non-profit Standard Mailing rates, as relates to any

challenger or voter's expectation of reasonable effectiveness in participation in suffrage, is

absolutely a component part of petitioner’s ballot access actions and a voter’s right to know at

the mail box, as such voter injury is compounded as a result of the gerrymandering done

16. Of the 110 pieces of mail sent on June 6.2008 to the Republican Party County Committee

members with addresses posted by the Republican Party in October 2007 for the 57th AD

intersection with the 18th SD, listed on Exhibit D-5 page 4 through page 6 (A-81 thru A-83), 12

of 110 pieces were returned by the USPS. were: 1-FTE, 3 -Am, and 8- IA and as such is a

questionable return rate of say 11 percent unable to deliver.

17. That the Republican Party list of County committee members intentionally do not provide

an adequate address sufficient to deliver notice to the County Committee members of petitioner's

candidacy with the 110 pieces sent using the USPS, and as compared to the address list provided

by the NYC BOE date June 9, 2007 used for mailing 310 pieces to those Republican party

members other than the County Committee, and; whereas, of the total pieces 8 of 110 were IA as

opposed to only 2 - IA of 310 pieces referenced below; and furthermore. as shown at line item 1

through 4 on Exhibit E (A-99) the County Committee listed were not even designated by the

NYC BOE list of June 9, 2007 with a Voter ID.

18. An 11% return rate for official Republican Party county committee members is counter

intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.

19. Of the 100 or so pieces of mail sent on June 16, 2008 to the Republican party members

within the 57th AD in the 18th SD all recipients were chosen based upon the multiple number of

party members within a single household (available to no less than say 250 Republican party

members available to sign a designating petition). and of that total listed on Exhibit E (A-99), are

listed from Line item 13 through 40 as returned pieces of mail with the USPS remarks, total 28

16

being: 11- NDAA, 13- ANK, 3-FTE and 1 VAC; and is a questionable return rate of 28 percent

wherein the USPS is unable to deliver.

20. A 28% return rate for a multiple Republican Party member single households is counter

intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.

21. Of the combined 210 or so pieces of mail sent on June 17 and 18, 2008 to the Republican

Party members within the 57th AD intersection with the 18th SD, all recipients were chosen

randomly within a single household, and of that total listed on Exhibit E (A-99) are listed from

Line item 41 through 66 as returned with the remark subtotal for the 26 returns being I0-NDAA,

9- ANK, I -FTE. 2-lA. 1 -NSS, 1 -NSN. 1 -UNK. 1 –UR (Unknown return); and as such is a

questionable return rate of say 13 percent, wherein the USPS is unable to deliver for petitioner to

obtain ballot access with signatures.

22. A 13% return rate for those single Republican Party members in a single household is

counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.

23. That because the NYC BOE list of June 9, 2007 used to make the 310 mailings within the

57th AD intersection within the 18th SD have certified presumption by the NYC BOE as valid

Republican Party active voters any USPS return is questionable.

24. That under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America

to Voter Act of 2002 (HAVA) the USPS and NYC BOE have a fiduciary responsibility to do all

due process involved to verify active voting registration and or enrollment by mail. including any

change of address or as otherwise known as motor voter registration complained of by petitioner.

25. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers 13 through

66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of

irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list.

26. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E(A-99) line item numbers 13 through

17

66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of

irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list and or failure of fiduciary duty of the USPS

and or its agents.

27. That the results of the 12 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers 1 through 12

designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of

irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list to check and certify the Republican County

Committee members on file with the NYC BOE.

28. That the results of the 1 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers I through 66

designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of

irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list and possible voter fraud that would support a

order allowing for inspection of the original voting buff cards of elections going back to no later

than 2002.

29. That there is prima facie evidence of misapplication and misadministration of the State

Constitution Article 3 Section 4 as to redistricting of Senate. Assembly and House seats from the

April 2002 redistricting, notwithstanding any pre clearance process under the Voting Rights Act

(VRA) or review performed by the US Department of Justice.

30. There is conclusive presumptive evidence which is rebutable by the NYC BOE

misapplication and misadministration of active voters list.

31. There is conclusive evidence of speech and association injury as a result of the burden

imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents.

32. That under USPS Rule 703 for Non-profit Standard Mailing rates as relates to any challenger

or voter's expectation of reasonable effectiveness in participation in suffrage is absolutely a

component part of petitioner’s ballot access and right to know at the mail box as a voter compounded

as a result of the gerrymandering injury.

18

ARGUMENT

Ballot access and the active right to associate involved in party building within a political

district depends upon equal protection of the law for ballot access at the primary and general

election. Equal ballot access is outrageously missing in my district and throughout NYC and

statewide because of the significant difference of VAP and the referenced arbitrary rule for

capping rather than getting 5% of district enrollment that varies from one district to the next;

varies as much as 40% below to 40% above the mean eligible voters within the state and federal

districts- that is a fact and as such greatly impacts the primary and general election process.

Wealth must not be a standard to run for office, every method must be available for me.

The USPS and an accurate voting enrollment list are essential and the provision of that list has

broken down as one based upon partisan gain and money. The USPS has a fiduciary duty under

NVRA and HAVA to work and coordinate with the NYC BOE and others to guarantee accurate

enrollment lists and that process has broken down when partisan greed inflates the lists and

USPS returns are ignored for the purpose of filing false claims with the state and federal

government in hopes of HAVA and other funding. Inflated lists injure me and my party.

That NYC Defendants are ultra vires under the State Constitution Article 3, and act with

the USPS and its’ agents by operation of the NVRA and HAVA are culpable herein and are

operating together in conspiracy as applies herein as if under the Bivens case decision by the US

Supreme Court. Petitioner is without a constitutionally mandated Senate, Assembly and

Congressional District as apply to the mandatory relationship to the component ADs that must be

wholly within the respective senate district, and that based upon the breach of NYC BOE

fiduciary duty and social contract as applies, both segregate active voters and without

ascertaining citizen status of active voters, and that petitioner is under imminent threat of injury

from alien(s) voting with impunity by inaccurate voting lists; and that Petitioner has no other

19

means for relief available and has expended all options and is entitled to expedited suffrage

protection herein. The arguments used by the Judges in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.

Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) Kalson v. Patterson U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit No. 07-

1243-cv decision issued September 9, 2008 are germane herein.

Since the Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964),

decision have changed the gross aspects of disenfranchisement, there has developed a more

insidious form of disenfranchisement that requires knowledge and intelligence to detect. The

decision in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), regarding the inadequacy of equal total

population that then discriminates against actual voters within a district and between districts

must be revisited herein and within the lens of the Justices in the cases Burns v. Richardson, 384

U.S. 73 (1966), Davis v. Bandemer 478 U.S. 109 (1986), Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1946),

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13 n. 16 (1976), that give a glimpse of the problem now existing

big time in New York state, the land of computers and greed.

In the matter of districting related herein, the narrow decision of Rodriquez v Pataki

SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284), in which I was an intervener told to start a new case separate

and apart from it did so in the Loeber Case, and all Plaintiffs and those similarly are suffering

from the underlying problem affecting us all statewide since the 1962 districting is WMCA, Inc. v

Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964); that it must be revisited as a narrow decision not in the sweeping

one that it was thought to be, that has thrown with improper use the baby out with the bathwater

has eliminated one problem in favor of another. Although no court since Justice Taney in Luther

v. Borden (1842) has taken on the heart of the issue that in all the cases is denial of a republican

form of government. In New York imprudent use of WMCA has destroyed any expectation of

participation in the electoral process and that the vast majority of state citizens resident in a home

rule county who in no less than 47 counties are without a dedicated voice in the NYS legislature.

20

We already know the answer, but we have a right to know whether or not the court

considers the state constitution has been nullified in its entirety by the WMCA, Reynolds v Sims,

Rodriguez decisions and whether or not this court considers our citizen right to a republican form

of government under the 9th amendment to Federal constitution continues. Nowhere in any

federal case to date has there been any expression that would give anyone other than a state

citizen who is also a USA citizen over 17 years of age the right to suffrage and when otherwise

construed disparages that right protected by the 14th Amendment.

CONCLUSION

Although the issues in this appeal are broad and complicated they are all related and are

festering. This case must be remanded to district to incorporate the supplemental injury that is

accruing since the June 11, 2008 order to dismiss. Discovery must proceed and a decision on the

constitutionality of the above referenced issues settled either in district or for economy of the

calendar by a fully briefed presentation to a hot court here in Circuit and if deemed under 2nd

Circuit Rule §.27 for Certification of an Issue to the NYS Court of Appeals. I believe my

requests are reasonable and sound within good jurisprudence- however unique they may seem. I

also request that the hearing of the gerrymandering and ballot access issues be heard on the same

day for oral argument before the same panel for economy of the court’s time.

Respectfully submitted and certified to be true under penalty of perjury, Dated: September 19, 2008 /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk Brooklyn, New York ________________________ Christopher Earl Strunk Respectfully submitted conformed brief corrected and certified true under penalty of perjury, Dated: September 29, 2008 /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk Brooklyn, New York ________________________ Christopher Earl Strunk

08-3242-cv ________________________________________________________________________

US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ________________________________________________________________________

Christopher Earl Strunk,

Appellant / Plaintiff,

-versus-

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS), James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS

Board of Directors; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC); NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony

Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O’Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher, Gregory C. Soumas, Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and

Individually;

Appellees / Defendants,

New York State Board of Elections, New York State Attorney General, and the United States Attorney General,

Parties-in-interest

________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX

________________________________________________________________________

Christopher Earl Strunk pro se without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281

Brooklyn New York 11238 (212) 307-4444 uncasvotes2@yahoo.com

Table of Contents for Appeal 08-3242-cv Pages

Docket entries as of June 30, 2008………………………… A-120 2nd Circuit Clerk 9/5/08 Order to Show Cause for Dismissal

on Default of Appeal Case 08-3242-cv Strunk v USPS… A-1 Order denying T1080 Motion Emergency Relief of 7/15/08 … A-3 Strunk’s Affidavit in support of emergency relief of 7/2/08….. A-6 Notice of Appeal of 6/30/08……………………………………A-17 Judge Ross’ Order and Civil Judgment of 6/11/08..…………..A-18 Judge Ross’ Memorandum and Order of 5/9/08……………….A-20 Amended Complaint of 08-cv-1744 filed 6/9/08………………A-26 Letter of Transmittal of Amended Complaint of 6/8/08……….A-98 USPS Returned Mailings within the 57th AD / 18th SD………..A-99 NYC BOE- June 9, 2007 Active Voter List extract within Within the 57th AD / 18th SD……………………………A-100 Endorsed Republican Party Designating Petition of 6/16/08…A-101 2nd Circuit’s Summary Order of 8/15/05 in re Loeber v Spargo

04-5720-cv remanding to NDNY 04-cv-1193………….A-102 2nd Circuit’s Order of 1/24/06 in re Loeber v Spargo

05-6536-cv granting poor person relief……..………….A-106 Judge Arcara’s Decision and Order of 8/14/06 transferring

Forjone v US EAC et al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 to NDNY 06-cv-1002………………………………….….A-107

Legal Memorandum in re Crawford v. Marion County Election Board heard by the USSC published by the Heritage Foundation 3/10/09………………………A-112

Judge Kahn’s Order of 7/31/08 dismissing Loeber v Spargo NDNY 04-cv-1193..……………………………………A-123

Strunk’s 8/8/08 Letter Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Kahn’s Order of 7/31/08 dismissing Loeber v Spargo NDNY 04-cv-1193……..……………A-130

NYS AAG’s 8/18/08 Letter Opposing Reconsideration of The 7/31/08 Order dismissing Loeber v Spargo.………A-135

Judge Kahn’s Order of 9/10/08 affirming dismissal of Loeber v Spargo NDNY 04-cv-1193…………………. A-138

NDNY 9/2/08 Electronic Notice of Appeal of 04-cv-1193…A-142 9/17/08 Amended Notice of Appeal in NDNY 04-cv-1193…A-143

UNITED STA'I'ES COUKI' 0 1 7 APPEALS FOR TEE

SECOND CIRCUIT

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel PatrickMoynihul United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City September, two thousand and eight .

Christopher Earl Strunk,

Plaintiff-Appellant.

v. DIS3ZISSAL ON DEFAULT Docket Number: 08-3242-cv

United States Postal Service, James C. Miller Ill, Chairman USPS Board of Directors, The City of New York, NYC Board of Elections: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane, Secretary, Anthony Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O'Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher, Grgory C. Soumas. Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and Individually,

Defendant-Appellee.

An appeal having been filed in this Court on 6130108 and a scheduling order having been issued on 7/16/08 in accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, Civil Appeals Management Plan, Appendix, Part C, pursuant to which appellant's brief was due to be filed on 8/15/08; and,

Appellant having been advised in the scheduling order that upon the failure to file the brief by the date set in the scheduling order the appeal would be subject to dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED, that appellant show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed due to appellant's failure to file the brief by 811 5/08, the date set forth in the scheduling order.

Appellant is directed to file with the Court by 9/19/08 : 1) a bneE or, 2 a motion requesting a short extension supported by an explanation why the extensioii is necessary and demonstrating good cause for the default. Upon appellant's failure to respond as directed, the appeal will be dismissed.

For the Court: Catherine O'Haan Wolfe, Clerk

B Y L.-J& 35,r.r.- Armando Gonzaleq Deputy aerk

07-16-2008 13:59 From- 1-398 P.001/001 F-801

d a k apjcjprlat2b.m: :. FOP LMOICEWCV ~brlol~s.~onOWS mil STAYS AND IAIUNC~IOWS PVNDIWC AweALr

ntr at o f o p j t x i o 1 c o w l : - H u mgunt ra rdicCk.. o d e be1.d Yc* n. A h w a W X'YCS ' 0 Nr . 6. b o b a h d l 0 Y u )( No Hu thi6 dtfbar pm- rW

' i m lhlr Coa~? o Yes 4 NO L ~ r n . . l & q ~ e P r d ' p" 0 No (rkqmD for MI * ~ t e ~ v i ~ nolc mer y L. 'rrlcd) .

I ( u y i u t a r d . r r o l a p p s l k . r t r l ? 0 Y a No - If- @#Ic)&u .

. . F ..---- ..-- --- .-.-

(I C ORD_ER Beforc: Hon. Bsrrington D. arkcr. Circuit Judge

I I lT 1S HEREBY ORD that Appellsnt Stnmk's unergcncy motion for ballot access Tor the Republican I

I - . Primary on September 9, 008 and other rclief is DENTED. I 3

Cllhniac O'H- W o k , Clcrk

EDNY 08-CV-1744 US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Christopher Earl Strunk,

Plainti ff-Petit ioner,

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS), James C. Miller Ill. Chairman USPS Board of Directors; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC) NYC BOARD OF

ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane Secretary. Anthony Como. Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O'Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher. Gregory C. Soumas. Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and

Individually;

Defendants-Respondents,

New York State Board of Elections, New York State Attorney General, and the United States Attorney General,

T1080 emergency motion for relief with a tro and preliminary injunction for mandamus equity relief for ballot access and

remand in re EDNY 08-CV-1744 appeal taken from the June 11,2008 Order and Civil Judgment of

Eastern District Judge Allyne R. Ross

Christopher Earl Strunk pro se without being an attorney

593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#28 1 Brooklyn New York 1 1238

(63 1) 745-6402 uncasvotes2~vahoo.com

Plaintiff 1 Petitioner

Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue 4 2 8 1

Brooklyn New York 1 1238 (63 1 ) 745-6402 uncasvotes2@.vahoo.com

Defendants 1 Respondents:

James C. Miller 111, Chairman USPS Board of Directors United States Postal Service

475 L'Enfant Plaza. SW. Washington, DC 20260

TI-E CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC) Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo

NYC Law Department 1 00 Church Street

New York. NY 10007

NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS NYC BOE Commissioners

32 Broadway New York, NY 10004.

Parties-in-in terest

Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General State of New York, Ofice of the Attorney General

120 Broadway New York . NY , 10271

Todd D. Valentine Esq. New York State Board of Elections

40 Steuben St. Albany , NY . 12207

Michael Mukasey. United States Attorney General the United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20530-000 1 ;

Charles J. klynes Brooklyn District Attorney District Attorney's Office. Kings County

350 Jay St. 20th F1. Brooklyn . NY . 1 120 1-2908

STRUNK'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH A TRO AIM) PRELTMINARY INJUNCTION FOR MANDAMUS EQUITY RELIEF

FOR BALLOT ACCESS AND REMAND in re EDNY 08-cv-1744

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.:

COUNTYOFKINGS )

Accordin~lv, I. Christopher Earl Strunk. being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty

of perjury:

1. Am petitioner herein with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue

#28 1 Brooklyn. New York 1 1238.

2. 1 am an active voter within the New York 57'' Assembly District (AD) and

NY 1 Senate District (SD) created in April 2002.

3. 1 am an enrolled New York State Republican Party member actively

seeking ballot access as the Republican Candidate for election to the 1 gLh SD and as a

Republican Party Delegate or alternate From the 57Ih AD to the Republican Party Judicial

Nominating Convention at the September 9,2008 and or General Election of November

4. 2008.

4. On June 30. 2008 filed a Notice of Appeal from the entire order to dismiss

of Judge Allyne R. Ross dated June I 1.2008 (Notice) (see Exhibit A).

5. The Notice of Appeal is From the sua sponte Order and Civil Judgment

dated June 1 1.2008 dismissing the exparte Amended Complaint (Order) (see Exhibit B)

6. This emergency motion requests relief unreasonably denied by the sua

sponte Order and Civil Judgment dated May 9,2008 dismissing the exparte Complaint

(underlying Order) (see Exhibit C)

7. The Amended Complaint (AC) with Exhibits I thru 14 annexed was filed

June 9.2008 (see Exhibit D and by reference sub exhibit D-I through 11-14)

8. That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the

alleged facts of the Brooklyn BOE office manager denial of access to the active

Republican Party voter enrollment as alleged at AC paragraphs 54 through 59.

9. That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon

unlawful denial of enrollment and voter list at the cost of reproduction as alleged at AC

paragraph 59.

10. That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the

NYC BOE denial of a enrollme~~t and voters list on digital media at the cost of production

of $1 as alleged cost of a CD at AC paragraph 59. .

1 1 . That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon an

ongoing conclusive presumption of gerrymandering injury in that the 57' AD is

subdivided by the 18' SD that imposes an unreasonable burden upon petitioner's ability

for ballot access as the Republican Party Judicial Convention delegate from the 57' AD.

and that when the 57" AD is not wholly within the 18'" SD as required by the New York

State Constitution Article 111 Section 5 , quote:

"Assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be. of convenient and contiguous temtory in as compact form as practicable, each of which shall be wholly within a senate district."

"Ln counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be evenly divided among the senate districts of any county."

12. Illat the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing with evidence that the

18'" SD does not have a minimum number of ADS wholly within as required by the State

Constitution for nlandatory equal protection, that provides AD residents a reasonable

expectation to unify the AD with the adjoining ADS to effect control over the senator.

13. That the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing despite evidence that

the 18" SD does not have the same number of ADS wholly within equal to the other

existing SDs within Brooklyn as a matter of equal treatment of petitioner and those

similarly situated as a gerrymandering injury. as shown in Exhibit D subexhibit 3;

compares 1 7' SD- 7ADs, 18' SD- 8 ADS, 19" SD- 8ADs. 20" SD- I OADs. 2 1'' SD-

9ADs. 22"d SD-9ADs. (part) ~ 3 ' ~ SD-6ADs. (part) 25' SD-4ADs. and 27' SD-9ADs.

14. That the Judge erred by dismissing the complaint as to the USPS.

15. The chart of the 66 USPS Returned Mailings within the 57th AD I 18th

SD (see Exhibit E) was compiled based upon 420 individual mailings posted with the

USPS from June 6 2008 through June 18,2008 and served by the USPS to active

Republican Party members to only those members ofthe 57" AD in the 18' SD with a

conformed copy of the Designating Petition shown at D-8 and return envelope addressed

to petitioner sender campaign for the candidacies rcferenced at above paragraph 3.

16. Of the 66 pieces of mail returned by the USPS each piece was

systematically returned with a standard remark by USPS. and in which each remark

shown on Exhibit E colu~nn marked "Remark" are explained as follows:

f T E - Fonvard time expired return to sender

IA- Return to Sender Insufficient Address Unable to Fonvard

NDAA - Return to Sender not deliverable as addressed unable to fonvard

ANK - Return to sender attempted - not known unable to forward

NSN - Return to sender no such number unable to forward

NSS -Return to sender no such street unable to fonvard

UNK / UR - Unknown return to sender

VAC - Return to Sender Vacant unable to fonvard

17. Of the 66 total pieces of mail returned by the USPS shown listed on

Exhibit E. the USPS remarks for each category explained in above paragraph 16 are

subtotaled as follows:

5 pieces - F I E - Forward time expired return to sender

10 pieces - IA- Return to sender Insufficient Address Unable to Forward

21 pieces - NDAA - Return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward

25 pieces - ANK - Return to sender attempted - not know-n unable to forward

1 piece - NSN - Return to sender no such number unable to forward

1 piece - NSS - Return to sender no such street unable to forward

2 pieces - UNK / UR - Unknown return to sender.

1 piece - VAC - Return to Sender Vacant unable to forward

18. Of the 1 10 pieces of mail sent on June 6.2008 to the Republican Party

County Committee members with addresses posted by the Republican Party in October

2007 for the 5 7 ~ AD intersection with the 18' SD, listed on Exhibit D-5 page 4 tlvough

page 6, 12 of 110 pieces were returned by the USPS. were: 1-FTE, 3 - A m , and 8- IA

and as such is a questionable return rate of say 1 1 percent unable to deliver.

19. That the Republican Party list of County committee members

intentionally do not provide an adequate address sufficient to deliver notice to the County

Committee members of petitioner's candidacy with the 1 10 pieces sent using the USPS,

and as compared to the address list provided by the NYC BOE date June 9,2007 used for

mailing 3 10 pieces to those Republican party members other than the County Committee,

and: whereas, of the total pieces 8 of 1 10 were IA as opposed to only 2 - IA of 3 10

pieces referenced below; and furthermore. as shown at line item 1 through 4 on Exhibit E

the County Committee listed were not even designated by the NYC BOE list of June 9.

2007 with a Voter ID.

20. A 11% return rate for official Republican Party county committee

members is counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.

21. Of the 100 or so pieces of mail sent on June 16,2008 to the Republican

party members within the 57' AD in the 18"' SD all recipients were chosen based upon

the multiple number of party members within a single household (available to no less

than say 250 Republican party members available to sign a designating petition). and of

that total listed on Exhibit E, are listed from Line item 13 through 40 as returned pieces

of mail with the USPS remarks, total 28 being: 1 1- NDAA, 13- ANK, 3-FTE and 1 VAC;

and is a questionable return rate of 28 percent wherein the USPS is unable to deliver.

22. A 28% return rate for a multiple Republican Party member single

households is counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.

23. Of the combined 2 10 or so pieces of mail sent on June 17 and 18,2008 to

the Republican Party members within the 57" AD intersection with the 1 8th SD, all

recipients were chosen randomly within a single household, and of that total listed on

Exhibit E are listed from Line item 41 through 66 as returned with the remark subtotal for

the 26 returns being I 0-NDAA, 9- ANK, I -FTE. 2-lA. 1 -NSS, 1 -NSN. 1 -UNK. 1 -UR

(Unknown return); and as such is a questionable return rate of say 13 percent, wherein

the USPS is unable to deliver for petitioner to obtain ballot access with signatures.

24. A 13% return rate for those single Republican Party members in a single

household is counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.

25. That because the NYC BOE list of June 9,2007 used to make the 3 10

mailings within the 57th intersection within the 1 gth SD have certified presumption by the

NYC BOE as valid Republican Party active voters any USPS return is questionable.

26. That under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 w R A ) and the

Help America to Voter Act of 2002 (HAVA) the USPS and NYC BOE have a fiduciary

responsibility to do all due process involved to verify active voting registration and or

enrollment by mail. including any change of address or as otherwise known as )notor

voter registration complained of by petitioner.

27. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E line item numbers 13

through 66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive

presumptive evidence of irregularities in the NYC BOE voter I enrollment list.

28. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E line item numbers 13

through 66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive

presumptive evidence of irregularities in the NYC BOE voter I enrollment list and or

failure of fiduciary duty of the USPS and or its agents.

29. That the results of the 12 of 66 shown at Exhibit E line item numbcrs 1

through 12 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive

presu~iiptive evidence of irregularities in the NYC BOE voter I enrollment list to check

and certify the Republican County Committee members on file with the NYC BOE.

30. That the results of the 1 of 66 shown at Exhibit E line item numbers I

through 66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive

evidence of irregularities in the NYC BOE voter I enrollment list and possible voter fraud

that would support a order allowing for inspection of the original voting buff cards of

elections going back to no later than 2002.

3 1. That the results of the 1 of 66 pieces of mail shown in Exhibit E as

returned by the USPS is presumptive evidence of failure of the NYC BOE fiduciary duty

under the NVRA and HAVA for maintaining an accurate active voter 1 enrollment list.

32. That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the

conclusive presumptive evidence of injury shown in the above paragraphs.

33. That the chart of the NYC BOE - June 9,2007 Active Voter List extract

within the 57th AD in the 18th SD (see Exhibit F) line items 67 through 68 and 70

through 79 have separate voter ID numbers, however are suspect as being duplicate

voters maintained by the NYC BOE as active voters and when compared with the birth

and registration date columns only Line item 72 and 73 niay be separate voters based

upon a different birth date.

34. The executed designating petition signed June 17.2008 by Active Voter

shown at line 69 on Exhibit F. (see Exhibit G). and was part of the June 16,2008 mailing

for any address with more than one Republican Party member.

35. The 2nd circuit Mandate for NDNY Case Loeber v Spargo 04-cv-1193

(see Exhibit H), that required Judge Lawrence E. Kahn to make a decision on a 28 USC

2284 three judge panel on statewide districting . which to date he has not done. and

therefore supports petitioner's gerrymandering injury in the 18" SD and 57' AD; and

that the 2nd Circuit Mandate was Ibllowed with District's Order dated September 22,

2005, then followed after the Amended Complaint was answered with a Decision and

Order dated January 8. 2008 is further delaying a decision on the 28 USC 2284 matter.

36. The 2nd circuit Mandate for NDNY Case Loeber v ,'$pargo 04-cv- 1 193 (see

Exhibit I) allowing petitioner to devise whatever method necessary to serve state-

subdivisions ignored by the Court in efforts of plaintiffs therein 04-cv-1193 to serve the

Amended Complaint and Sumnlons there. that then deponent did proceed to devise the

method to serve all the State subdivisions by due service in the case Forjone v California

in WDNY 06-cv-0080 therein, goes to gerrymander injury.

37. The order by WDNY Judge Richard J. Arcara transferring the case

Forjone v California WDNY 06-cv-0080 to NDNY 06-cv- 1002 as related to Loeber v

Spurgo NDNY 04-cv-1 193 (see Exhibit J) goes to gerrymander injury.

38. An emergency appeal for equity relief of a three judge panel at 2"* Circuit

to address an ongoing gerrymandering injury is unresolved and is supported by

conclusive evidence that has a presumption of credibility to be rebutted herein.

39. That there is prima facie evidence of misapplication and misadministration

of the State Constitution Article 111 as to redistricting of Senate. Assembly and House

seats from the April 2002 redistricting, notwithstanding any pre clearance process under

the Voting Rights Act (VRA) or review performed by the US Department of Justice.

40. There is conclusive presumptive evidence which is rebutablc by the NYC

BOE misapplication and misadministration of active voters list.

4 1. There is conclusive evidence of speech and association injury as a result of

the burden imposed by the USPS and hYC BOE and or its agents.

42. That under Rule 703 for Non-profit Standard Mailing rates as relates to

any challenger or voter's expectation of reasonable effectiveness in participation in

sufiage is absolutely a component part of petitioners ballot access and right to know at

the mail box as a voter compounded as a result of the gerrymandering injury.

43. Petitioner has been injured by denial of access to a certified voting list as

require by this court in the appeal case Sclzrrk v. Williatns. 44 F.3d 48. 6 1 n. 13 (2d Cir.

1994). and therein this Court stated that EL Section 5-602 provides in relevant part:

"The board of elections shall prepare at least fiflj. copies of such pamphlet and shall send at least one copy of each such list to the state board of elections. at least t~vo copies to the county cliair~ilan of each political party. and shall keep at least five copies for public inspection at each main office or branch of the board. Other copies shall be sold at a charge not e~ceeding the cost of publication."

41. The judge erred when the court suggests that sonlehow there could not

possibly be an underlying civil rights conspiracy involving the York and Scottish Rite

Freemasonry operating with those of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and as such

must be deemed on its face, based upon readily available history, the court's arbitrary and

capricious process resulting in the Orders appealed from herein.

45. That there is a presumption of law that by definition of conspiracy has

been considered by the New York State legislature, that has an underlying reason for

enactment of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A and as relates to the

Benevolent Order Law as a standard of measure for operation of any conspiracy against

suffrage and individual liberty, and is cited by petitioner in the Amended Complaint.

46. That deponent has read the Amended Complaint with eight (8) Causes of

action having 14 Exhibits annexed thereto shown as Exhibit D, and makes this affidavit

in support of the demand for a temporary restraining order of the USPS, the NYC Board

of Election and its agents to perform their duty under law in the matter of ascertaining the

accuracy of the active voter lists in the 18' Senate District and that those related to the

state sub-division of Brooklyn, a.k.a. Kings County, as time is of the essence for my

ballot access for the Republican Party Primary and General Election in November 2008

election: and

47. that NYC Defendants are ultra vires under the State Constitution Article

III and act with the USPS and agents by operation of the NVRA and HAVA are c~llpable

herein and are operating together in conspiracy as applies herein as if under the Bivens

case decision by the US Supreme Court.

48. Petitioner is without a constitutionally mandated Senate, Assembly and

Congressional District as apply to the mandatory relationship to the component ADS that

must be wholly within the respective senate district, and that based upon the breach of

NYC BOE fiduciary duty and social contract as applies, both segregate active voters and

without ascertaining citizen status of active voters, and that petitioner is under imminent

threat of injury from alicn(s) voting with impunity by inaccurate voting lists; and

49. that Petitioner has no other means for relief available and has expended all

options and is entitled to expedited suffrage protection herein. and

50. that deponent knows the contents thereof; the sane is true to deponents

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

belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true, and that the grounds of

deponent's beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows:

3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

51. That deponent cites the March 10.2008 Memorandum of Law entitled

Stolen Identiries. Stolen Votes: A Case Study in Voter Inlpersonotion by attorney Ham A.

von Spakovs~ of the Heritage Foundation in conjunction with the January 9.2008.

hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States with oral arguments in Crmvford

v.Marion County Eleclion Board, a case challenging the constitutionality of an Indiana

law that requires most individuals who vote in person to present a government-issued

photo identification Indiana's law was upheld by a federal district court and by the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, (see Exhibit K herein), applies herein too.

52. That there is longstanding proof of ongoing vote fraud in Brooklyn that is

alleged to be still ongoing as indicated by the presumptive proof of the foregoing

evidence that shows there is questionable starus of the NYC BOE maintained active voter

list, and that District was premature in its sua sponte dismissal of the case herein..

Wherefore, petitioner prays for emergency relief with a TRO and prelimioary injunction

for mandamus equity relief for ballot access and expedited remand and order:

for a three judge panel herein to hear an expedited oral presentation on the alleged

injury that results as an ongoing gerrymandering injury to determine whether or not

the State Constitution as to gerrymandering is a nullity

NYC BOE immediately provide petitioner with a certified active voter list for the

18' Senate District for the costs of the media which is one dollar for a CD.

NYC BOE and its agents provide access for petitioner checking of buff cards;

NYC BOE is to provide a certified copy of the NYC Active Voter list to the Justice

Department for it to ascertain whether or not any registered voter is legally able to do

so especially checking such list with the records under its control with Immigration

and Customs Enforcement, and that

Different and additional relief deemed necessary by this c o r n

Sworn to before me this day of July 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No.: 08-CV-1744

(--I (LB) CHRISTOPHER EARL STRmK,

Plaintiff. v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS). JAMES C. MILLER 111. Chairmarl USPS Board of Directon : THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC)

NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS: James J . Sampel. Prrsidznt, : Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony Corno, Julic Dent. : Nero Graham Jr.. Terrence C. O'Connor. Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher. Gregory C. Soumas. Maryann Y e ~ e l l a each in official capacity and I ndividunll y; :

NOTICE OF,. . -- . - . * -

APPEAL

Christopher Earl Strunk, Plaintiff pro se. henby t~ppeals from each and every part of rhe

find Order and Civil Judgment of Judge Alljme R. Ross dated June 11.2008 to dismiss

sua sponte the esparte .Amended Complaint with prejudice. This appeal is against each of

the above captioned defendants. and is being =quested as an emergency appeal. on an

es@ted basis.

Dated: June 30.2008 Brookl~n New York

Cc: hTS Attorney General US Attorney Genenl NYC Corporation Counsel NYC Board of Elections

593 Vanderbill Avenue. #28 1 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238 63 1 745-6402, uncasvotes2(ii,~ahoo.com

EXHIBIT A

FILED 8 I

IN CLERK'S OFFlCE u.$.OlslRH=tCOURT W.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTNCT OF NEW YORK * JUN 1 3 M08 * ----------------------------------------------- x NOT FOR PRINT OR

ELECTRONIC PUBRE~@BCW OFFICE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiff, 08-CV- 1744 (ARR)(LB)

-against- ORDER AND CIVIL JUDGMENT

United States Postal Service (USPS); JAMES C. MILLER 111, Chairman USPS Board of Directors; The City of New York (NYC); NYC Board of Elections: JAMES J. SAMPEL, President, FREDERIC M. UMANE, Secretary, ANTHONY COMO, JULIE DENT, NERO GRAHAM, JR., TERRENCE C. O'CONNOR, JUAN CARLOS POLANCO, NANCY MOTTOLA- SCHACHER, GREGORY C. SOUMAS, MARYANN YENNELLA, each in official capacity and individually,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------- X

ROSS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, appearingpro se, brings this action under the Civil Rights

Act, 42 U.S.C. $$ 1983, 1985, 1988, and under various voting rights statutes, including the Voting

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. $ 1973, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, and the 2002 Help America

to Vote Act. By order dated May 9,2008, the court granted plaintiff's request to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 191 5(a), dismissed the civil rights claims, but granted plaintiff

leave to replead the voting rights claims. On June 9,2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

However, the amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies found in the original complaint,

ignores the court's dismissal of the civil rights claims, repeats allegations previously found to be

frivolous and fails to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 191 5(e)(2)(B). Ln essence, pIaintiff re-

submits the same complaint the court found deficient in the first place with a few immaterial

alterations. Accordingly, it is

EXHIBIT B

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That the action is dismissed for

failure to state a claim and as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. $191 5(e)(2)(B). The court certifies pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 5 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma

pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Co~pedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,

444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this cas - SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York June 1 1 ,2008

LWITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E.4STERY DISTRlCT OF NEV* YORK ___________________--------------------------------------- x

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRLYK,

Plaintiff.

NOT FOR PRINT OR ELECTRONlC PUBLlC.I\TIOh'

I\*lEMORANDUM tLKD ORDER

United Sates Postal Service (USPS); J.4MES C. MILLER ill, Chairman USPS Board of Directors; The Ciry of S e w York VYC): NYC Cit\- Council Speaker CIlRISTINE QUINN: NYC Mayor MICHAEL BL0031BERCi; S Y C Board of Elections: J-AMES J. S-AMPEL, President. FREDERIC M. UMAYE, Secretaq, ANTHOXY COMO, JULIE DEYT. NERO GRAH,k\I. JR., TERRENCE C. O'CONNOR JUAN C-4RLOS POL?INCO. K-WCY MOTTOLA- SCHACHER, GREGORY C. SOUMAS. MARY.4\T4 YENNELLA, each in official c a p a c i ~ and individually,

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------- S

ROSS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, appearingpro se, brings this action. infer alia, under the

Civil Rights Actl 42 U.S.C. $9 1983, 1965, 1986, 1988. Tht court grants plaintiffs requesr to

proceed i1:-forn~apauperis pursuant to 28 L1.S.C. § 191 j(a). The complain1 is dismissed with leave

ro repiead as set forth belo\\,.

Backmound

Plaintiff is a self-described "Republican P w Candidat?" who is '*seeking ballot access and

support oithe State Republican Party in Brookl-m for nomination as the candidate for the 18"' Senate

District to unscat incumbent Democrat Senator Velamette Monrgomep-." Compl. at 2-3. According

to plaintie. his candidacy has been hampered by inaccurare Rcpublican voter lists. Cornpl. at 10.

EXHIBIT C

In addition to the Civil Rights .Act claims. plaintiff also alleges the violation of other federal

lalvs. including the Voting Rights .Act, 43 L.S.C. $ 1975. Bi\?ens v. Six Unkno\\n Agents of the

Fekral Bureau of h'arcorizs, 403 C.S. 388 (14-1 j. the 1993 Sationa! Voter Resistration Act. and

th: 2002 Help .her ica to l'ots Acr. Compl. z: 2. P1ainti;':'also n a m s additional individuzls and

er.:ities as "panies-in-interst." Compl. at 1 . Plzintiff seeks. inler ulic. a tempor- restraining order

a d prelimin? injunction. the appointment c i a special master, bi-partisan ballot access. use of

s ~ i d a r d mail for campaign statements, and ucspecified d~nages . Compl. at 31 -32.

Standard of Revie-

In reviewing the complaint. the coun is mindful that plaintiff is proceeding pro se 2nd that

hi.: pleadings should be held 'YO less stringent nandards that formal pleadings drafied by la\\yers."

Huohes v. Roive, 449 U.S. 5.9 (1 9801: see also SIcEachin \ . X4cGuinnis, 357 F . 3 197.200(2d Cir.

2Cl0-1) ("[WJhen the plainriffproceeds pro se ... a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally.

pz~icularly \\.hen they alle,oe ci\*il rights \.iolations." (citation omitted)). However. pursuant to the

i~:.rorma pauperis slatute. Ihe coun must dismiss a complaint if i t determines that the action is "(i)

fri\.olous or malicious. ( i i ) fails to stare a claim upon tvhich relief may be granted. or (iii) seeks

monetan relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." lS U.S.C. $ 191 j(e)(2l(B). .4

claim is frivolous if its "factual contentions arc clearly baseless. such as when allegations are the

product of delusion or fantasy," or if i t is "based on an indisputably mcritless legal theory" -that is.

\\-hen i t lacks an arguable basis in la\v ... or [\\-hen] a dispositive defcnse clearl!. esists on the face

oithe complaint." Livincston \-. Adirondack Bev. Co., 14 1 F.3d 434.437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal

quorations omitted).

Discussion

A. Civil Rinhts Act Claims

Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations b!. defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 8 1983,

1985,1986,1988, and Bivens v. Sis Unkno\m .Aeents of rhe Fedcral Bureau ofNarcotics. 403 U.S.

388 (1971) ('-Bi\lens"). Compl. at 7. 1. Section 1983 provides. in relevant part:

Every person \vho. under color of any statule, ordinance. regulation. custom, or usage. of any State ... subjects. or causes to be subjected. any citizen of the United States or orher person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights. privileges. or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at la\\., s u i ~ in quit!.. or orher proper proceeding for redress.

19, U.S.C. 8 1983: Pitchsll \I. Callan, 13 F.3d 515,547 (7d Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted).

Section 1983 itself creates not substantive rights. [bur] ... on]). a procedure for redress for the

depritSarion of rights established elsewhere." Svkes v. James. 13 F.jd 5 15, 5 19 (2d Cir. 1993)

(citation omitted).

Section 1985 generally prohibits conspiracies to interfere with civil rights. Section 1985(1)

prohibits conspiracies to prevent federal otlicials from performing their duties. Weiss v.

Feipenbaum. 558 F.Supp. 265.272 (E.D.N.Y. 1982). Section 1985(2) prohibits conspiracies aimed

at deterring \\itnesses from participating in either federal or state judicial proceedings. See Chahal

v. Paine Webber Inc.. 725 F.2d 20. 23 (2d Cir.1584). Section 1985(3) prohibits conspiracies to

deprive "an!. person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and

immunities under the la~vs ... whereby a person is either injured in his person or propertj~or deprived

of any right of a citizen of the United States." Brow v. Cirv of Oneonta 22 1 F.3d 329.34 1 (2d Cir.

2000) (quotation omitted l . The conspiracy must be moti\*ated by ..some racial or perhaps otherwise

class-based. invidious discriminaton animus." Palrnieri v. L\nch, 392 F.3d 73. 86 (2d Cir. 2004)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Section 1986 liabiliy is imposed on an individual who has

kno\vledge of m~ongs prohibited under 42 U.S.C. tj 1985. Thus. a ?$ 1986 claim is contingent on a

\.?lid 8 1985 claim. A plaintiff must have a valid 5 1985 claim in order to proceed under $ 1986.

Clrsharn v. Henderson, 89 F.jd 75. 82 (2d Cir. 1996).'

-4 claim under Bivens permits recove? for some constitutional violations by federal agents.

e\.=n in the absence of a sratute conferring such a right. Carlson \ I . Cirzen. 446 L*.S. I I. IS ( 1 980).

Like actions against stale officials pursuant tc j 1983. a plaintiffs Bivens claims must be brought

q i ~ s t the individual officials responsible for the alleged deprivatiot: of his constitu~ionsl rights.

biareover. the United States Government and kderal agencies. such as the USPS. are immune from

sxit for damages. FDlC v. Mever, 51 0 U.S. 471.175 (1 994) (".4bsent a waiver. so\lereign immunity

stields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit."). Evzn upon liberally construing

phintiff s allegations, he fails to allege facts sufticient against any defendant to support a cognizable

claim under any of the aforementioned sections ofthe Civil Rights .Act or under Bivens.

B. Fri\lolous Claims

The Supreme Court has obsened that a--finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when

thr facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the ~vholly incredible, whether or not there are

judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton 1.. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

( ! 992): Shoemaker v. US, Deu't of .iustice, 164 F.3d 61 9 (2d Cir. 1998). Here. plaintiff makes the

following allegations:

As plaintiff has not retained an attorney, 5 1988 is inapplicable to this case. Under 31, L.S.C. $ 1988(b). the court ''in its discretion. may allow the prevailing parry ... a reasonable anorney's fee as part of the cons." See e.&, LaRouche 11. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68,71 (2d Cir. 1991): Tsombanidis v. C i n of \\'est Haven. Connecticut. 208 F.Supp.2d 263.270 (D.Com., 2002).

Mayor Bloomberg is a Knight of Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM).

That the SMOM is at the top and controls from its Vatican State Headquarters shared with the Society of Jesus and the Black Pope in the conspiratorial Masonic movement depicted in the diagram of Emblematic Structure of Freemasonry.

That Candidate [Stnmk] complains of injury by agents of the SMOM and others by their manipulating the public with media acquisition that forms a questionable monopoly control using print, radio and television media in NYC, thereby giving campaign favoritism by the SMOM conglomerate media nationally and internationally, both disinformation and concealment infringes campaign speech in Brooklyn that would otherwise challenge the hegemony of SMOM.

Compl. at 12.

That Defendants are a racketeering enterprise and by its conduct promote open borders and cause the conditions for the ongoing genocide to enrich itself, have taken plaintiffs personal proprietary property in the form of proprietary suffrage rights and as damage to the class have forced tax dollars to be directed to the enterprise measured based upon the following categories and amounts developed at www.immimationcounters.com sources and formulas ....

Compl. at 30.

M e r construing plaintiffs pleadings liberally and interpreting them as raising the strongest

arguments they suggest, Pabon v. Wrie.ht, 459 F.3d 241,248 (2d Cir. 2006), the court finds that a

majority of plaintiffs allegations rise to the level of the irrational.

Leave to Amend

Plaintiff also alleges violations of various voting rights claims, including the Voting Rights

Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 1973, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, and the 2002 Help America to

Vote Act, yet he fails to allege facts sufficient to show that each defendant named violated any

provisions of these statutes or that he is even entitled to rclicf under these statutes.

However. the court grants plaintiff leave to lilc an amended complaint. The mended

Complaint must contain a shon plain slatemen1 pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure against each defendant named. -4 plaintiff nlust disclose sufficient information to permit

the defendan\ '-to have a fair understanding of what the plainrifl'is complaining about and to know

whether there is a legal basis for recoilery." Ricciuti v. Nciv York Citv Transit Auth.. 94 1 F.2d 1 19.

123 (2d Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is forewarned that an amended complain1 that does not comply with

Rule 8 in that it is so prolix that neither the court nor defendants can determine the nature of the

claims raised shall be dismissed. Simmons v. Abruuo. 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995).

Conclusion

Accordingly. the complaint. filed ir<forn~apalcprris. is dismissed as frii*olous and for failure

ro state a claim pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. fj 191 5(e)(2)(B). However, in an abundance of

caution and in light of plaintiffs pro se status. the courl grants plaintiff leave to replead within 30

days from the date of this order as set forth above. Gomez v, C r t q 202 F.3d 593.597 (2d Cir.

2000)(citation omitted). If plaintiff fails to replead within the time allowed. judgment dismissing

rhe complaint shall be entered. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5; 191 5(a)(3) that any appeal

fiom this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forn~apauperis status is denied for

the purpose of an appeal. Coppedee v. United States. 369 U.S. 438,444-45 ( 1 962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn. New York May ? $2008

C'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW I'OKIi

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNY Plaintiff.

LILTED STATES POSTAL Sl'.R\'ICE (USPS).

JAMES C MLLLER 111. Chaimian USPS Board of Directors THE CITY OF h'EW ) ' O K WYC) NYC BO.ARD OF ELECTIONS James J SanipeL President. : Frederic 11 Umane Secretaq.. Anthony Conlo. Juiie Denr. Kero Graham Jr.. Terrence C O'Conno~, Juan Carlos Polanco. Kancy blottola-Schacher, Gregory C Soilmas, h l q a n n \'ennella, each in oflicial capacity and Individually.

Dct'endants, and

h T C City Council by their Speaker Christirie Quinn. MrC %layor h6chael Bloomberg. Boroush President Alarty Marko\\itz Sew l'ork State Board of Elections, Xttorney General .Andre\v Cuomo. Senator Vclamettc h4ontgoniei-y. Brooklyn Community Board 3, L . S I-Touse of Representatives Subcomnlittcc on Connmcrcs. Trade. and Consumcr Protccl~on 3q- House Jlernbers- Edolphus T O ~ T I S 1 oLh. hlajor oxen! I I *. Carolinc hlalone\. 1.1~'. John h1 blcHugli 23''. Brian bg,ins 27" L.S. Dcpartmenr of Holi~uland Sccurit! . Immlgra~ion Cusloms Enforcenicnt: and rhc U S. Depnr~n~cn~ of Jusrrcc

Case No.: 08-C\'-1744

(ARR) (I-R)

.AR.IENDED

COMPLrlINT

(July Trial recluest)

wit11 demand for

Ten~porary Restraint

Preliolinary Lrljurlctio~~

ant1 Special XI;lster

Equity Relief

Pursuant to the h\eniorandum and Order of &,lay 9, 300S, Plaintiff Christopher Ear1 Stn~nE (Srmnk)

hereby coniplains of hndamental rights and civil righ~s injury with monetary damage caused by

defendants with request for preliminary injunctiont and for the information of parties-in-interest,

respectfully alleges against eacli entity and named agent or yet to be named intlividual l y and in

ofificial capacity as a Federal question under USPS i\?ol~-prqfi/ S'1~711~/rn~iA4~7i/ Rule 703, and USPS

Amended ('omplaint Paze 1 of 33 EXHIBIT D A - 26

s d v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-CV-1744

responsibilities under the Natiotial Volit~g fightr Acr (NVRA). the Help Ameria fo Vole Act

(HAVA) to the postal service treaty with the State of New York, NYC and NYC Board ofEl=tions

for equal protection under 42 USC $1973, that defendants cause substantive due process and equal

protenion injury that infringes 1' ,5* ,9' and lob fundamental rights for suffrage and equal

protection for ballot access for State action under the 14' Amendment, along with those similarly

situated, that denies a republican form of government by misapplication and misadministration of

State Election Law (EL) and State Constitution; and challenges the unconstitutionality of EL 55-304

(3), EL $5-210(g), EL $5-604, EL $5-606 certification of lists as apply to NVRA and HAVq EL

$6- 136(1), EL $6-136(2)(h), EL $6-1 36(3), to enforce EL $5-2 13 despite any narrow Federal Court

Order, seek for remedy under FRCvP Rule 65(b), 28 U.S.C. $2201 and Local Rules.

JURLSDICTION

1. This action with eight (8) Causes of action is brought under: the Civil Rights Act

pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Sections $ 1 983, 5 1 985, 5 1 988; the Votiizg Rights Act (VRA) Title 42

U.S.C. $1973 including NVRA and HAVA as may apply to New York State Election Law that

operates with rules as apply under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Article 11, Article Ill,

Article IX and United States Constitution Article I. Article IV. and Article VII amendments: 1: 5~ ,

9' , 10' and as to State action under the 14' Amendment thereto; as to the USPS under 28 USC

$1339,28 USC $1343 (a) ( I ) (2) (3) (4); 28 USC $133 1; 28 USC $1357.

. VENUE

2. Venue applies under 28 USC $ 1391(b)(2),(e)(3); 28 USC $ 1402(a)(I), 28 USC

$1657; 28 USC $2201(a): 28 USC 42202; 28 USC $2402; 28 USC $2403: that this complaint is

properly laid in this Court where Plaintiff is a Republican Party Candidate for the 18' SD Brooklyn

grate&] to Almighty God for our Freedom in order to secure its blessing and guarantee of a

republican form of government under the NYS and US Constitutions, heard by an Article ITI Judge.

Amended Complaint Page 2 of 33

A - 27

S& v. USPS et al. EDNY 0 8 4 ~ - 1744

Related Cases

3. Loeber el d v. Spmgo et al. in NDNY 04-V-1 193 (beber) before Judge Lamnce

E. Kahn with a 28 USC $2284 decision to create a three judge panel there regarding

natewide State and Federal Political District gerrymandering injury including the'' covered county"

herein for pre-cle-w by the US DOJ - VRA Section, involving eligible voter disproportionate

diminished dilution beyond the 10% de-minimus effected by the 1993 NVRA and 2002 HAVA:

4. Forjone el ul. v. CalifDrniu er al. in NDNY 06cv-0080 (Fo jone) before Judge

Lawrence E. Kahn with a pending 28 USC 52284 decision for multidistrict nationwide case

involving an equity challenge to false billing by various states of the several states under the HAVA

funds formula effecting local reimbursement in New York real property taxpayers under EL $4- 138

differently in each of the New York State subdivisions entitled to have a local board of elections

within and is a matter related to the gerrymandering issue in Loeber.

Related Citations

5. WMCA. Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 ( 1 964) - Warren Court overreaching effort to

negate the great compromise by a coop against the NY Constitution social contract for the People's

suffrage that had been abused in 1962 redistricting. as if Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 one person

one vote suffrage applied to totai population with no age or citizenship limit for voting privilege.

6. Rosario v Rockefeller, 4 1 0 U.S. 752 ( 1 973). regarding lock box and party association

7. Lopez-Torres et ul. v New York Board of Election el al. EDNY heard by the US,

Supreme Court in the matter of right to party association and in which Strunk was a party in interest

on the side of the State through intervention that went to 2" Circuit and Supreme Court on appeal..

8. Green Party v New York Bourd of Elections et ul EDNY upheld in 2nd Circuit for the

compelling interest of the state to protect the association rights of political parties in which Strunk

was a party in interest through intervention that went to 2nd Circuit.

Amended Complaint Page 3 of 33

A - 28

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1744

9. Lermo,r 1,. NY Bwrd of Electiorrs. 232 F.3d 135 wherein 2nd Circuit held that a

favorable judgment would redress the injury to the plaintiffs rights to engage political association.

here too. redress injury to Candidate Smnk's subscribing witness not in the party.

Controlling State law for equity protection

10. NYS Corrstia~tio~~ Article I l l Secfiolt 5 for Brooklyn (aMa Kings County) that in

April 2002 was not used to redistrict the New York 18h Senate District (SD). and was done

differently than other SD within Brooklyn to cause equity injury despite express mandate, quote:

assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. as may be. of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable, each of which shall be wholly within a senate district

In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be evenly divided among the senate districts of any county.

1 1. NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2. quote:

S 2. Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever. be

exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the

people of this state.

S 9. Freedom of elections. All elections osght to be free; and no person by force of arms,

malice. menacing, or othenvise, should presume ro disturb or hinder any citizen of this state in the

free exercise of the right of suffrage.

12. _The NYS Civil Rights Statute Chapter 6 Article 5-A. quote: - .... --.. .-......---............--. ......... . . + - --...... ... .----.,-........ . - "--..... ..... . . - .... - . - ... .--..- ..--.

S 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

Amended Complaint Page 4 of 33

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1 744

: 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 mpy 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

f made in its officers file with the secretary 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.

S 54. Resolutions concerning political matters. Every such corporation or association : shall. within ten days after the adoption thereot file in the ofice 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.

S 55- Anonymous communications prohibited. It shall be unlaw-hl 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.

S 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 ofthe 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.

S 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.

Amended Complaint Page 5 of 33

A - 30

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-c~- 1744

PARTLES

13. Plaintiff ("Strunk, -.Candidate") is an active eligible voter (XEV) candidate with

website www.strunk.ws fiom the Brooklyn New York 1 gLh Senate District with service at 593

Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn New York 1 1238, and contact e-mail uncasvotes~ahoo.com

14. Strunk is also a candidate for the Republican Party position of Judicial Convention

Delegate from the 57' AD to associate as applies under EL 96- 124 for the Republican Party

Judicial Convention to choose Republican Judges to serve within the Second Judicial District.

15. Plaintiff Strunk is j~rs lerrii as of right under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution, representative of a class of all State citizens of New York and Republican Party

members in Brooklyn and New York statewide, under USPS rules for candidates nationwide.

16. Candidate is seeking ballot access and support of the State Republican Party in

Brooklyn for nomination as the candidate for the 18" Senate District to unseat incumbent Democrat

Senator Velamette Montgomery, a campaign statement calling card herewith marked Exhibit 1.

17. That Strunk suffers voting rights equal treatment infringement by injury to speech.

association. sufhge, liberty, Freedoms and proprietary sueage property rights as an active eligible

voter I Republican Party candidate in the Brooklyn 18" Senate District (SD) classified a Caucasian

class member, Vietnam Era Veteran, properly classified as a heretic ' I ) , over 60 years old, by

misapplication and administration of law has been invidiously singled out for discrimination;

18. Strunk seeks ballot access under the outrageous burden of equal protection injury to

his liberty and first amendment rights caused by both Federal and State action.

1 "Heretic" : As conccrns Iustorical Roman Calllolic useof tllis term: A 'labcl' applicd by [lie Papacy to anyone who dared in the past. or who dares today. to qucstion eithcr (1) papal authority, or (2) any of the unscriptunl doctrines based solely upon 'tradition' that have been promulgaicd by thc llicrarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. sucll as 'tmmbmnliation'. 'indulgences'. 'papal id"llibi1ity'. 'purgalory', 'worship of images'. 'a celibate priesthood'. 'auricular confession 10 a priest*. CIC."

Amended Complaint Page 6 of 33

A - 31

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

Defendants hereinafter known as

Defendants or individually as Defendant:

19. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. (USPS) is an independent agency of the

executive branch of the United States government (see 39 U.S.C. 5 201) responsible for providing

postal service in the US. Within the United States, it is colloquially referred to simply as "the post

ofice". "the postal service". "the mail" or "USPS".

a. As a auasi-aovernmental - agency. it has many special privileges, including sovereign

immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign

nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Lndeed. in

2004. the U.S. Su~reme Court ruled that the USPS was not a government-owned

corporation and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

b. The USPS has a Statutory monopoly right of the United States government to engage in

postal services is established by the Postal Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7) of the

Constitution and holds a statutov monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound

U.S. international letters as well as theexclusive right to put mail in private mailboxes,

as described in the Private Exoress Statutes.

c. The USPS operates under the directorship of the Board of Governors of the United

States Postal Service that is an eleven-member board comparable to a board of directors

of a private corporation, except in service of the American postal system.

d. Nine members are selected from the Republican and Democratic Party appointed by the

President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate.

20. JAMES C. MILLER 111, is Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United

States Postal Service Presidentially appointed along with members: Alan C. Kessler, Vice

Chairman; Mickev D. Barnett, Member; James K Bilbray, Member, Carolyn Lewis Gallagher,

Member Louis J. Giuliano. Member: Thuraood Marshall. Jr., Member; Katherine C. Tobin,

Member, Ellen C. Williams. Member.

Amended Complaint Page 7 of 33

I

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

a. Each Governor is appointed to a nine-year term or to the remainder of an unexpired term

created by the death or resignation of a sitting Governor. Terms of Governors are

staggered to expire each year on December 8.

b. A Governor whose term has expired may continue to sit on the Board for up to one year

until a successor has been appointed.

c. No more than five of the nine Governors may be of the same political party.

d. The Board generally meets once a month. Each January. the Governors elect a Chairman

and a Vice-Chairman. Three standing committees--Audit and Finance, Capital Projects,

and Strategic Planning--meet regularly during the year to consider matters within their

area of responsibility and refer items to Board for consideration.

e. The nine presidentially appointed Governors choose the Postmaster General. who also

serves as a member of the Board. These 10, in turn, choose a Deputy Postmaster

General, who becomes the 1 lLh member of the Board. The Postmaster General and

Deputy Postmaster General serve at the pleasure of the Governors. John E. Potter,

PostmasterGeneral Patrick R. Donahoe, Deputy Postmaster General and Chief

Operating Officer with service at 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW. Washington, DC 20260.

21. THE CITY OF NEW Y O W (NYC) is a New York state subdivision and as a

municipality entity is represented by its corporation counsel Michael Cardozo located at the NYC

Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

22. NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS www.vote.nvc.ny.us OIJYC BOE) whose

commissioners are equally composed of the Republican Party and Democratic Party by law: a. Jamcs J. Sarnpel. d. JulieDent, : h. Nancy Mottola-

President. e. Nero Gnham lr.. Schacher. b. Frcdcric M. Umane f. Tcrrcnce C. i . Gregory C. Soumas.

Sc~rctary , 0-Connor. j. Maryann Yemclla, c. Anthony Como, g. Juan Carlos Polanco.

each in official capacity and individually with service at 32 Broadway New York, NY 10004.

Amended Complaint Page 8 of 33

A - 33

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

STATEMENT OF FACTS pursuant to FRCvP Rule 65(b) for a Temporary Restraining Order

23. Candidate seeks equity relief under FRCvP Rule 65(b) with a temporary restraining

order (TRO) of defendants the USPS, NYC BOE and their agents, for ballot access at the

September gh 2008 primary, that without certified voter list for mailings without aliens registered to

vote. within Brooklyn and NYC is a Federal matter statewide and nationwide. That TRO relief is

requested until hearing for a preliminary injunction and special master sort out the ballot access

matter for existing SDs improperly districted in April 2002 remain the same with serious unequal

protection issues, as time is of the essence for ballot access before September and November 2008.

24. That NYC has exclusive home-rule over 5 Boroughs as a non-complying state

subdivision with population too large for a home-rule entity, has more than one-third of the state

Senators 26 of 62 rather than 20 of 62, and with political districts mis-distributed shown below:

New York City Political District Maps

a65sa ELZLBB 34841:a49 If5293031 B e e l

Amended Complaint Page 9 of 33

Strunk v. USPS et al EDNY 08-cv- 1744

25. That the 18" SD is contrary to NYS Constitution Article I11 Section 4 mandates. in

that the 18" SD, has no Assembly District (AD) wholly within. per above fl 10, requires Assembly

Districts wholly within othenvise is prima facie injury in fact: however, the 18' SD is composed of

8 ADS with portions of the 44, 50. 5 1. 52, 54.55, 56 and 5 P enlarged map. see Exhibit 2 herein.

26. The 18" SD as of the 2000 Census has 3 1 1.260 total persons including aliens. and of

the total persons. 226283 are 18 years or older, with 179869 as of October 2007 deemed AEV.

27. The 2000 Census count for the 18" SD created a class of Caucasians total 12.73%

among Hispanics 24.45%, Non-Hispanic Blacks 57.66%. and Others 5.14%. as shown in Exhibit 2.

28. The NYC BOE reports October 31,2007 that the 1 8 ~ SD has 179869 active eligible

voters in 8 ADS Brooklyn Senate District Map at Exhibit 2. with total population summary by AD

portions (see Exhibit 3) within each SD of the 9 SDs left unrelated to the 21 ADS per above n24,.

29. Candidate in his campaign to unseat Senator Velamette Montgomery contends

Brooklyn residents and communities suffer because the 18 local community boards. each with say

135k persons. need elected community board delegates Brooklyn-wide that would compose a

bottom-up republican form of legislative body with home-rule that must include an Executive-

President empowered as it was before the 1960s Mayor Wagner Administration's consolidation.

30. In June 2007 Candidate obtained from the NYC Board of Elections an active voter

list of Republican Party members consistent with the Party Call and list of non-Democrats.

3 1. There is a significant lack of Republican Committee members from the 1 8 ~ SD for

ballot access for a Republican Party candidate without petitioning for 446 party member signatures

equal to 5% of party votes for the Republican Party Gubernatorial candidate at the 2006 election or

as an independent candidate 3000 signatures later chis summer due to failure of efforts to associate.

32. Candidate went to 26 Court Street in January 2008 to find no Republican Party

Ofice in Brooklyn there anymore at that address, was vacant.

Amended Complaint Page 10 of 33

A - 35

Strunk v. USPS e! a1 EDhT 0s-c\:- 1 744

-9

2 - The 18th SD was created in .April 2002 by Stale La\$ at the same time as for the

State Assenihly and U.S. I-louse Politicill Ilistricts. ~~ntler la\v shall be created together ivithin the

state subdivision and pre-cleared by the DOJ: the maps for comparison of districts follo\s::

Figure I - Brooklyn State Assen~hly 1)istricts Figure 2 - HrooMyr~ State Senate Districts

Figure 3 - Brookl)n U.S. nuusc i ) intr i r ts 1;igut-c. 4 - Rrrn~klj 11 City Council District>

Amended Complain! Page I I of 33

A - 36

Strunk v. USPS et al EDNY 08-cv- 17-61

31 For comparison of the districts show in above Fi~urss 1 thru 1 as a niatter ofiarv

are non-coterminous requires return of Brooklyn Homc~-iClrlcp as a statc sub-di\*ision. that should

conform as do the districts in Figures 5 thru 8 belaw for consistency with home-rule as follo\\:s:

Figure 5 - Brooklyn Cornmu~~ity Boar-d Districts Figure 6 - BrooWyn Police Precincts

- - ~ ~~ -

Figure 7 - Brooklyr~ School Uo:trd Districts Figure 8 - Brooklyn Census 'Tr:tcts

Amended Complaint I1age 12 of 33

A - 37 - -

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

35.. July 2007 Strunk used the electronic Brooklyn Republican Party list obtained h m

the NYC BOE to select 200 Republican Party women of middle age on the basis of family. and

location in the Brooklyn 44 AD to receive a Republican Party building campaign statcment with a

self addressed envelope for response; 12 letters of the 200 letter mailing were returned by the USPS

marked unknown: statistically should receive 1% - didn't.

36. The Brooklyn Republican Party Directory of Assembly District Leaders who are also

State Committee Members, 2 per AD, was issued after the September 2007 primary. see Exhibit 4.

37. The Brooklyn Republican Party Call List of May 2007 issued for September 2007

Primary elections to elect Republican County Committee members from each election district has

274 members in the 18' SD. as the mailing list shows 60% are vacant. see Exhibit 5.

38. In order for Candidate to build a Republican campaign committee in the 18' SD on

February 25.2008 used the Republican voter list to produce a mailing by USPS standard first class

mailing by selecting 300 or so Republican women for greater results, of middle age, on the basis of

family. location, 2 for each vacant Election District (ED), and as such 150 letters first mailing were

delivered by the USPS to half the list as a first mailing with my letter marked Exhibit 6.

39. By March 14,2008 the USPS returned 25 of 150 letters of the first mailing marked

address or occupant unknown, as highlighted on the mailing list shown on Exhibit 5.

40. Without expending considerable h d s , that Candidate does not have, there is

insufficient time to assemble a Republican Campaign Committee in the 18' SD to build support

locally in this election cycle before the September and the November 2008 elections, without an

efficient way to reach individual Republican Party members using USPS mailings with an accurate

active voter list fiom the NYC BOE for the 18" SD, and available for Strunk to obtain sigmtures by

walking house to house for support as a burden for ballot access that infringes 1'' amendment rights.

4 1. The NYC BOE is required to work with the USPS under the NVRA to notify of

address changes and or occupant unknown so that the NYC BOE may modify active voter rolls.

Amended Complainl Page 13 of 33

A - 38

Suunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1744

42- Candidate has spent more than $300 in two test mailings for printing and mailing

costs in the 1 gLh SD, no less than 17% names unknown due to the bad NYC BOE list-

43. That Senator Montgomery was re-elected in 2006 with a vote of 42.869 with a 25%

voter turnout against the Republican Viviana Vasquez-Hernandez with 2,420 votes.

44. The NYC BOE reports the 18' SD has 179869 AEV equal to 139864 Dems, 871 0

Reps and 3 1295 other eligible voters, shown on Exhibit 3. and that a Candidate has to convince

sufficient AEV and new registrants to vote in the amount of no less than 25% of the AEV to win.

45. The NY State Constitution Article III mandates that every state sub-division shall

have all Assembly, Senate and by inference U.S. House Districts wholly within a sub-division

except for one remainder shared with the adjoining subdivision; and as such NYC and Brooklyn

don't comply, as Figures 1 thru 3 show, was not done for timely ballot access for the 2008 elections.

46. That Strunk contends that any qualified candidate as a sovereign citizen of the State

of New York gratehl to Almighty God for our fieedom to secure its blessing, has a compelling

state interest that must not be barred from office on account of lack of funds to do so.

47. That Strunk contends that a qualified candidate as a sovereign citizen who is a

member of one of the two competing majority state parties of the State of New York gmeful to

Almighty God for our fieedom to secure its blessing, has a compelling state interest that there

absolutely must not be any bar to competition between candidates of the two major state parties for

office on account of any burden upon such competition to do so.

48. On June 3,2008 Strunk as a Republican Party Senate candidate for the 18' SD

started to seek signatures of Republican Party members on his designating Petition for ballot access

to the Republican Party Primary for filing 36 days before the September 9,2008. a copy of the

Designating Petition (see Exhibit 7) for the NY SD 1 8' SD.

49. On June 3.2008 Strunk is a Republican Party Judicial Convention Delegate

candidate from the 571h AD and Senate Candidate fir the 18* SD, has a combined candidate

Amended Complaint Page 14 of 33

A - 39

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

desipating petition seeks signatures of Republican Party members on the Petition for ballot access

to the Republican Party Primary for filing 36 days before the September 9,2008, a copy of the

Designating Petition (see Exhibit 8) for the NY SD 1 8" SD and 57' AD delegate combined.

50. On June 3,2008 Strunk as a Republican Party Judicial Convention Delegate

candidate from the 57' AD because the 57' AD is not wholly within the 18" SD. seeks signatures

of Republican Party members from the 57' AD who do not reside within the 18' SD on his

designating Petition for ballot access to the Republican Party Primary for filing 36 days before the

September 9.2008, a copy of the Designating Petition (see Exhibit 9) for the NY 57' AD.

5 1. On June 5,2008 Strunk used the USPS to mail thc combined candidate designating

petition for ballot access shown as Exhibit 8 seeking signatures of the 110 members of the

Republican County Committee from the 5? AD within the 1 8fi SD shown in Exhibit 5. and that on

the reverse side of the Petition has introductory letter (see Exhibit 10) to each State Committee

member instruction to have a witness to the signature if possible and then to be returned to Chris

Strunk for New York Senate committee address 595 Vanderbilt Avenue #I02 Brooklyn NY 1 1238.

52. That no Brooklyn SD has an equal number of ADS wholly within as required by the

State Constitution as cited in above 71 0.

53. That equal protection of suffrage under law requires every SD to have ADS wholly

within to prevent such burden upon Judicial Convention Delegate and Senate candidates.

54. That Strunk needs a certilied Republican Party member list for the 18' SD to decide

where to walk house by house to obtain signatures most efficiently with limited time.

55. On June 5,2008 Strunk went to the Brooklyn Board of Elections to obtain a certified

list of Republican Party members within the 18' SD.

56. The Brooklyn Board of Elections Democrat Party Office Manager denied Strunk the

opportunity to review a copy of the actual list without first purchasing every AD book for $80.

57. The Democratic Party Ofice Manager stated that "the Brooklyn BOE is in the

Amended Complaint Page 15 of 33

A - 40

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08cv- 1744

business of selling the books as one package for the 1 8Ih SD and various SDs and would loose

revenue if only one book were sold from the respective package only for say $10 rather than $80."

58. Strunk was directed to go to the NYC BOE in Manhattan to obtain an electronic list.

59. Strunk went to the NYC BOE on June 5.2008 to obtain an electronic list of only the

18' SD voters. and was informed that it would cost $50, that Strunk does not yet have to expend.

60. That Defendants and or agents were duly notified of misapplication / administration

of the redistricting of the state political districts within Brooklyn before March 6,2006.

61. Defendants did not redistrict Brooklyn before March 6.2006.

62. That there are more than 1 Senate District shared by other Boroughs illegally

63. There is more than 1 U.S. House District shared by other Boroughs illegally.

64. That in Brooklyn there is no existing assembly district wholly within a senate district

as shown on Exhibit 3.

65. That there is only I assembly district shared with an adjoining borough.

66. Defendants maintain political districts that have voting power disproportionately

diminished diluted over the 10% deminimus differently in the NYC 26 SIIs and 18' SD in

Brooklyn different than for NYC, notwithstanding whether the ratio should be 22 SDs of 50 SDs or

26 SDs of 62 SDs statewide according to express State Constitution Article 111, and WMCA case.

67. Those Defendants promote incumbent status quo in the 18' SD and other political

Districts within Brooklyn for partisan togdown monocentrism to dissuade voter participation and

or expectation of success.

68. Defendants are subject to remedy under the Civil Rights Acr pursuant to Title 42

U.S.C. 1983 $ 1985, $1988, the VRA. and related law provisions of the US and Statc Constitutions.

Amended Complaint Page 16 of 33

A - 41

Strunk v. USPS et a]. EDNY 08-cv-1744

AS AND FOR CAUSE ONE

USPS Non-profit Standard Mail Rule 703 is facially unconstitutional and its agents deny

equal protection for eligible voters and candidates seeking public office

69. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in

paragraphs 1-68 above as applies to Defendants the USPS and its Board of Directors and their

agents deny equal protection and treatment for suffrage and as to candidates seeking public office

with use of the Standard Mail rates devised by the USPS thereby effect election law of New York

and the various states provision of a republican form of government for the people sovereign within.

70. That Standard Mail service was restructured fiom Third-Class Mail and Fourth-Class

Mad in 1996, and used mainly for businesses, Standard Mail has these requirements:

a. Minimum 200 pieces per mailing

b. Must weigh less than 1 (454 g)

c. No return service unless requested (an additional fee is charged for return service)

d. Not for personal correspondence, letters, bills. or statements

e. Annual fee for Third- and fourth-class mail was restructured in 1996 into Standard Mail

(A) and Standard Mail (B):

f. Standard Mail (A) consists of three new mail subclasses: Automation, Enhanced Carrier

Route. and Regular. The minimum bulk mailing requirement of 200 addressed pieces or

50 punds of addressed pieces remains the same as under previous third-class maii rules,

but now requires mail list certification.

3. The Automation mail subclass must be 100-percent delivery point bar-coded (1 1 digits)

for letters. The Z1P+4 barcode is acceptable for flats. The carrier routes and coding

accuracy for bar-coded addresses must be certified quarterly and semi-annually.

respectively.

Amended Complaint Page 17 of 33

A - 42

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

h. The Enhanced Carrier Route mail subclass requires that the basic carrier route be in a

line of travel sequence and that the hi@ density and saturation rate mail be in walk

sequence to qualify for the respective rates.

i. The Regular mail subclass must be certified annually for five-digit ZIP Code.

j. Standard Mail (B) consists of the following mail subclasses: Parcel Post, Bound Printed

Matter. Special Standard Mail, Library Mail. and Non~rofit. The latter two subclasses

are not authorized for government use. The mailing requirements for this mail class

remain unchanged from fourth-class mail. However. the mail piece must bear the

sender's return address. and the delivery address must include the correct ZIP Code.

Special fourth-class mail was renamed Special Standard Mail and the basic requirements

for its use remains the same.

7 1. U.S. Postal lnspection Service has a law enforcement duty to enforce the laws

including violation of election law as applies to NVRA and HAVA:

a. The U.S. Postal lns~ection Service (USPIS) is one of the oldest law enforcement

agencies in the U.S. It was founded by Benjamin Franklin.

b. The mission of the USPIS is to proted the U.S. Postal Service, its employees and its

customers tiom criminal attack, and protect the nation's mail system from criminal

rn i su se.

c. U.S. law provides for the protection of mail. The USPIS is a major federal

enforcement agency.

d. The USPIS has the power to enforce the law by conducting search and seizure raids on

entities they suspect Of sending non-urgent mail through overnight delivery competitors.

For example: according to the American Entmrise Institute for Public Policv Research,

a private think tank, the USPlS raided E~uifax offices to ascertain if the mail they were

Amended Complaint Page 18 of 33

A - 43

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08cv- 1744

sending thmugh Federal Exmess was truly nexWmely urgen~" It was found that thc mail

was not, and Equifax was fined $30,000.

e. USPS Office of inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Postal Service was authorized by law in

1996 to prevent, detect and report hud waste and program abuse, and promote

efficiency in the operations of the Postal Service.

f. The OIG has "oversight" responsibility for all activities of the Postal lnsDection Service.

72. The USPS a d its agents have the authority over Interstate and foreign commerce, including

all trade matters within the jurisdiction of the full committee; Regulation of commercial practices

(the FTC), including sports-related matters; Consumer affairs and consumer protection, including

privacy matters generally; consumer product safety (the CPSC); product liability; and motor vehicle

safety; Regulation of travel, tourism, and time; and, Homeland security-related aspects of the

foregoing, including cyber security.

73. The United States Postal Service (USPS) in New York State uses EL 5 1-1 04(3) in this state

and every state nationwide to affect all U.S. Citizens nationwide as a continuous direct injury

infringing my d h g e along with those similariy situated, and in fact d e n anyone uses the

Standwd Mail full postage fees

74. That such rule is as if apoll tar maliciously imposed for unjust enrichment of incumbents by

the USPS as a patronage favor for the incumbent Democrat and Republican Parties whose State and

National candidates are afforded special treatment, not otherwise afforded challengers and

Independent Candidates.

75. The USPS Regulation Rules 703 Nomrofir Stumkud Mail use EL 4 1 - 104(3) for

State Parties ( ~ e e : h t m d h n n w . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . '~.b)

ht tD~ /be=us~s*co~MM300n~3 .h tm#l 4 under section 1.0 Nonprofit Standard Mail for

Amended Complaint Page 19 of 33

A - 44

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08cv- 1744

1.3 Qualified Political Committees and State or local Voting Registration Oficials, 1.3.1

Political Committees and thet these political committees may be authorized to mail at the Nonprofit

Standard Mail rates without regard to their nonprofil status:

a A national committee of a political parly. b. A state committee of a political party. c. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. d. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. e. The National Republican Congressional Committee. f. The National Republican Senatorial Committee.

76. The USPS Regulation imposes Rules 703 Nonprofit S t d r d Mail for State Parties

at cross purpose to the Hatch Act that maliciously uses Standmd Mdl as subsidy for select Parties:

Rules 1.3-2 Definitions For the standardw in 1 -3.1 :

a. A nu~ioml committee is the organization that, by virtue of the bylaws of a political party,

is responsible for the day-to-day o j x d o n s of such political party at the national level.

b. A state committee is the organization that, by virtue of the bylaws of a political party, is

responsible for the day-to-day operation of such political party at the state level.

77. The USPS special treatment under Nonprofit Standard Mail rules is unreasonably

afforded State and National Party structure however denied my independent body or ballot

qualified independent candidate committee are unconstitutionally denied equal treatment by the

United States Postal Service under color of provision of regulation Rule 703 for provision of

Nonprofit St+d Mail privilege subject to Defendants' administration of EL 5 1-1 04(3);

78. Further, that Candidate Plaintiff and those similarly situated before and after granted

ballot access relief, as a result of the u n w n s t i ~ i d burden placed upon them by the USPS

regulation 703 rules, is intended to absolutely deny equal treatment of speech, association petition

for redress has a fatal chilling effect on the perceived meaningfbess of suffrage, and is real

financial burden to the respective candidates and upon perception of eligible voters.

79. As a basic inequity the USPS S~ondard Mail Rate for a one ounce letter was 39 cents Amended Complaint Page 20 of 33

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1744

during the 2007 mailing, using the 2007 rate structure for example despite rate increase to 41 cents

and now 42 cents. the basic 39 cents cost when pre-sorted is 36.3 cents and by re-sorted Bulk is

34.1 cents. and compares significantly to the USPS Nonprofit Standard Mail for National and State

party subsidy for a presorted one ounce letter was 24.7 cents, presorted Bulk was 21.5 cents. a clear

and decisive advantage of the States parties infringes a Voter's right to speech at the mailbox

burdens candidate's speech.

80. That using the 2000 Census each Senate District in New York had an average of say

3 1 I k total persons of which about say 180k were eligible voters to average less than 25% of the

voters who turn out to vote or say 45,000 voters means incumbent needs 22.501 votes to win.

81. In the Brooklyn 18' SD the incumbent received an overwhelming landslide majority

of votes as a result of the injuries claimed in above 1 1 80 for a 2006 total of say 42k against a

Republican candidate receiving merely 3k despite two republican mayors elected in a row, and

represents a burdened devised by NYC Defendants to limit a bottom-up Republican Pany

involvement: and

82. That gerrymandering of the 18' SD and in Brooklyn was and is intended to give any

incumbent Democrat easy re-election, by choosing the voters when drawing the district.

83. That the 18' SD incumbent ease of re-election means that beyond her official

finkingprivilege for maintaining her base created by gerrymandering, that she need only solicit

say 50% of 45k or 22.50 1 of those who do not vote to maintain an advantage over any opponent.

84. That on the basis of one letter each under Nonprofit Standurd Mail requires

incumbent need only spend say $4,837.72 on postage for 22,501 letters at say 2 1.5 cents each; but

an opponent, must expend much more without a subsidy for the same pool of nonparticipating

eligible voters plus building a 45k base, and thus the Candidate under Standard Mail must spend

$34.1 on postage for say 45k plus 22,501 = 67,501 x 34.1 cents or $23.01 7.79 for an equal result in

Amended Complaint Page 2 1 of 33

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

mailing: which is a significant burden that inhibits a major p t y challenger without funds or an

independent candidate-s speech and a voter's right to know at the mailbox as an eligible voter

85. That the USPS and their agents use the Standard Mail rate with specific standard

mail bulk qualifications for candidates challenging Major State Party candidates in Brooklyn,

Statewide and Nationwide.

86. That USPS and their agents use the non-profit standard mail rate to assist existing

two major state and national parties and the related incumbents to public office.

87. That the USPS and their agents use the standard mail rate to subsidize the non-profit

standard mail rate.

88. That non-profit Standard mail rules does not provide equal protection of Plaintiff and

those similarly situated for ballot access.

89. That non-profit Standard mail rule 703 does not provide equal access protection of

plaintiff and those similarly situated for competition against incumbents with ballot access.

90. That USPS method in Rule 703 is intended to discriminate.

91. Based upon information and belief members of the USPS Board of Directors are top

level Masons and associates of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) within the order and

rites of the Scottish and York rite freemasonry. depicted in the Emblematic Strucrrrre of

Freemasonry, see Exhibit 1 1.

92. That the SMOM and Black Pope of the Society of Jesus share their Vatican State

Headquarters occupy the top of the York and Scottish Rites to control Lhe conspiratorial Masonic

movement, that in New York came under challenge in 1828'" and referenced by Samuel F. Morse

The New York Anti-Masonic Party (also known as the Anti-Masonic Movement) was a 19th century minor political party in the United Stales The Anti-Masonic Party was formed in upstate New York in 1828. It strongly opposed Freemasonry. and was founded as a single issue party. aspiring to become a major party. It introduced important innovations to American politics. such as nominating conventions and the adoption o f party platforms.

Amended Complaint Page 22 of 33

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

in Foreign Conspiracy Against The Liberties Of The United States: The Numbers Of Brutus, (1835).

93. That members of the orders who take un oath in the rites of freemasonry are thereby

agents of the reigning Pope of Vatican State whose business component the SMOM is located at the

Headquarters shared with the Society of Jesus and the Black Pope for conspiratorial control over the

Rites of the entire Masonic movement, notwithstanding Prince Hall Lodge without orders and rites.

94. That the York and Scottish Rite Freemasonry orders shown in Exhibit 11 are

intended to deny equal protection within and without.

95. That the York and Scottish Rites Freen~asonry rites are entered by the top order

levels by members that require an oath to the Pope and Vatican State.

96. That the required rites are unequal protection for exclusive membership.

97. By virtue of the Orders with oath of devotion to the rite hierarchy and control

structure with exclusive membership is not benevolent under law of the land.

98. That those members by virtue of the oath of devotion are agents of the top control of

the hierarchy.

99. That the Pope and Vatican State are a sovereign state power with no less than 170

concordant treaties some which are with the United States of America.

Opposition to Masonry was taken up by the churches as a sort of religious crusade. and it also became a local political issue in western New York, where. early in 1827. the citizens in many mass meetings resolved to support no mason for public office. In the elections of 1828 the new party proved unexpectedly strong and after this year it practically superseded the National Republican party in New York.

In 1829 it broadened its issues base when it became a champion of internal improvements and of the protective tariff. The pafy published 35 weekly newspapers in New York Soon one became preeminent, the Albany Jotvnd. edited by Thurlow Weed, a Whig Party leader, opposed Manin Van B m . The party held a conference in September 1837 to discuss its situation: one delegate was former Pres. John Quincy Adams. The third Anti-Masonic National nominating convention fiap://www.ourcampai~s.com/RaceDelail.h~l?Racel~32897) was held in Temperance Hall. Philadelphia, on 1 1113-14/1838. By this time. the party had been almost entirely engulfed by the Whig Party.

In 183 1. William A. Palmer was elected governor of Vermont on an Anti-Masonic ticket, an office he held until 1835. The party conducted the first U.S. presidential nominating convention in the U.S. at Baltimore. in the 1832 elections. nominaring William Wirt (a former Mason) for President and Amos Ellmaker for Vice President Wirt won 7.78 percent of the popular vote. and the seven electoral voles from Vermont The highest elected office ever held by a member of the party was that of a governor. besides Palmer in Vermont, Joseph Rimer was the governor of Pennsylvania from 1835 to 1838.

Amended Complaint Page 23 of 33

A - 48

St.ru.uk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

100. That the Pope before his trip to the USA in April stated that all handguns must be

confiscated internationally.

101. That during the Pope's trip to the USA at the United Nations in New York stated to

the general assembly that the USA must submit to the interests of the UN.

102. That the Pope during his visit to theUSA mandated that the Border of the USA with

Mexico and Canada remain open and unguarded for anyone desiring to entire.

103. That Mayor Bloomberg and Defendants of the City Council and Speaker Quinn use

the NYC BOE to aide and abetted sanctuary policy for illegal aliens in conspiracy with the SMOM

that has imposed unreasonable costs upon the residents and sovereign people of the outer Boroughs

and people of the State of New York as evidenced by the recent modest policy statement of the

American Legion and the statistics on which it is based, a copy of the report (see Exhibit 12 herein)

of no less than 30 million, the report only uses 20 million illegal aliens now in this country to show

that State Citizens are suffering a major crime wave with no less than 5% of that number or 1

million illegal alien criminals on the loose or incarcerated to the outrageously damaging financial

and social detriment of US Citizens and their families.

104. used in computing the figures shown on their website and include reports issued by

government agencies and private sector organizations follows:

a Number of Illegal Aliens in U.S. ...................................... 2 1,218,615

b. Money Wmd to Mexico Since Jan. 2006 ............... $42,363,149,000

..... c. Cost of Social Services for lllegals since 1996. $397,480,946,017

...................... d. Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools 4, 184,824

......................... e. Cost of lllegals in K-12 Since 1996 $ 14,828,106,397

f. I legal Aliens Incarcerated .................................................. 35 1.087

g. Cost of Incarceration since 2001. ............................ ...% 1,477,239,843 h. Illegal Alien Fugitives ............................................................. 663,347

i. Anchor Babies since 2002 .............................................. 2, 148,175

j. Skilled Jobs Taken by megal Immigrants .......................... 10,232,44 1

Amended Complaint Page 24 of 33

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY O8cv- 1744

105. Based upon information belief Mayor Bloomberg is a Knight of Sovereign Military

Order of Malta (SMOM) by virtue of his marriage to Susan Brown of Yorkshire England.

106. That the Mayor and other Borough Presidents control the top-down appointment of

all 18 Brooklyn Community Boards (see Figure 5 on page 12 of 33 above); and

107. That Defendants act to conceal topdown control and circumvent scrutiny.

108. Those Defendants and their agents appoint Brooklyn Community Board members

that will represent the topdown interest associated with the interests of the SMOM.

109. That when appointees express opinion beneficial to their respective community are

dismissed from the topdown and replaced summarily by Mayor Bloomberg and other Borough

Presidents without a vote of the People, happened in Board 6 and others in Brooklyn.

110. Defendants are opposed to bottom-up plycentrism in Brooklyn as with elected

community boards or bottom-up competition within each political district in Brooklyn.

1 1 1. That NYC Defendants act to conceal topdown control and circumvent scrutiny.

1 12. Those NYC Defendant and their agents appoint Brooklyn Community Board

members that will represent the topdown interests associated with the interests of the SMOM.

1 13. On October 15.2007 Strunk testified at the N.Y. State Senate Committee on State's

Security and Transportation warning of sedition and treason involving aiding and abetting illegal

aliens, a copy of the Testimony with the letter see Exhibit 13, therein Candidate states:

... the People's sovereignty guaranteed in our State Bill of Rights Law in all matters is affected, especiallyfor the sanciiiy of the vote under Article II would be undermined and stolen by dilution andfiaud. My associate the Honorable Robert K Dornan has suffered since /he 1996 stolen election by the perfidy of Globalist Republicans and Democrats who in Califonia and elsewhere use illegal aliens to vote as a weapon against our sovereign ty....

1 14. The Honorable Robert K. Doman alleges that aliens vote with impunity at federal

elections effecting the House of Representatives, as done in July 2006 shown in Exhibit 13, wrote a

letter on September 12,2006 to U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE use of voters lists in conjunction

Amended Complaint Page 25 of 33

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08cv-1744

with its questionable involvement in Federal and State elections, see Exhibit 14.

1 15. ~a upon the recent modest policy Nnement of the A~~er icm Legion and the

stadistics on which it is based, a copy of the report shown in Exhibit 12, of the 20 million or so

illegal diens now in this c o w we are suffering a major crime wave with ~ a y no less than 5% of

that or co-atively 1 million illegal alien criminals on the loose or incarcerated to the

financial and social detriment of US Citizens and their families.

1 16. Those NYC Defendants and their agents fail to use mail notification requirements by

the USPS as provided pursuant to State and NVRA law for purpose of inflating voter lists.

1 17. That NYC Defendants use idlafed voter list using registered illegal aliens to secure

greater funds for the Federal government under the HAVA in violation of the False Claims Act.

AS AND FOR CAUSE TWO

Brrech of Fiduciary duty onder the NVRA and HAVA by the United States Postal Service

and its agents that deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public office

11 8. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in

paragraphs 1-1 17 above as applies to Defendants the USPS and its Board of Directors and their

agents.

1 19. That USPS Defendants have a fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA to

safeguard voter mgislration and change of address detection and records for each State BOE.

120. USPS and its Board of Directors and their agents in the matter of denial of equal

w o n and treatment of candidates for public office despite mandates under the NVRA and

HAVA provisions to maintain accurate voter lists do not handle the mail in regards to verification

of voter r e g i s t d o n in a equal way from zip code to zip code and fium single family residence to

multifamily residence.

Amended Complaint Page 26 of 33

A - 51

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

AS AND FOR CAUSE THREE

Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by NYC, NYC Board of Election

and its agents deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public office fail

to maintain accurate active enrolled voters don't enforce EL 55-213

121. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in

paragraphs 1-120 above as applies to Defendants the New York City, NYC Board of Elections and

each of their agents (NYC Defendants).

122. That without an accurate Republican active voter list is extremely time consuming to

try to catch someone at home in order to get them to sign the designating petition.

123. That NYC Defendants have a fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA to

safeguard voter registration and change of address detection and records to the State BOE.

124. That NYC Defendants have no way to detect voter impersonation unless by

registered ID and photo.

125. That the NYC Defendants are unable to check other state data bases for duplicate

registration of individuals also living and voting in other states.

126. That the NYC Defendants are aware of decades of vote h u d transacted in Brooklyn

going back to the 1960s and have no way to prevent it.

127. That NYC Defendant has no way to guarantee that it is able to prevent fraud by

signature recognition only.

128. NYC Defendants deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public

office fail to maintain accurate active enrolled voters.

129. That NYC Defendants do not take inactive voters off of the active voter lists.

130. That NYC Defendants ordered Republican Party employees of the Brooklyn BOE

not to pam'cipate or promote bi-partisan competition of the major state parties in Brooklyn.

Amended Complaint Page 27 of 33

A - 52

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

13 1. Those NYC Defendants seek to promulgate lack of enforcement of the AEV.

132. Those NYC Defendants have inflated party membership to inflate ballot access

requirements by requiriny increased number of signatures by candidate in the 18' SD in the service

of SMOM business and real property interests to eliminate competition to the Senator.

133. Those NYC Defendants and their agents prevented ballot access for viable

Republican candidates to run against Democrats incumbents reelected without challenge in 2006.

134. That NYC Defendants and their agents inflate major party membership maintain

ghost AEV to obtain greater campaign funding from the government.

135. Tkat NYC Defendants for the 2006 Election in NYC created no special safeguards to

prevent illegal aliens and or aliens to vote with impunity.

136. Those NYC Defendants and their agents lack compliance with the NVRA and

HAVA enforcement in New York State, and New York City for certifying accuracy of the active

eligible voter lists maintained by the NYC BOE and NYS BOE.

137. That NYC Defendants in NYC and the 1 8' SD the NYC BOE applied for HAVA

fbnds using all persons 18 years or older as if aliens were citizens eligible to vote against State and

Federal law.

138. Mayor Bloomberg. notwithstanding the requirements of the NYS Constitution

Article 2, favors non-partisan elections invested in the 2003 NYC Charter Revision referendum.

139. Mayor Bloomberg works with the SMOM to promote sanctuary by aiding and

abetting illegal aliens

140. That Mayor Bloomberg promotes open participation of everyone 18 years or older to

vote in NYC that would include illegal aliens and aliens in general.

141. Mayor Bloomberg has testified to knowing and promoting the presence of no less

than 500,000 illegal aliens in NYC and has admitted to aiding and abetting them.

Amended Complaint Page 28 of 33

A - 53

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

142. That Mayor Bloomberg along with the Knight Rudolf Giuliani. and other former

Mayors who are SMOM members, promotes a monocentric corporate smcture against the citizen

right to bottom-up home rule.

143. That NYC Defendants and their agents intend to allocate election resources and poll

placement to favor suffrage participation at the elections to assist incumbents.

AS AND FOR CAUSE FOUR

Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by the NYC, the NYC Board of

Election and its agents deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public

office use unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party

candidate under EL $5-304(3) (Lockbox provision)

144. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in

paragraphs 1-1 43 above as applies to NYC Defendants.

145. NYC Defendants prevent voters enrolled in one party From changing enrollment into

another party to sign a designating petition of the newly enrolled party during the 13 month lock

box period before the General Election and prevent said enrollee to vote in the primary of the new

enrolled party.

146. NYC Defendants prevent voters non-enrolled or blank from enrolling into a state

party to sign a designating petition of the newly enrolled party during the 13 month lock box period

before the General Election, however continue to bar new enrollee fiom the primary voting.

147. NYC Defendants allow first time voters to enroll into a state party to sign a

designating petition of the newly enrolled party during the 13 month lockbox period before the

General Election. and allow said enrollee to vote in the primary of the newly enrolled party.

148. That due to the effects of gerrymandering the Republican Party membership has

dwindled to such a degree that it is difficult to find a republican to carry a petition as a witness.

Amended Complaint Page 29 of 33

A - 54

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1744

AS AND FOR CAUSE FIVE

Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by the NYC, the NYC Board of

Election and its agents deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public

oflice use unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party

candidate under EL $5404

149. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 - 148 above as applies to NYC Defendants.

150. NYC Defendants prevent voters enrolled in one party from inspecting the active

voter lists without having to spend money to do so.

151. Without ready access in a useable form for a candidate with limited knds to at least

make copies of portions of the voters' lists on a copy machine is a burden placed upon Strunk

without a compelling state interest to prevent him from doing so.

A S AND FOR CAUSE SIX

Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by the NYC, the NYC Board of

Election and its agents deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public

office use ur~constitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party

candidate under EL 85-606

152. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 - 1 5 1 above as applies to NYC Defendants.

153. NYC Defendants unreasonably bar candidates from obtaining a certified voters list

without having to spend money to do so.

154. NYC Defendants prevent ready access in a certified voter lists without a compelling

state interest to prevent him From doing so.

Amended Complaint Page 30 of 33

A - 55

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744

AS AND FOR CAUSE SEVEN

Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by the NYC, The NYC Board of

Election and its agents deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public

off~ce use unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party

candidate renders EL $6-136(1) facially unconstitutional

155. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in

paragraphs 1-154 above as applies to NYC Defendants.

156. NYC Defendants deny candidates h m parties with small total membership equal

protection of eligible voters and candidates for public oflice with the Democratic Party in the NY

18' SD and as similarly situated in other districts under color of the formula for total signature

defined pursuant to EL $6- 136.

157. That according to the requirement of the Democrat candidacy in the NY 18' SD to

compete in the primary on September 9,2008 the candidate needs only 1200 valid Democratic

Party enrolled voters of 139864 enrolled Democrats within to sign the designating petition for ballot

access at the Democratic Primary.

158. That according to the requirement of the Republican candidacy in the NY 1 81h SD to

compete in the primary on September 9,2008 the candidate needs 446 valid Republican Party

enrolled voters of 871 0 enrolled Republicans within to sign the designating petition for ballot access

at the Republican Primary.

159. NYC BOE affords the arbitrary minimum signatures set by law for the Party with

more members whose candidates are afforded an easier access to the ballot because of greater

availability of party signers.

160. NYC BOE law is facially unconstitutiond and denies equal treatment with the larger

party. especially so under the condition of gerrymandering injury in the NY 18' SD.

Amended Complaint I'age 3 1 of 33

A - 56

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1744

16 I. Based upon the ratio 1200 signatures to 139864 members of the Democratic Party in

the NY 18" SD, equity would require only say 71 signatures for the alleged 87 10 Republicans lists

I f o r the NY I 8" SD.

162. The EL $6-136(2)@) is facially unconstitutional as applied by the NYC, the NYC

Board of Election and its agents that do not use equal protection of eligible voters and candidates

for public ofice under use of unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican

Party candidate AS AND FOR CAUSE EIGHT

Under the condition of gerrymandering of the 57" AD, the EL $6-136(3) signature

requirement is facially uoconstitutional in use by the NYC, the NYC Board of Election and

its agents used deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public office

under use of unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party

candidate for the 57Ih AD Republican Judicial Delegate.

163. Plaintiffrepeats and realleges eachand every fact and allegation contained in

paragraphs 1-1 62 above as applies to NYC Defendants.

1 6 . NYC Defendants place an unreasonable burden for candidates to obtain ballot

access for the 57" AD Republican party Judicial Delegate because the AD is divided and requires

more effort to be expended to gain ballot access with different type of designating petitions separate

for that of the NY 1 8Ih SD

165. That NYC Defendants' activities mount to an unlawful prima facie tort.

Wherefore, plaintiff demands the relief as follows:

A. On the first cause of action an Order that a TRO be granted prohibiting any M h e r use of non-

profit standard mail by any political organization under USPS Rule 703 until prcl iminary

hearing and determination.

Amended Complaint Page 32 of 33

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1744

B. On the second cause of action an order of the USPS standardize handling of residence

verification requirement set by the NVRA and HAVA for the NYC BOE.

C. On the third cause of action an order of the NYC BOE to certify an active voters list.

D. An order of NYC BOE and NYC to certify that there are no illegal aliens registered to vote.

E. On the fourth cause of action order NYC and NYC BOE under the condition of genymandering

injury to allow candidates to build party membership by convincing non-enrolled or blanks to

join the Republican Party during petitioning by filling out a new enrollment form to be filed

with the NYC BOE and thereby allow the new enrollee to sign the designating petition as a

matter of association rights to build a new party and confidence in the good efforts of candidate

for the State Committee, with the proviso that such enrollee not also vote in the Primary.

F. An order to allow a dcsignating petition signer witness to cany a petition and witness a party

member signing without being a party member under the condition of gerrymandering injury.

G. On the Fifth and Sixth cause of action an order of NYC and NYC ROE to allow candidates with

limited funds or otherwise to inspect the records of certified enrollment lists and to make a copy

there at the BOE by methods costing no money to the BOE.

H. On the Seventh and Eighth cause of action declaration EL 56-136(1) as to a lower signature

amount facially unconstitutional and at least allow a proportional lower number based upon the

same proportion to be used for the small parties.

I. On the declaratory judgment on equal protection under non-profit standard mail that there must

be adequate USPS notice as to the efforts completed herein with a public recognition and

apology to Strunk to notify voters of political district changes and of declared candidates gratis.

J. Order that plaintiff bc awardcd one mailing of his campaign statement in the Brooklyn 18' SD

for 67,501 mailings using the certified active eligible voter mailing list gratis.

K. Punitive damages in the sum of $x or such higher amount as may be determined by trier of fact.

L. The costs and disbursements of this action.

M. Attorneys foes where appropriate.

N. Such other and fbrther relief that this Court may deem just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted by:

Dated: June 8". 2008 (3hY.b-h &. s t u d Brooklyn. New York

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Amended Complaint Page 33 of 33

Strunk Campaign Card - Frorit

CHRIS STRUNK vdww.strunk.ws ,_Z

Brooklyn Republican con~petitio~~ - - for the New York IYlts Senate District - --

FREE BROOKLYN for citiwn battomup homerule 2008

Chris Strunk Republ~can Campaign for the NY 18th SD 593 Va~lderbilt Averlue - $102 Brooklyrl New Yorh 11238

Stn~nk Campaisn Card - Back

/ ' NYS Energy lnclepencisnce for all NY by vehicle Flex Fuel Isgrslation for kit rebaie5 and local mr?tiar:ul. ethanol aricl HHO gas (,iodiiction coinpsririon to fight OPEC price fixing

* Statewide real prollerty tax reforni equity for ebecone iC fund the levy basetl ilpon volume not capital improvenlsnr

' Rett~rn Co~~ct~tt ir ional BlooKl!n Local Botto~n up Ilorns r i~ le I

' Bottom-up electro~i sf Delegarec to 18 Corni~iuniq Boards 1

, ' Lctwl Home-~iils financing connol oci.1 z l l j~r t l ic~al l l lanirs I

* Facrllcste good jobs io s o h problems lrtsteatl of handoirrs , ' K-12 CIVICS education teaching State laws ant1 Constitution ' Reksrse gorr\mancler ing daniage and Albany i~ialf?asance

I

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBlT 2

EXHIBIT 2-1

Senate District I8

Total Population : 311,260 Deviation : 5,188

Dev. Percentage : 1.70

I NE Wt_e I NE Black I Eispanicl NH-Amer Ind I NH Asian I NE Multi I NE Other I -- -

Total 1 39,6351 177,5961 76,0881 870 1 7,874 1 7,7491 1,448 I Total % I 12.73 1 57.061 24 .a51 0.281 2.531 2.491 0.47 1 Totall8+ 1 34,776 I 125,458 1 52,119 1 607 1 6,526 1 5,765 1 1,032 1 Totall8% I 15.37 1 55.44 1 23.031 0.271 2.881 2.551 0.461

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LE

CT

ION

S

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

10/

31/2

007

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

17

AD

: 40

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 50

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 53

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Total:

AD

: 54

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 55

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 56

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 57

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Dem

ocra

t

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LEC

TIO

NS

SE

NA

TE D

ISTR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

101

31/2

007

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sena

te:

18

AD

: 44

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 50

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 51

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

To

tal:

AD

: 52

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 54

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 55

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 56

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

NE

W Y

OR

K c

m B

OA

RD

OF

ELE

CTI

ON

S

SE

NA

TE D

ISTR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

101

3112

007

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

18

AD

: 57

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

To

tal:

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LEC

TIO

NS

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

101

31/2

007

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

AD

: 40

AD

: 41

AD

: 42

(3

AD

: 43

a

AD

: 56

AD

: 58

19 M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LE

CT

ION

S

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

10/3

1/20

07

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

20

AD

: 42

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 43

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

>

AD

: 44

Mal

e:

I Fe

mal

e:

rn

Tota

l:

AD

: 48

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 51

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 52

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 55

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Dem

ocra

t

94

84

178

479

393

872

269

327

58

6 3 2 5

Ill

90

201

85

122

207

26

3 1

57

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LE

CT

ION

S

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF 1

0/31

/200

7

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

20

AD

: 56

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 57

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 58

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LEC

TIO

NS

SE

NA

TE D

IST

RIC

T S

UM

MA

RY

RE

PO

RT

AS

OF

101

3112

007

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

AD

: 41

AD

: 42

AD

: 43

9

I A

D: 4

4

AD

: 48

AD

: 49

AD

: 51

2 1 M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

ReD

ubllc

an

lnde

Den

denc

e C

onse

rvat

ive

Wor

kina

Fam

ilies

NE

W Y

OR

K C

tTY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LE

CT

ION

S

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

101

3112

007

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

21

AD

: 58

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 59

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Dem

ocra

t R

eDub

lican

In

deD

ende

nce

War

kina

Pthar

Fam

ilies

Blan

k

NE

W Y

OR

K C

rrY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LE

CT

ION

S

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

10/

3112

007

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

22

AD

: 41

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 45

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 46

Mal

e:

%

Fem

ale:

I

Tota

l: w

4

AD

: 47

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 48

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 49

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 51

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Dem

ocra

t R

eDub

lican

ln

dew

nden

ce

Con

serv

ativ

e W

orkln

a Em

ilia

NE

W Y

OR

K C

IN B

OA

RD

OF

EL

EC

TIO

NS

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

10/3

1/20

07

Kin

gs County

Sen

ate:

22

AD

: 59

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 60

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Dem

ocra

t R

eDub

lican

ln

deoe

nden

ce

Wor

ltina

Fam

ilies

Blan

k m

d

NE

W Y

OR

K C

IN B

OA

RD

OF

ELE

CTI

ON

S

SE

NA

TE D

IST

RIC

T S

UM

MA

RY

RE

PO

RT

AS

OF

101

31/2

007

Kin

gs C

ounl

y

Sen

ate:

23

AD

: 46

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 47

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 48

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

3

Tota

l: I

AD

: 49

Mal

e:

-l 0

Fem

ale:

To

tal:

AD

: 51

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 60

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Blank

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LE

CT

ION

S

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

'10/

31/2

007

Kin

gs C

oirn

ly

Sen

ale:

25

AD

. 50

blal

e:

I=on

lnle

.

Tota

l:

AD

. !il

hl;~

lc:;

Fem

ale.

Tota

l:

AD

. 52

blal

e:

Forn

ale

Tota

l:

3

AD

: 57

h.

lale

:

I Fe

mal

e:

Tota

l:

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LEC

TIO

NS

SE

NA

TE D

ISTR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

10/3

1/20

07

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

AD

: 41

AD

: 42

AD

: 44

AD

: 46

AD

: 47

AD

: 48

27 M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

Reo

ublic

an

lnde

Den

denc

e W

ortcn

a Families

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

BO

AR

D O

F E

LE

CT

ION

S

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T

AS

OF

101

3112

007

Kin

gs C

ount

y

Sen

ate:

27

AD

: 49

Mal

e:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

AD

: 59

M

ale:

Fem

ale:

Tota

l:

I F I ~ A T ~ V E DIRECTORY . . .. oBCTED ,.. -<, .-.Nkcm.. -. fl %ip 46-4. - a,

FALL 2007 EDITION: NEW YORK CITY DlSTRlCT LEADERS & STATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

EXHIBIT 4

A - 77

. liim llam 11105 1 lam 112m 11% llam llam 11203 11205 1 lam

11% llan 1 j105 I ti% 11m 1l a m 11106 llan 11aM

llam llam 11XIS ltps llam 11106 11205

1lam 11206 1 lam 11295 112M 11Pg 11206 llam 11106 ltaa 11206 11mS 1lPg 1 1 x 6 1 1 2 0 11106 11106 1 i i a llaos

1 1213 inn 11213 11213 11213 11215 11215 11215 1121s 11M 11215 11216

EXHIBIT 5 -page 1

A - 78

Strunk Committee mailing1 As

EXHIBIT 5 -page 2

A - 79

Strunk Committee mailing1 As

11221 11221 11m iim

-. iim 11233 iim tim

iim

EXHIBIT 5 -page 3

A - 80

Strunk Committee mailing1 xls

EXHIBIT 5 -page 4

Strurik Committee mailing1 xls

EXHIBIT 5 -page 5

A - 82

CHRIS STRl!\lk: REPUBLI('.\N ('AMPAIGIU COMMITTEE ior Elcrt~on rcr \he 18"' State Senate Ilistrict in 2008

;03 Vanderbill Avenue - a28 I Rrooklvn New York 1 1238

February 18. 2008

Re Uv mission is to build a bottom-up 1 home-rule competitive party system, and responsive State Legislature by my 18* Senate District Candidacy

Dear Ms. my Fellow Republican in CDJAD 01 4/54 .

I made the attached testimony to the Senate's State Security Committee on October 15. 2007 that gives a brief personal backyound with a sense of my mission to run for the ~epublican Pmy nomination and candidate for the 1 gLh Senate District to unseat incumbent Senator Montgomery - who I contend has no mission. is merelv using the Senate as a job and promotes a topdown nanny state solution to everything including the limp opposition to the Congestion Pricing fraud which 1 oppose - government employees musi take public transponation and park outside of the alleged crowded area - and that an incentive to private delivery of trucking yoods must include Free ently and exit after 9PM in the evening until bAm each momins during the week would solve congestion). In comparison to Senator Montgomery my mission in the 2008 election is a matter of State's statewide security. social and economic interests I pledge to build Republican - Democrat Party competition as a check upon substantive due process and equal protection for every citizen opposed to arbitrary autocratic whim. That arbitrary whim for too long oppresses our daily lives with layers of duties imposed without government reciprocity to protect our rights and fieedoms That we here in Brooklyn live under oppressive circumnances in which NYC government and State neglect circumvents fundamental bottom-up / home-rule law that must be done in the sunshine by citizens locally as a State Constitution mandate that is now ignored

I have invested my talents and efforts in Brooklyn since 1977. and for too long seen Brooklyn real property and labor exploitation excess. as ifwe were living on a plantation for Manhattan / New York City's elites who dictate an eyregious topdown corporate structure by backroom deals Ibr special interest that circumvent the Farantee of a republican form of governmen[ with home-rule authority here. 1 contend in Federal coun that the actual population home-rule size proponionally to the rest of the State subdivisions by State Constitution in fact shows NYC exceeds the population size allowed as an ongoing injury that wrongly thwarts every citizen's sovereign right to bottom-up governance over the hture of our posterity in all policy matters.

I contend the State Legislature must provide for Brooklyn home-rule. despite my action in Albany Federal Coun slnce 2004 before the Honorable Lawrence E. Kahn for a three judge panel on redistricting there. hy my candidacy I desire debate on the Senate floor as I will do when elected instead of courtroom floor. My candidacy contends that there is injury to Brooklyn communities tha~ starts 4 t h the numerous local community boards [hat must have duly elected representation in each local board. and that such elected Brooklyn-wide I.ocal community board as a lgislative body must provide governance to facilitate a new policy direction in the 719Century with reinvigorated home-

EXHIBIT 6

qlje that ! \ i l l Include a Borough Preqdent empouercd as i t war. before the Wagner Adnlinis~~ali*~ consol~dation iu the I ')bOs..

Broo)tlyn Ile& t c t develop industries for 2 I " century needs both under a ditfererlt state la-; slrucrure separate fronl burdens piaced upon us hv a criminally profli~are Federal Yovernment \\hose cornrptioll interference and lack ofenforcement saps life blood and capital f ~ r n l a t ~ ~ n .

WE Fust not transpon expensive electric tiom Buffalo. Braoklvn needs 10 develop offshore ridal power electric outside the pon that drastically lowers enersy cons for ower ring a new otfshore carso handliny and barge ivessel production facilitv here. so that when up and down the east coast we would link Buffalo and upstate New York by wav of the Hudson River and Erie Canal that once again would brins efficient Great Lakes transportarion regionally right down the hlississippi River to the (iult'of 3.lexico. That renewing local and international commerce will pro\.ide a n increased family based living wage standard statewide that with our new 21'' c e n t u ~ rapid transit reconnect the Empire State wonhy of the slogan where no one is left behind as nou

M y mission needs your assistance for ballot access i n the 2008 Elecrion process. and your help for success over the next four years in the State Senate, in which my mission will prepare for the 2010 Federal Census redismcting after reapportionment and an age of artificial shonase and market manipulation and obscene rush to creation of the North American Union under the shadow Security Prosperity Partnership to hnher eliminate the State - Federal constitution that does not r e ~ n i z e regional governance nor the proposed dismantlement of the USA unspoken of. To the contra? of top- down governance I desire to resurrect the State Constitution social contract in redistricting, overhaul the i f Century real propeny tar system ibr statewide equity t l believe all land without capital improvement including that held by non-profits and churches must be taxed equal with land owned by private citizens).

That unlike Senator Montgomery who wants to just hand out condoms. teach safe sex in prison and let every felon out with a non-judgmental return of suffrase, I will sponsor legislation and litigation for a home-rule hnded judicial system with bottom-up accountability that must combine local financing for all law enforcement and imprisonmenr that results I contend the Srate and every local government must be held accountable to individual rishts balanced ayainst the all too numerous imposed duties. so that the home rule provision of governance under State Constitution letter law that mandates bottom-up home-rule equity done by bi-partisan competition between two major state parties now missing in NYC and by corruption statewide. in that we desperately need candidate election choice and true debate for policv equity under State Legislative rules to maintain each state subdivision's viability for citizens and residents equity within and between such entities.

My philosophy for campaignins is that anyone seeking public ofice who would spend more that f 10.000 for public otfice in a district with say 100.000 eligible voters must be absent public financial support other than government promotion in the non-print media of campaign coverage with equal time fbr all candidate positions on the issues. [hereby to promote reading in the print media it'a candidate desires to write position papers and publish with their own finds with no limit to spending

Please feel t'ree to contact me throu_gh my website www-stmnkws . which is no holds bamd and if you would like to serve on my campaign committee or proride me with an opportunity to speak to your community group let me know; and if you are interested in sending me some stamps so that I may continue to send mailers ro potential party members and supponers don't hesitate to send some stamps at the above address.

Best regards to you.

Attachment: 10- 15-07 State Senate Testimon~

REPUBLICAN PARTY DESIGNATING PETITION

I. the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly enrolled voter of the Republican party and entitled to vote at the next primary election of such party. to be held on September 9,2008: that my place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto. and I do hereby designate the following named person as a candidate for the nomination of such party for public office or for election to a party position of such party.

E(arne of Candidate Public Office or Pam Position Place of Residence

CHRISTOPHER E. STRUNK - NY Senator from the 1 8 " SD - 593 Vanderbilt Ave. #28 1 - 1 1238

I do hereby appoint any three enrolled members of the Republican Party of the ~7~ AD as approved by the candidate hereaflcr as a committee to fill vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the election law.

In witness whereof. I have hereunto set my hand, the day and year placed opposite my signature.

Date Prinr Name of Si~ner Siener Sirnature Residence of Simer CoanQ

..I 12008 .... . King

..J I 2008 .... . Kings

..J 12008 .-.. . Kings

STATEMENT OF WITNESS TO SIGNER: I. (name of witness) state: I am a duly qualified voter of the State of New York and am an enrolled voter of the Republican party. I now reside at ................................................................................................. (address of witness residence)

Each of the individuals whose names arc subscribed to this petition sheet containing s i g n a t u r e s , subscribed the same in my presence on the dates above indicated and identified himself to be the individual who signed this sheet.

1 understand that this statement will be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an affidavit and, if it contains a material false statemenq shall subject me to the same penalties as if I had been duly sworn.

KINGS Date: 1 I 2008

OR Signature of Wimess County

In lieu of the signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state qualified to sign the petition, the following statement signed by a notary public or commissioner of deeds shall be accepted:

On the dates above indicated before me personally came each of the voters whose signatures appear on this petition sheet containing signatures. who signed same in my presence and who, being by me duly sworn. each for himself. said that the foregoing statement made and subscribed by him. was true.

Date: 1 12008 . Signature and official title of officer administering oath of Signer

EXHIBIT 7

REPUBLICAN PARTY DESIGNATING PETITION

I. the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly enrolled votcr of the Republican party and entitled to vote at the next primary election of such party, to he held on September 9,2008; that my place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto. and I do hereby designate the following named person as a candidate for the nomination of such party for public ofice or for election to a party position of such party.

Name of Candidate Public Office or Par& Position Place of Residence

CHRlSTOPHER E. STHUNK - NY Senator From the 18" SD - 593 Vanderbilt Ave. #28 1 - 1 1238 CHRISTOPHER E. STRUNK - Judicial Delegate from the 57' AD - 593 Vanderbilt Ave. #28 1 - 1 1238

1 do hereby appoint any three enrolled nlembers of tlie Republican Party of the 57' AD as approved by the candidate hereafter as a committee to fill vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the election law.

In witness whereof. I have hereunto set my hand, the day and year placed opposite my signature.

Date Print Name of Simer Simer Sirnature Residence of Siener County

..1 12008 .... . Kings

..1 12008 .... . Kings

..J I2008 .... . Kings

STATEMENT OF WlTNESS TO SIGNER: I, (name of witness) state: I am a duly qualified voter of the State of New York and am an enrolled voter of the Republican party. 1 now reside at ................................................................................................ (address of witness residence)

Each of the individuals whose names are subscribed to this petition sheet containing s i g n a t u r e s . subscribed the same in my presence on the dates above indicated and identified himself to be the individual who signed this sheet.

1 understand that this statement will be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an affidavit and if it contains a material false statement, shall subject me to the same pcnalties as if 1 had been duly sworn.

KlNGS Date: I I 2008

Signature of Witness County OR

In lieu of the signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state qualified to sign the petition. the following statement signed by a notary public or commissioner of deeds shall be accepted:

On the dates above indicated before me personally came each of the voters whose signatures appear on this petition sheet containing signatures. who signed same in my presence and who, being by me duly sworn. each for himself, said that the foregoing statement made and subscribed by him, was me.

Date: 1 I 2008 . Signature and official title of officer administering oalh of Signer

EXHIBIT 8

REPUBLICAN PARTY DESIGNATING PETITION

I. the undersigned. do hereby state that I am a duly enrolled voter ofthe Republican party and entitled to vote at the next primary election of such party, to be held on September 9,2008: that my place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto. and 1 do hereby designate the following named person as a candidate for the nomination of such party for public ofice or for election to a party position of such party.

Name of Candidate Public Office or Parhr Position Place of Residence

CIIRTSTOPHER E. STRUNK - Judicial Dclegate from the 57' AD - 593 Vandcrbilt Ave. #281 - 1 1238

I do hereby appoint any three enrolled members of the Republican Pm of the 57' AD as approved by the candidate hereafter as a committee to fill vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the election law.

In wimess whereof. I have hereunto set my hand. the day and year placed opposite my signature.

Date Print Name of Signer Signer Sirnature Residence of Sinner Countv

..J I2008 .... . Kings

..J I2008 .... . Kings

..J 12008 ...- . Kings

STATEMENT OF WITNESS TO SIGNER: I, (name of wimcss) state: I am a duly qualified voter of the State of New York and am an enrolled voter of the Republican party. I now reside at .................... .. ...............,.......................................................... (address of witness residence)

Each of the individuals whose names are subscribed lo this petition sheet containing signatures. subscribed the same in my presence on the dates above indicated and identified himself to be the individual who signed this sheet.

I understand that this statement will be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an affidavit and. if it contains a material false statement, shall subject me to the same penalties as if I had been duly sworn.

KINGS Date: 1 I 2008

Signature of Wimes County O R

In lieu of the signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state qualified to sign the petition, the following statement signed by a notary public or commissioner of deeds shall be accepted:

On the dates above indicated before me personally came each of the voters whose signatures appear on this petition sheet containing signatures, who signed same in my presence and who. being by me duly sworn. each for himself. said that the fmgoing statement made and subscribed by him. was true.

Date: 1 12008 - Signature and official title of ofticer administering oath of Signer

EXHIBIT 9

A - 88

Chris Strunk Republican Candidate for the New York Senate From the Brooklyn 18* Senate District 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #I02 Brooklyn New York 11238

www.STRUNK.WS

My Fellow Republican

Please sign my petition. I am Christopher Earl Strunk (Chris Strunk works just fine). Republican Candidate for the New York Senate fiom the Brooklyn 18' Senate District seeking ballot access to the September 9, 2008 Republican Party Primary Election, and thereby ballot access to the November 4, 2008 General Election; and also as applies to the Republican Party Judicial ~ominating Convention, seek to be a Judicial Delegate From the 571h Assembly District. worthy of public trust.

In May 2006 I intervened pro se against the members of the "Librratio~i Theology" wing of the Democratic Party who questionably used a Federal Judge to rewrite the State Law for State party selection ofjudicial candidates by the Judicial Nominating Convention under Election Law 6-124 in the Eastern District Case Lopez- Torres v NYC' Board ofElectiotrs et al. Subsequent to my support of law therein, I enrolled in the Republican Party not only to support Freedom of association to select Judges in Convention, and as upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Although not an attorney, I am qualified to be both a Senator and Convention delegate by virtue of my personal experience and Judicial background both as a pro se plaintiff in no less than 25 State and Federal cases since 1995, filed to keep government on the right page with the People for . . whom it should serve much too often don't. Mv published t w i m p _ n ) t _ w i t h r h e Puhbr Cot$detlce with the Jlrdiciary since October 2003 as well as in the Senate: accompanies my ongoing effort with the Commission otr Jirdicial Cotlhcr in support of State Constitutional process to safeguard the People of the State of New York gratehl to Almighty God for our Freedom, to secure its blessing. Notwithstanding the fact that 1 work with an attorney, I participated in many cases challenging the conduct of the members of the Judiciary including attorneys thereto in the interest of the people of NY.

As a matter of respect and deference to long time Party members, I spoke with Brooklyn Republican Party Attorney Aaron Maslow to discuss my intent herein and of my interest to build enrollment in the Brooklyn Republican Party, so that we may compete with the Democratic Party for the good of all New Yorkers; and that I contend the problem with governance as we now experience derives fiom the mischaracterization of Left versus Right or Corporatist versus Sociaiist, must be properly analyzed from the standpoint ofplyceniric local bottom-rrp home-nile with lintired goblenlcnice thaf senles the Imul citizen versus morwce)ltric topiiclwr~ ryrarny that collectively i t n p e drr ties upotr citizeta ~c~ithorrt etfircitg otrr rights with itnptrtrity - tyranny must fear the people.

Along with my campaign card and return envelope provided herewith, on the other side of this page is my Designating Petition offered with my humble request for support to have my fellow party m P m h P r r w i * * m e e - signing an- norary or commissioner of deeds. The self addressed envelope has my Senate Election Campaign return address for this signed petition. The Petitioning period is short and the efort to tile with the Elections Board tedious and time limited. I look forward to speak during the campaign and if you seek hrther petitions please check on my website referenced above, and fbrther information or communication with me.

CHRIS STRUNK

EXHIBIT 10

/EMATIC STRUCTURE OF FREEMASONRY !

I ENTERED APPRENTICE I I.

1 EXHIBIT 11

A - 90

THE AMERICAN LEGION POLICY ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Extracted from the full document to be found at:

Tnr m 8 4 iqlon org~docurnents~leqto~ ~dflrlleqai~mmgratlon Dd'

RESOLVED. That The American Legion seize every opportunity to request an accountability of our elected officials in implementing and enforcing federal and international laws and treaties to eliminate the large numbers of individuals from foreign countries entering the United States illegally and that all candidates for public office and the Democratic and Republican National Committees express publicly to the American people their positions and solutions to this grave danger to our country's stability.

RESOLVED by the National Executive Commrnee. The American Leg~on. in regular meeting assembled in Indianapolis. Indiana. May 9-10. 2007. That The American Legion. on behalf of all Amencans and future generations of Americans. urge the Congress and the federal government to authorize and fund the followng strategy in addressing the Issue of illegal aliens in the Unrted States:

1. Secure the borders and other pornts of entry In the United States

a) Construct physical banters. as appropriate. b) Acqurre and utilize latest technology to monitor border activlty c) Employ and train a sufficient number of U.S Border Patrol Agents to effectively patrol

border regions with employment preference given to former members of the U.S Armed Forces

d) Utilize National Guard troops to asslst in providing border security. e l Insure all vessels and their cargo arrlving at our seaports are thoroughly searched:

2. Eliminate the jobs magnet and soc~al services benefits

a) Mandate verification of employment eligibility. b) Enforce employer sanctions c) Make illegal residents lnel~g~ble for Social Security and other government-sponsored

public services.

dl Eliminate governmental financial aid for illegal allen students:

3. Enforce exlstrng laws and pass new laws to reduce U.S illegal populatron:

a1 Reject amnesty or -legalization- programs for illegal aliens. b) Enforce immtgration laws and promote cooperallon between federal. state and local

law enforcement off~crals with emphasis on interlor enforcement c i Establish parameters for non-criminal deportations. d) Proh~bit eligibility to servrces offered by financral ~nstitutrons In the Un~ted States.

EXHIBIT 12

e) Issue no drivers licenses to illegal aliens. f) Designate English as the official language of the U.S. government and print all

documents. including election ballots, in the English language only. g) Work with state and local governments to discourage illegal settlement:

4. Revise legal immigration procedures: screen and track foreign visitors legally entering the U.S.:

a) Eliminate the Visa Lottery Program. b) Restrid the number of countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program, c) Create new visa categories or expand the H-2A and H-2B Visa Categories for

temporary agricultural and temporary and seasonal workers as necessary to replace illegal workers eliminated from employment opportunities in the U.S.,

d) Create and enforce a reporting system to track the whereabouts of foreign visitors to include students at academic institutions, members of a country's diplomatic corps. aircraft and vessel crews. foreign press representatives, exchange visitors. H-1 B Workers. L-1 lntracompany Transferees and those individuals categorized as humanitarian entrants

Number of Illegal Aliens in U.S. .................................... 21,218,615

Money Wired to Mexico Since Jan. 2006 ................ $42,363,149,000

Cost of Social Services for lilegais Since 1996.. .... $397,480,946,017

Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools ......................... 4,184,824

......................... Cost of lllegals in K-12 Since 1996 $14,828,106,397

Illegal Aliens Incarcerated .............................................. .351,087

........................... Cost of Incarceration Since 2001 $1,477,239,843

Illegal Alien Fugitives .................................................... ,663,347

Anchor Babies Since 2002 ........................................... 2,14,175

Skiiied Jobs Taken by Illegal Immigrants ...................... 10,232,441

www.lrnmigrationcounters.com sources and the formulas used in computing the figures are shown on their website and include reports issued by both government agencies and private sector organizations.

Oct 15 2007 Joint - Senate Standing Committee on Veterans. Homeland Secutity and Military Affairs

Chair: Senator Vincent L. Leibell I l l and Senate Standing Committee on Transportation Chair. Senator Thanas W. Libous Pubk Hearing: Protecting our State's Security

Place: Van Buren Hearing Room A. Legislative Office Building, 2 d Floor, Albany. New York Time: 10:OO AM. Contact: Robert T. Fariey I Marianne Reilly - fax (518) 426-6977

In appreciation ofthe opportunity to speaA on Prorecring our Srare 's Securify as a rnatler of national security \kith global significance. I Chris~opher Eari Slrunk am a Vietnam Era Veteran. born in Manhattan, resident in Brooklyn, devoted to God and Counw. have taken the oath to defend and protect the USA and h e constitutions on which the Federal republic is based against any enemy foreign or domestic; as such give warning of Governor Eliot Spitzar's sedition as an enemy whose treachery is in conspiracy with others aiding and abetting with sanctuw for illegal aliens in New York against federal law must be impeached pursuant to NYS Articles IV and VI.

Warning herein is done in good faith w\ith the May 1985 adoption of Senate 1073 and Assembly 1249 commitment to tlle consummate emorescence of human dignity with \\hich they did praise my "unsefih cledimfinn and competent discharge of duty... above and beyond the responsibiliries ofjob and du ty...pe rceprion of rhe value and worrh of orhers. for his Innate and ingenious concern for rhe preserwtion anri en)ranceme~ ofhwnan dignity".

That beyond the honor and praise of 22 years ago, I am vigdant to maintain individual inalienable freedoms given by Almighty God urge his Committee to support m). action with Attorney Carl E. Person for an independent investigation of the perfidy unleashed on 9-1 1-01 against the sovereign People of the state New York: we urge the State Legislature to bring sunlight upon treason and sedition as a matter of protecting o w State's Security.

That as a matter of security and justice denied after 9- 1 1-01 involves the matter of providing sanctuary for illegal aliens with impunity in violation of federal and state la\wr, that then Attorney General Spitzer by seamless acts ofsedition no\v as Governor reaches the level of treason subject to impeachment under NYS Article VI section 24. and that pursuant to Article IV must be removed: Mr. Spitzer shall give testimony \tithou immunity pursuant to Article I section 6.

That nohwilhstanding !he majority vole of our Assembly controlled by a topdown corporatist elite. \kith political districts gerrymandered beyond h e letter and intent of State Conslitution Article IX H o m d e . this committee nevertheless must act as a matter of our State's Securie 10 review the population size of the city of Ne\vYorb;, which as a Home-rule entity has 26 of 62 Senators violative of NYSC Article 111 Section 4: and as a home-rule entity exceeds the maximum size of persons determined by the census allowable by the NYS Constitution: and as such Brooklyn must have Homerule again for our Stale's Security.

A review of the facts will show that Governor Eliot Spitzer is a globalist driven by osymoronic Liberation Thcolog)' in conspiraq with the Cuomo and Clinton dynasty. whose modernist- progressive p m i s is hat of Fr. George Tyrell, S.J. (1861-1909) and Fr. Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, S.J. ( 1 88 1 - 1955).

That by using the God and Country principle as our inalienable foundation for continuation of ow federal republic with 50 so\.ereign states is apposed the Govemor. as iTNewv York were a

EXHIBIT 13

pravincc o i ; a ~o\.inces. merriy as a subset among 83 provinces globally, and the multicultural cc-qAi!v ir sipl?i'~xs rather L ~ L I the fiercely independent Country under an Almighty Gad witose sirrAns of ow State are sovereign arnclns the filly Federal members with borders i;~?gage mutd culture Zisrinct h m the whole worId.

f w&r. un!y our Congress sets the agenda under Article 1 Section 8 clause 4 for the ~a~auabarion of citizens per se, not the governor or legislahm$as if once under the Artides of Csnfeciers:ioc. .% such goes tc, Mr. Spitzeis violation of the Logan Act by offering residency *at wdermines each citizen's vote and right to have each vote counted in the sunshine.

Funhermore. \\,ere illegal aliens or aliens &ranted drivers licenses by the Governor's sedition and ireson, (1 contend chaf oniy the Federal govenunent may issue a licema? to m alien whether t ire legally or noti the People's sovereignty guaranteed in our State Bill of Rights Law in all matters is att'ited. especially for the sanctity of the votc under ArticIe II would be undermined and stolen by Alution and fraud Mv associatr the Honorable Robert K. Dornan has suffered since the 19% stolen election by the p e w of globalist Republicans and Democrats who in Califomiil uod elsewfiere use illegal aliens to vote as a weapon against our sovereignty, a copy of Mr. Doman's lcttcr to the Court in the Federal case in Western District of New York WDNY 06- cv-0080 c u e Fo jone v. California et al. is herewith attacbed (now transfened to NDNY 06-cv- 1002 assigned to Judgc Lawrcncc E. Kahn).

Like me. Slr. Doman puts God and Country before party politics dedicated to the sanctity of our individual vote demands that the laws of each state be enforced and the right to vote by each citizen he accompanied by the right of knowing tbat each vote is duly counted in the snnshine as a maner ~inational security. Alive on the public record s-e perfidy exists in Xew York that dluws alie~~s to votc. Here in Albany, were Mr. S o a s to compare the gaveyards of Albany that rise as if by command of Mayor Corning's gbost on election day with those who do vote. likewise Mr. Hpes comparing voting roles census in NYC gmws accordingly each election day with votes h r n all ova thc world. That elections in New Yo& proceed as if by remote control at a distance and brings inlo question the use of XVRA ('%notor-voter act") and HAVA ("help anyone to vote act"): and as such the standard for review by this Committee shall be strict and thorough as a State and national sxurity matter.

In deference for the rime of the Committee I am not going to burden the reader with copious and readily available facts about the danger the sanctuary policy for illegal aliens imposes upon the citizens, states and nation. I am at the beck and call ofthis Committee for providing supporting evidence for what 1 contend, and am available for

Dated: October 15.2007 Brooklyn. New York

TOPH HER EARL STRUNK 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - k28 1 Brooklyn. New York 1 1238 63 1-745-6402 email: fieebmoklvrue~ub!ic:Z\.ahoo.corn

.4nachenr: RKD letter to the Court

cc: &e Honorable Rokn K. Doman Carl E. Person. Esq.

Fojont v. EAC - WDNY 06cv-80

EXHIBIT 0-2 I The Honnmbk Robert L;. Chma (U.S. CCM-W-\ 1077 - 1')971

3 134 I .-\nJrt* Pic&> R o d

! 'in Juan C'ap~slr~un. C;ll~lblnla W175

July S./IW)h

Tlk: Hontinblc i'hicf Jtdge R~chi~rd J. Arcan I For h- L'11itrzi SIXLX Di3trrct Cat111 ; \!'e.t.m Di\rric~ oI'Sc?\ Y~wk ! ZlY l'.S. l'our~housi I 1.R C.wn Stnrr ; B u l f ~ l ~ . Sc.\r Surk 14202

Re: [ . .M~ ,J I~ %-l.d/. r. f: fc' 1.1 UL \vD% Y ~&cv-%) (it.t;\)

i Sobjtd: a Thc Hmcinblc Clucf J u l y . R~L-hard J. .%a-arr

1,171 f o m x [I:. S. ttourc Rqmscnraivc. Robm K. Llornan pro sc uitfiout bcing an a t t~rwy. uho w-as wlr~gcmusly Afcatcd ilkplly by Dcmocnr Lar~qtr Suichcz by a n~ininium of 2.360 alien \&s. and accordiug to I.C.E. (I.N.S.) rru\rJs 4.UIZ ~ l i r n \a~- ~lh.~/rrlly r-~LI in he I W ~ I California Ccnc~rrl ELxtion: a d that by consensus of both t l r

Rcpuhlica~l enJ Denlocritic p w ~ c s bchind t k scenes ill violarim o f thc majority of votm' righs cornpired then and ~ m w for contml ovcr 11lryaI ~ l i c n voting ~ \ \ L T in C~li fornia ild u m l n g l y ition ion\\ lde. .-\liens i l l~gal. voting with impunh) and ~ v h c r m ucrt a single indi\.iduI \W chugal w tth h11d of ic.I,l~lic?. ha\ 1ng hcc11 ~vnunittd, tu dirrk11~ bring abut my I- by ltinc \ot= - ntit~\~itl~~tst;rnJ111b:nd11 thc I.C.E. r ~ ~ o r d - to the colitnrp. I dc\irc rn tchtify a n d ir~rcrvaic ill \uppon of ~ h c cnitunkrl pro u: PlintifKs herein. both in m! own wlf- ir i tcrc~ and for thc suwival d o u r nation as ;l cv~~~~ i ru r i an r l rcpuhlic.

\Ig dlwct injur). in IIPW JII~ afternard li the vr~bjsct oiPIaintiffi' .41lxn&d Co~llplaint p ~ r a g r ~ p l i ~ 92. I 17 IIIN I Ili 2nd 147. .4s w h 111)' intcnnrtion is rcquircd to ~qablish accuracy In tjw wmrJ of thc u~dcrlying p m r 4 i n p dattrig back ~iu>rr t b n ten yrgn;. and that I aha ~xintcnJ \~III w p p n ~r*i i ~ m the blh fix proving the pancm and wnduct a l ~ ~ ~ ~ i a t c d wi th both harboring of illegml alien\ a d \iolat~on of U.S. Citircn proprict;lry toting rlglits cuinphinxl o f by PL?i11titT* u n J r ~ si\ il RlCO provisions.

\vith Ir3tc of rhc Coun aftcr dispozlt~on ollbz currcnt June J.,Wb teqt onkr o f Dcfcmlant to rr.\pnJ to the "Rrnark- h k c t *73 (themin requc~tiug a ywrrial martcr 10 axcrtrin authority ~ n d jurivliclion owr Jcfc~idant, svithin t k \talc o f New York \pcc i f i ~~ l l y prior to Plainriffir r ' ~ ~ l & t d rcsparuc in opposition ta thc \.arkla motion\ lo diwniss). $Plaintif6 survive 1 dcsirc la lntzmcnc f iw~~~a l l y u11Jcr ptuvkions o f FRCvP Rtllr. 2 4 0 ) and ur tw gvcn gutding to tcsilfy ~ 1 1 t h ~ (lath on tIw rtcurd o f thc pnxh-ding xwnlrngly. Thar by I x a l r u b I have causcd this c ~ ~ % p f l r k n r ro k d111y wncd trpon plrtim hrrcin and that a duplicate and ccrt i f i r~tc o f u m icc I* Iicrs\\ 1111 ~tlik'hcd. R~-pc~tt i~ l ly ,ublnittul fix r r i on by:

I i c ~ c n ~ f t c ~ t c .xi \;~n ice : ( c: PlalnrltK pro cc. I '~.':~.!rnh rcnn-rl,

EXHIBIT D-2

Strunk's Reply to Defendants' Response to Remark - Page 40 of 42

12 ScpLwnkr 2W.b . I 2 ) k a r ~ ~ b r ~ I ~ I C t ' r ~ c ~ L hutb SWe- / i m h & r tu r)u tr;*-y;ujorr for S w u i ~ SLJ G w p ~ k ~ h tm ;. b. G-~ . t rr i 02 SDIC 22Ul 5 Suc;l S W W-ua UC 2052b .

Kc: ? h'ovemba 20Ub - O. S. Con(lrtuiand Elw wnc .;l.hjrrl- f W'F/;/OnlHR Ncqt 4 -1 Mi& Rcmn

1 have I;J;M Uw o y p w u n i ~ y UI r w v h 3*: &OVC subjd~r <4S4 tcpon i d 19 July 2Me in ID i k ' p h d h g U M ~ d ~ " ck r iou . A yw m y b: a w u ~ my r c 4 a ~ i o c r i4? I Y9b wrt f , -&ddy iatmfa-4 ~ i t b by ua suk: of ~.'J~lbT.)ia in n,y b w a d U.m,r. ~ . & it -; .02) 2iia1 w.- ciurua bou rcxoro WLh thc In~m;yatiao .PO N&mdk~* * i s , m3 in btikh rr, I c y

h n 1.363 or rlww vurd tbr D I ~ y.pa~ur mtb irmpumty; urd bpiu my etTw out pvcru tk ?inudule?t el&ar d3 IMW 01 puo;+c r ~ ~ a r d w u m ~ d d 3)'

i . ~ t r d ~ c o n l p c ~ i t i ~ of t k Rzprbtican d l kxnwr~~~ h w w. 1 cling & k w to e m s mj c u n ~ r n ~ w i ~ u& ul')our Hobor ior

i ~ p h m l ~ o n of: 1. urconr isua --IS ef 3K NASA r..pM. 2. LlW the pi- wg&tOa ~ f t h e ? C l ~ ~ w s ~ .Uwccarion o ! ' k ~ w l - ? - Lw)m o l ' 3 ~ (S-) bk M o d f ~ ~ t p 03-a & LSJO~B i'u ef-c'

ya:n vriwut a h o n r y w cW ro: 3. wby mc OSCk has b a n p ~ v j d a i s ~unml naljaiwi& ~ 1 x 1 1 voter

d a l r b u d w b U u t h c p . l r o u t ' m t u p ~ ~ ; 4. w h r it'rrayrhiog is W O J ~ R Q t to d3 &our %A u i

dtbquatc ~ J r r Ur Hdp b d c a lo Vote Act I I LAVA) 10 PztvQIt iUc& Jlicns m J ~Siricm &cm in mral dorn voting ~1 Lht d d c r - o n i p d K ~ z u ( c 1 : 3 R d

5. Wbrt proq0ltid ~~'p;az.&t ivt & i h i t ~ o#J rbe IJSA h%t in cunjurution 4 r b Urutbrr 9 mmhv m n in thr. Wf; and whu A' urv OSCE . ODlHk rc bdmg upaa me GSA i u d uch urc & t k Yvb.l rb-7

EXHIBIT 14

A - 96

1 h l ~ ~ : b b d l ~ y i n j d b y b i l ~ o p c r & d J e a i o m d w u .u wrn" o v s LhL' o o n f i k e thnt dl U.S. C i l k a r have in th: clcclioa poaw; cuul ~ ~ u c h ~ r a ; l ~ e r ~ r ; r ~ ~ + r ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~ r ~ .

CI lI<ISTC)P! t ER EARL STKCINK 503 Vanderhilt .4\rcnur -128 1 Drooklyn, New York 1 1238

(63 1 1 745-0402 1 Ernail u1icasvotes2~~~~j!yul i~~o.~i~rn

Clerk of the Court of the Unitcd States Cour~ of the Eastern District of Ncw York 225 Cadman Plaza East L3ronklyn. New York 1 1201

Re: Struuk v. CISI'S rt al. 0 8 cir 1744 (.4RR) f LB) Suhi: .Amended C'on~plaint

Dear Clerk of the Court,

I an1 Christopher Earl Strunk, pro sc plain~iff'ivithout hzing an attorney in the above referenced case. I'ursuanr to h e hiemorandurn and Order clt'illay 9.2008 I am to submit rn amended Complaint by June 9.2008. and as such the original and a courtesy

\

- p-

The deadline for the SIXI of petitioning 1i)r ballot acccss has begun as of .lune 3. 2008 snd hccaue no action &as takcn by the Court to adtlrcss the ongoing gerrymandering issues previously prescntcd as s ~ ~ c h the scope oi' relief has hcen prentlq narrowed \sith time a3 the essence for ballot acccss going into the Rcpuhlicm I ' r i m ~ Election on Septcmkr 9.2008.

To the extent that this complaint h a not as yet h c n senfed this is an espartr actiun. Ho\\evc.r. JS 2 matter of heads-up thc pdf has bee11 p~pruar ion for tinher action by the Cow.

Sincere1 y yom.

L.\ttachments:

Original Amended Complaint with 14 Exhibits tinnrsed Councsj Copy >lagistrate .lutIgc. Lois Bloom -- -

- M ~ n t ~ t o ~ d g e tirand Master Leo Zaganlq. Order o i Knights Teniplar and Propagnnd3 Duo Ihe I lonorable Rohen K. Ilornau~

c

Email ser\.icct lo: Thomas C m c - [crane 2 'ilali . l i t i . ~ o \ . J o ~ i q h n - jpines Z Ia\\.n\ c.i?o\. ,CZdrilyn Richter - 111rich1c.r ;l Ia~\.nvc.co\. ~ \ . ' u I L ' ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ c ~ T ~ c ~ u c L ~ ~ ~ ~ s . s I ~ ~ I ~ . ~ \ . u s . Chris.hc.rrrn ;iiusdoi.eo\ , and NYS .AAG Joel (inher Jocl.(.iraber+ii-oa~.s~tc.ne.i~s

3

. . . . USPS w d M p a s with e th AD 1 18th

~ i n e ps R.mr( P- VbterD AD I ED L A I First a 1 6612008 57 21 McTilhan Martha W 85 Leffelts Avenue 11225 1 m 61612008 57 59 R i c h a m Derrick 343 Classon Avenue 11205 2

3 IA 6m2008 57 89 Medina V m & 279 Classon Avenw 11205 6/812008 n 98 att ten Kalhleer 30 F M Walk 11201 4 IA

5 ANK 6mooa 282182 57 62 TiIlona Luke J 201 2 Gates Avenue 11238

6 AM 6 / 6 1 ~ ~ ) ( 1 283738 57 73 wtlllams A#wyn J SI 110 Herkimer Street 11216

7 IA 6/6nM]8 285422 57 86 CW W k n e n i a 325 8 E Classon Avenue 11205

8 LA m008 285516 57 86 Smilh A m h u e B 4% lo t i Dc Kalb Avenue 11205

9 6mR008 285434 57 86 Fanior AN= 45619G DeKabAvanue 11205

10 IA W O O 8 285796 57 89 Smith Ahmd M m 2~ SandsStreet 11201

11 lA 6/6/2008 286859 57 100 hl Camen E 190 1 3 ~ York Street 1 lull

12 IA 616R008 287168 57 102 Lucero Btanca 38 6E F M I Walk 11201 13 NDM 6/16/~08 279886 57 44 Molina Florer Mare 549 IR Bergen Street 11217

14 AUK 6/16/2008 280041 57 45 Martiw Ruben 78 CR 5Avenue 11217 15 FrE 611M008 280133 57 46 Rendds K 359 Bergen StreeI 11217

16 NDAA 6/16/2008 280172 57 47Dahlie Sco# 447 2 F Bergen Street 11217

1 7 A N K 6/16/2008 280219 57 47Roman Gladys 433 6 Dean Street 11217 18 ANK ff161XXM 280200 57 47 Mondon F& A 433 9 Dean Street 11217 19 ANK ff1612008 280234 57 47 Williams Tecry L 568 4~ PatScSBeat 11217 20 ANK 6/1M008 280394 57 48Tavlo1 Vanessa A 416 2 Cumberhnd S!ree! 11238 21 NDAA 6nM008 280327 57 48 Kltchin Mi R 172 2 South Oxford Street 11217 22 m 6/1&2008 280279 57 48 Connon Shannon E 184 2 South Oxford Street 11217 23 NDAA 6116t2008 280244 57 48 Allen Gabriel P 1 64 South Portland Aven 11217 24 NDAA 6lls/2008 280323 57 48 Kill BFian P 1 64 South Poitland Aven 11217 25 NDAA SnGROOB 280242 57 48Alford Darnell N 17015H SouthPortlandAven 11217 26 N D M 6/16/2008 280498 57 49 Maquez Maria 67 12E Hanson Placa 11217 27 NDAA 611W008 280481 57 49 Jones J M 67 140 Han~on Piace 11217 28 ANK 6HM008 280412 57 49Arizrnend1 Ganvillc 67 4E Hanson Piace 11217 29 NDAA 6/16/2008 280413 57 49 Armhi Steven J 67 9 B Hanson Place 11217 30 NDM W6RoOa 283322 !TI 7OSmitzo Grace 301 PUT De KaIb Avenue 11205 31 ANK 6/1@2008 285372 57 85Tornec Elbabelh 151 2FL Clinon Place 11238 32 ANK 6/16/2006 285303 57 85Gknn E i k n 85 Lexing!on Avenue 11238 33 NDAA 611M008 285510 57 86 Rudrer Chew A 456 15 C De Kalb Avenue 11205 34 ANK 6/16/2008 285538 57 86 Wltiams Janette 456 5 0 De Kalb Avenus 11205 35 ANK 6/16/2008 286051 57 92 Smith Richard M 244 Cumberland Strret 11205 36 m 6/1&2006 286827 57 1M1 Blackwe1 Kenneth L 111 2D Bridpa Street 11201 37 ANK 6/l6R008 287905 57 109 Brown Krystal J 215 1212 WlkwghbyAvenw 11205 38 ANK 6/1(3/2008 287911 57 109 Bums Em& M 215 3158 Wlbuphbv Avenue 11205 39 VAC 6/16/m 285865 57 91 Martinez Manna B 406 26 AIbeeSquarc 11201 40 ANK 6/16%Jo8 280358 57 48 Oliver Llis 62 9C Hanson PbcE 11217 41 NDAA 6/17/2008 287190 57 102 Smith Sariba E 8 Fleet Walk 11201 42 NOAA 6/17/2008 287161 57 102 Jones Dolores 200 Tillary Street 11201 43 NDAA 6/17/2008 287166 57 102 Lennon Wanda D 200 lillary Street 11201 44 NDAA 6/17/2008 287173 57 102 Mudrick Barbara 200 503A Tillary Street 11201 45 NDAA 6/17/2008 287169 57 102 Mcgrory Ann 200 703D Tillary Street 11201 46 M A A 6/17/2008 287204 57 102 wid Janine B 200 7W Tilhly Street 1 1201 47 IA 6/17/2008 287182 SI 102 Riven Darnark E 200 RMBOl li lhry Street 11201 48 ANK 6/17/2008 287230 57 103 Eriaon &ven 2027E York Sheet 11201 49 ANK 6/17I"008 287272 57 1W Ramos lsrnet 22411H YorkSfreet 11201 50 ANK 6/17/2008 287232 57 103 Fan Hui X 224 1% York Street 11201 51 ANK 6/17/2008 287298 57 103 Tirado Mario A 224 8 C York Street 11201 52 UR 6/17/2008 287359 57 104Mcdonald Nyrobhie E 107 2-E Navy WaU( 11201 53 NDAA 6H7R008 287414 57 104 Mlliams Janie 151 1E NavyWalk 11201 54 IA 6/17/2008 287680 57 106 Santos Anqelina 345 Cbsson Avenue 11205 55 m 6/17/2008 28nOl 57 l C 6 Washington Tab K 415 2 6 Lafayelie Avenue 11238 56 NSS 6/17/2008 287632 57 106 Monsanlc Sean 433 15E Lafayatte Avenue 1 1238 57 UNK 6/17/2008 287803 57 107 Saochu Lincoln M 272 50 Wlbugtby Avenue 11205 58 ANK 6/17/2008 288070 57 109 Schoheld Amy L 215 1202 Wlbughby Avenue 11205 59 ANK 6/17/2008 288046 57 109 Raqdab Julie M 2152088 WlbughbyAvenue 11205 60 ANK 6/17/M08 287922 57 109 Chrislip Nathan R 61 NDAA 6/17/2008 L O I O N 31 1UI U V I I I I ~ ~ I I w r y 215 218 Wilbughby Awnue

n LI* 11205

*U Wlbughby Avenue 'I 1LU3

62 N D M 6JlW008 280319 57 48 Jones Samuel L 147 18 South Oxford Street 11217 63 NDAA W1812008 287591 57 106 Hudson Shekeam; K 433 9G Lafayeme Avenue 11238 64 NSN @1812008 287867 SI 108 SCMITZ ford J 475 Dean Stnet 11217 65 A m 6/~8R008 287964 57 109 Hahawar Rares M 215 WUoughby Avenue 1 1205 66 ANK 611tH008 288063 57 109 Ru!hwbd Ryan S 215 908 WliougMy Avenue 11205

EXHIBIT E

NY

C B

OE

- Ju

ne 9

, 200

7 A

ctiv

e V

oter

Lis

t ext

ract

with

in th

e 57

th A

D I 18

th S

D

Line

P

ostm

ark

45 V

anel

sen

Lucl

en

48 C

hrls

tk

J T

ravi

s

Last

74 ~

~*

Atlb

a

75 J

om

75 J

onas

75 F

itts

75 F

ms

84 G

uley

84 O

ulle

y

96 A

gohe

96 A

gohh

a

Fin

t

Dem

k

Der

ek

Jaka

ya

Jake

nna

Dav

id

Dav

M

Ada

ku

Stre

et N

ame

Zip

Ada

ku

Bor

n

Ber

gen

Stre

et

Ber

gen

Stre

et

Han

son

Pla

ce

Lef'f

erts

Pla

w

Laffe

rts P

lace

Hal

sey

Stm

l

Hal

sey

Shs

sl

Spe

ncer

Pla

w

Spe

ncer

Pla

ce

Lala

yette

Ave

nue

Lala

yette

Ave

nue

Wllb

ughb

y S

treet

Wilb

ughb

y S

treet

REPUBLICAN PARTY DESIGNATWG PETITION

I, the undersigned. do herchy statc that I atn a duly enrolled volcr ofthe Rcpublican parry and cntilled 10 vole at the next primary election o f n s h party. to bc held on September 9,2008: that my place of residence is truly stared opposite my signature hercto. alirl I do licreby designate the following named pcrson as a ca~tdidatc for thc nomiltation of such party for public office or Tor clcction to a party position of such party.

. . Name of Candidarc Public Ofice or Pam Posttloa place of Residcrice

CHRISTOPIIER E. STHUNK - NY Senator from the 18'SD - 593 Vnndcrbilt Avc. #a81 - 1 1238 CHRISTOPHER E. STRUNK - Judicial Dclcgate from the 57J AD - 593 Vanderbill Ave. #28 1 - 11238

I do hereby appoint any thrcc cnrolled mcrnbcrs of the Rcpublican Part). of the 57* AD as approved by the candidate hereafter 6s a cornrni~rce to iiii vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the clcction law.

In witness whereof. I havc hcrcunto set my hand. the day and year placed opposite my signarure.

Dare Print Name of S i ~ n e r Simer S i m a w e Residence of Sinner Counrv

.&, I ZOOS T-~fmji C;( f ~ f l ~ ' . ,Q.I,(L 17

d t 7 L . - - 6~ Y P N G L O O Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

..1 / 2008 .... . Kings

..I 12008 .... . Kings

STATEMENT OF WITNESS TO SIGNER: I . (narnc of witncss) state; I am a duly enrolled voter of the Republican party. I now reside

at..... (address of w i ~ c s s rcsidcncc) Each of the individ~~sls whose names arc subscribed to this petition shcet conmining j s igna ru rcs . subscribed

the same in my presence on the dates above indicated and identified himxlf to be du individual who signed this sheet. I understand that this slatcincnt will be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an afidavit and. if i t

w n u i n s a materialfalse statement. sFZ as if 1- had been d t y sworn.

Date: 6 I& 2008 J Signature of Winrss

OR

In lieu of the signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualilicd voter of the starc qualified 10 sign the petitio~~. the following statement signed by a notary public or commissioner of deeds shall be accepted:

of the vo!crs whosc sig1laturc.s appcar on h i s petition sheet conmill prescncc and who. hcing by rnc duly sworn. each for himself. wid that

r

EXHIBIT G

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

THlS SUMMARY ORDER WLLL NOT RE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THlS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUEYT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

4t a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square. in the City of New York. on the 1 Sh day of August. two thousand and five.

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER. SONIA SOTOMAYOR,

Circuit Juckes.

EDWARD R. KORMAN.

Chief District Judge.'

RONALD G. LOEBER. WILLIAM E. BOMBARD, WIULAM A. GAGE, JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE. FAIRLENE G. RABENDA. ROY-PIERRE DETEGE-CORMIER, RONALD E. SACOFF, GABRIEL RASSANO, EDWARD M PERSON JR., AD HOC NEW YORK STATE CITEENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING.

Plaintiffs,

H. WILLIAM VAN ALLEN. CHRlSTOPHER EARL STRUNK.

THOMAS J. SPAKGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS Supreme Court, 61 JOHN AND JANE DOE NYS SENATORS. all individually and as state senators past and present. 149 JOHN

Thc Honorable Edward R. Korman. Chief Judge of the United Statcs District Court for the Eastern District of New York sitting by designation.

EXHIBIT

AND JANE DOE NYS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. all individually and as past and present GEORGE E. PATAKI. individually and as h'YS Govcmor. RANDY A. DANIELS. NYS Secretary of State with authority and repository for corporations and unincorporakd associations service, ELIOT L. SPITZER, New York State Attorney General. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE, "NASS'. PETER KOSINSKI. individually and in his official capacity at the NASS, ALBERT0 GONZALES. United States Attomey GeneraL

JOSEPH BRUNO, SHELDON SILVER, LESLIE REYNOLDS, Executive Director for the Executive Committee.

Defendants."

Appearing for Appellants: H. William Van Allen. Christopher Earl Strunk. Hurley. NY. pro se

Appearing for Appellee: Jennifer Grace Miller. Assistant Solicitor General (Eliot Spilzer. Attorney General of the State of New York, Daniel Smirlock, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief). Albany, NY

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn. L.).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal be and it hereby is DlSMlSSED in part, the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is VACATED in part and REMANDED, and that the several motions of plaintiffs-appellants be and hereby are DENIED.

Plaintiffs-appellants H. William Van Allen and Christopher Earl Strunk appeal f ~ o m an order of the district court dismissing sua sponte plaintiffs' claims regarding the conduct of the November 2004 national election and legislative redistricting. We assume the parties' familiarity with the hcts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

While not so specified, the dismissal of the election-based claims appears to have been pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l). In the absence of any discussion by the district court, we presume that the redistricting claims were dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We review dismissal under either Rule de novo, accepting all factual allegations of the complaint and drawing all inferences in favor of plaintiffs. Western Mohegan

" The Clerk of this Court is instructed to alter the caption ofthis case as shown here to correct minor errors, conform to conventions, and reflect the replacement of John Ashcroft by Alberto Gonzales as United States Attorney General.

Tribe and Nation v. Orange County, 395 F.3d 18.20 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiarn).

The appellants dispute the district court's conclusion tha~ the claims based on the Novembcr 2004 election were not, at that time. ripe for review. We do not, and cannot, exprcss any opinion on thc corrcctncss of this dccision. Bccausc wc can no longcr altcr thc conduct of the November 2004 election, and appellants requested only injunctive relief. these claims are now moot and we are therefore without jurisdiction. Church of Scientologv v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1992). Of course. an exception to the mootncss doctrine exists whcre the claim is capable of repetition, yet evading review. Lerman v. Board of Elections. 232 F.3d 135. 141 (2d Cir. 2000). Hcre, the appellants election claims have obviously evaded review, but appellants have made no showing that the issue is capable of repetition. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to the election claims.

Turning to the redistricting claims. we note that the district court hiled to present any discussion as to its decision to dismiss. Appellees suggest that the order of dismissal was predicated on the failure of the complaint to set forth a "short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint here, while prolix and burdensome both for the court and for appellees, can nonetheless be read and comprehended to plead at least some claims that are not frivolous on their face. We therefore vacate the district court's order as to the redistricting claims and remand with instructions to permit the filing of an amended complaint that omits imnccessary detail. Cf. Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42-43 (2d Cir. 1988). In rcvicwing any amcndcd complaint, thc district court should be mindfil of our well-established principle that pro se complaints are to be construed liberally. Philli~s v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2005). Furthermore. if a complaint satisfies the "short and plain statement" requirement, it otherwise need only "give the dcfcndant fair noticc of what thc plaintiffs claim is and thc grounds upon which it rcsts." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506.5 12-13 (2002).

The district court should also be mindful of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 3 2284. and that its inquiry regarding whethcr to refer the matter to a three-judge pancl is limited to 1) -'whether the constitutional question raised is substantial": 2) "whether the complaint at least formally alleges a basis for equitable relief'; and 3) "whether the case presented otherwise comes within the requirements of the three-judge statute." ldlewild Bon Vovarze Liauor Cop. v. E~stein. 370 U.S. 713, 71 5 (1 962). A constitutional question is insubstantial only if prior decisions render the issue inescapably frivolous and leave no room for any inference of controversy. Goosbv v. Osser, 409 U.S. 5 12,5 18 ( 1 973).

We have reviewed appellants' additional arguments concerning judicial bias and lack of notice ofthe October 2004 order to show cause hearing, and find them to be without merit.

Appellants have also made numerous motions before this court. all of which we deny. The motion to supplement the complaint should be made before the district court on remand, and we leave it to the district court to decide whether to permit such amendment. The motions to enjoin thc New York Secretary of State to enforce civil rights law protection and to restrain pcrsons clcctcd to thc statc lcgislaturc from taking officc arc bascd on thc Novcmbcr 2004 election and are now moot. The motion to remand to a three-judge panel is disposed of above by

remanding to thc district court for consideration of thc rcquircmcnts of Scction 2284. Thc motion for in banc review is denied as it is not clear at this stage that the case implicates the uniformity of our precedent or is of exceptional importance. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a).

For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal as to the claims based on the conduct of the November 2004 election. We vacate the order ofthe district court as to the dismissal of the redistricting claims and remand for the district court to permit amendment of the complaint and for consideration of whether to refer the claims to a three-judge panel in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 5 2284. We deny the motions filed in this Court on November 12,2004, and July 1, 2005.

FOR THE COURT: ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE. Clerk By:

Oliva M. George, Deputy Clerk

United States Court of Appeals FOR TWE

SECOND CIRCL!

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse at Foley Square, in the City of New Yo* on the a* day of a n U a r y two thousand six,

Present: Hon. Jon 0. Newman, Hon. Robert A. ~ a & m ,

Circuit Judges. Hon. Jed S. Rakoe

District Judge.'

In re: H. William Van Allen, Christopher Earl S m &

Petitioners. 05-6536-op

P e t i t i o ~ p r o se, have filed a motion to procetd informa pauperis and a jxtition for a writ of rfadamu. Upon due considerario~, it is ORDERED that petitioners' motion to p r o d in forma pauperis is GRANTED for the prnpose of allowing the mandamus petition to be filed It is further ORDERED I . . petitioners' mandamus petition is DENIED, as the petitionas have failed u, demonstzatc tha~ their righ to the issuance of a writ is clear and indisputable or that al-e remedies are nor available. See In re Steinhard Partners LP., 9 F.3d 230,233 (2d Cir. 1993).

FOR THE COURT:

'Hon Jed S. Rakoff, of rhe U.S. District Court for the So- D i i of New York, siuing by designation.

EXHIBIT I

Case 1 :06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION BY THOMAS R. WILKE, et al.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER 06-CV-080A

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs John Joseph Fo jone, Wayne Mack, Dan Delplato, Jr., Gabriel

Rauano, Edward M. Person, Jr., and Christopher Earl Strunk, all appearing pro se,

commenced the instant action on February 6, 2006. The original complaint named

approximately 70 defendants, including the United States Election Assistance

Commission, the United States Department of Justice, the States of New York,

California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the New York State

Secretary of State, the New York State Attorney General, the New York State Board of

Elections, 57 counties in the State of New York and their respective boards of elections,

the City of New York, and the Borough President of Brooklyn.

Although unintelligible, the original complaint appeared to complain about

the manner in which New York and other states are implementing the Help America to

Vote Act ("HAVA), Pub. L. No. 107-252, Title Ill, 5 302, 116 Stat. 1706 (codified at 42

Case 1 :06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 2 of 5

U.S.C. § 15301). The complaint also appeared to allege that New York and its counties

have failed to meet the mandates of HAVA, and have unlawfully apportioned their

congressional, legislative and judicial districts.

In response to the complaint, various defendants moved to dismiss the

complaint or, in the alternative, for transfer of venue to the Northern District of New

York, where there is pending a similar action previously filed by some of the same

plaintiffs in this case. See Loeber v. Spargo, 04-CV-1193 (N.D.N.Y.).

The Northern District initially granted defendants' motion to dismiss the

Loeber action and plaintiffs appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated

part of plaintiffs' claims and remanded the action to the Northern District with the

direction that plaintiffs be allowed to file an amended complaint. The amended

complaint was filed on November 21, 2005, and to the Court's knowledge, is presently

pending.

On February 27, 2006, almost immediately after commencement of the

instant action, the Loeber plaintiffs moved in the Norther District for a change of venue

to this District. Plaintiffs' motion was based, at least in part, on their dissatisfaction with

the progress in the Loeber action.

On March 28, 2006, this Court issued a Decision and Order which, inter

alia, ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed or, in the alternative, transferred to the Northern District of New

York. On May 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed their response to the Court's March 28'" Order,

Case 1 :06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 3 of 5

which included a proposed amended complaint.' Thereafter, various defendants

moved to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, for transfer of venue.

After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court hereby grants

defendants' motion to transfer the instant action to the Northern District of New York.

DISCUSSION

The Second Circuit has held that where two competing lawsuits have

been filed in different jurisdictions, the first action filed is given priority and the second

action may be suspended or transferred in the interests of judicial economy. First City

Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Simmons, 878 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1989). The Supreme Court

has articulated the test to be "wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation

of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation . . . ." Kerotest Mfg. Co.

v. C-0-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1 952).

Although the original complaint and the amended complaint in the instant

action, and the complaint in the Loeber action, are all difficult if not impossible to

understand, it appears that the two actions are substantially similar, if not identical.

Four of the plaintiffs in the Loeber case are plaintiffs in this case. The claims asserted

in the Loeber action, like the claims in this action, involve voting in New York and

HAVA. In fact, the twelve claims of injury contained in the complaint in this case are

identical to the twelve claims of injury in the Loeber amended complaint. Further,

1 The proposed amended complaint appears to assert the same or similar claims as those asserted in the original complaint, and names the same defendants. The amended complaint did, however, drop Wayne Mack as a plaintiff.

3

A - 109

Case 1 :06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 0811 412006 Page 4 of 5

although denominated differently in some instances, the defendants in the two actions

are virtually identical. The plaintiffs, at least impliedly, recognized the substantial

similarity between the two actions when they moved to transfer the Loeber case to this

District.

Because the two actions are basically the same. under the Second

Circuit's "first-to-file" rule, the Loeber action, which was the first action filed, should be

given priority. The Loeber case has been pending significantly longer and has already

been appealed to and remanded by the Second Circuit. The transfer of the instant

case to the Northern District will conserve judicial resources and reduce, if not

eliminate, the risk of inconsistent results. In addition, in their motion to transfer the

Loeber case to this District, the Loeber plaintiffs indicated that the instant action was

filed because they were dissatisfied with the progress of the Loeber case. Such an

attempt to forum shop cannot be countenanced. Plaintiffs chose the Northern District

as the venue in which to file their lawsuit. They cannot now seek a new venue simply

because they are unhappy with their first choice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court grants defendants' motion to transfer

the instant action to the Northern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is hereby

ordered to take all steps necessary to transfer the case to the Northern District.

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 0811412006 Page 5 of 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 d . L HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATED: August 14 ,2006

FA MaN JO &J UMO !$ddSMXl

ar(l JO no saum pneg uogeumadlll! lo hpwp! - *WU(~ pm pear* Jo = -wm q-l =Is 'Jyuaq s! wF@d s,=1 vlo! qq n~ S,-huncx, q 1Go- 8-q u! pntq fD PUP1 W JOJ PTWd U7aq Sey O\Ul- 1V s~pmr w PIW ws TI p~ed *- =PI

'myp q uoddm 01 *-arm Apmama s! pnuj J~A

"Uad-ul!lm q mase 'uaqzo %uoure '-1 qq MN nU JO WolTpa w 'rcrlod ?w ~~I~JO~I

- 14J)f!lu" e s! q~q~ 'awn sum 3ql le s~od xp le atqm @ulr\q fl) pampneuosladur! %q WA a.p pue ~oreuoudw~ aq~ qun .~4euouadur! Jaw e Buypuaqudde ~o~-ar~pnonqru43iltuuu~~ nram;l~!nb uo~re~g~mqn UP-n xwap 01 pzpm ,OW &;IA pp &f! J! ~0~~UiIad~ ne ra~oqp MXUQ spgo wgq~ :uosea~ qd -q e loj s! sq Inq '4 arum 01 p~erl s! pnq lpns JO

maprna m!p mp aw s! 11 -pa KJU sop Xldq %u!llod q le "P"EIJ UOPW~~!. m-q

hssmuun are mq qms q-~ pna~uor, sqq

-s@addv 30 uno3 w=!3 W-%.ul4~~~"nm~!mFFPi~.kl~pldn

! oloqd m-Ju=

mpba enelprrI JO ~!@uo~nrp;~~ 7ql~*uJl@q3=e't~~08~mww -A pI;wo~3 U! nd @u> m m w!Un

Jo Unq) V '8002 '6 W

&SAoyDds UOA *V SUDH

8002 '01 ZZ 'ON

UO~~HW~~"~

NO. 22 Legal memo ran dun^ March 10, 2008

A 14-Year Vote-Fraud Conspiracy A striking example of identity fraud at polling

places, well within living memory, is described in a grand jury repon publicly released in 1984 by the Kings County District Attorney and former Demo- cratic Congresswoman Elizabeth ~ o l t z m a n . ~ Had it checked its own archives, The New York Times would have found a story from 1984. "Boss Tweed Is Gone, But Not His Vote," that detailed the find- ings of the grand jury7 As that article reported, the grand jury report "disclosed that cemetery voting and other forms of stuffing the ballot box were not buried with Tammany all."'

The grand jury report revealed extensive voter registration and voter impersonation fraud in pri- mary elections in Brooklyn between 1968 and 1982 that affected races for the US. Congress and the New York Smte Senate and Assembly. Accord- ing to Hol~man, "[~Ihe grand jury investigation has uncovered a systematic attack on the integrity of elections in Brooklyn." Holtzman warned that unless there were immediate changes in proce- dures, there was "a danger that serious fraud could occur in connection with the upcoming e~ection."~

This 14-year conspiracy was detailed by wit- nesses who participated in the fraud and were able to describe in great derail how it was accomplished. The grand jury founcl evidence of fraudulent and illegal practices in "two primary elections for Con- gress held in 1976 and 1982, four primary elec- tions for the Assembly in three difierent assembly districts, three primary elections for the State Sen- ate in one senatorial district and two elections for state committee in two different districts."1° For 14 years, the conspirators engaged in practices that included:

the forgery of voter registration cards with the names of fictitious persons, the filing of these cards with the Board of Elections, [and] the recruitment of people to cast multiple votes on behalf of specified candidates using these forged cards or the cards of deceased and 01 her persons.1 '

The grand jury explained that "the ease and boldness with which these fraudulent schemes were canied nut shows the vulnerability of our entire electoral process to unscrupulous and fraud- ulent manipulation.n12

1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., Nos. 07-21 and 07-25 (U.S. Supreme Court, cen. granted Sept. 25,2007); 2005 IND. LEGIS. S m . PL. 109; scc IND. CODE §§ 3-1 1-8-23.1(c), 3-5-2-40.5. This voter ID law does not apply to those who are over 65, disabled, or confined by illness or injury, all of whom may cast absentee ballots. See IND. CODE §§ 3-11-10- 24(a)(3)-(5). The law a h does nor apply LO individuals -who vore in person at a precinct polling place that is located at a stare licensed care facility where the vorrr resides." Id. at § 3-11-8-25.1(e).

2. Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 E Supp. 2d 775 (S.D. Ind. 2006). 3. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 E3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007).

4. The Court and Voter 1D5, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 9, 2008. 5. Linda Greenhouse,Justic~s Indicate They May Uphold VoterID Rulcs, N.Y. IIMES, Jan. 10,2008. According to Mr. Smith,

-there's not a single recorded example of voter impersonation fraud.. . . ItS not happening and, indeed, every single indica- tion in this record is that the evidence of this kind of fraud occumng, to call it scant is to overstate it." Transcript at 19-20. Crawford v. hlarion County Election Bd., Nos. 07-21 and 07-25 (U.S. Supreme Court, cert. granted Sept. 25.2007). avail- able at h~~p~/~~~.supremecou~.gov/oral~arguments/~ent~tra~~np~O7-L1~pdf.

6. Press Release, Brooklyn, New York, District Attorney's OEfice, D.A. Holtzman Announces Grand Jury Report Disclosing Systematic Voting Fraud in Brooklyn (Sepr. 5, 1984); In the Matter of Confidential Investigation, No. R84-11 (N.Y. Supreme Court 1384) [hereinafter Grand Jury Report].

7. Frank Lynn, Boss hveed Is h e , But Not His Vole, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 9. 1984. 8 Id 9. District Attorney's Office, supra n. 6, at 1-2. 10. Grand Jury Repon, supra n. 6, at 2. Although the grand jury could not determine whether these illegal activities had

altered the outcome of those elecrions. it did find that the ourcome of at least one State Committee election in 1978 was changed by fraudulent voting. Id.

11. Id.

NO. 22 Legal Memorandum March 10,2008

The Tools of Vote Fraud One of the key factors in the success of this

scheme was the "advent of mail-in registration [in New Yorkl in 1976 [which] made the creation of bogus registration cards even easier and less subject to detection."13 Congress mandated the same lype of New York-style mail-in registration nationwide in 1993 with the passage of the National Voter Reg- istration Act, thus ensuring that the security prob- lems caused by unsupervised mail-in registration in New York were spread nationwide. In fact, accord- ing to the grand jury, "mail-in registration has become the principal means of perpetrating elec- tion fraud" in New york.14

Another change in the law that increased fraud was the new practice that allowed any organization to obtain bulk quantities of voter registration forms from the Board of Elections ha t "contain no identi- fyin serial number at the time they are given

The conspirators obtained blank voter reg- istration carcls and then filled them out with ficti- tious first names and real last names taken from party enrollment books within the targeted voting ~recinct:

For example, if a John Brown actually lived at 1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York, the application would be completed in the name of Mary Brown, 1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York. It was anticipated that when the mail for the fictitious Mary Brown was delivered to John Broun at his address, John Brown would discard the nolice rather than return it to the post office. This plan reduced the likelihood that the voter registration notice card would be returned to the Board of Elections. hereby mi~umiiing t l ~ e ~ i b d i t y that the fraud would be detected.'

This process was also successful because of the way the Postal Service handled the mail. The nor- mal procedure of all election jurisdictions in the United States is to mail a voter registration card to a newly registered voter after the reptration applica- tion form has been received and processed. Although the primary purpose of the mailing is to provide the new voter with the voter registration card, it is also intended to ensure that a real person has registered and provided an accurate address. The New York Board of Elections thus relied on the Postal Service to return any registration cards that were undeliverable because the registrant was ficti- tious or did not live at the address on the applica- t ion form. Election jurisdictions today still rely on the Postal Service for this validation.

However, the grand jury found that "mail carri- ers did not return these cards particularly where the address on the card was that of a large multiple dwelling.. . land] would frequently leave the unde- liverable voter registration cards in a common area of the buildii~g." To take advan~age of this, the conspirators used the addresses of multiple dwell- ings in which members of their crews lived, which

them the ability to collect the bogus registra- tion cards." The Executive Director of the State Board of Elections at he time, Thomas W Wallace, commented that the handling of voter registration cards by the Postal Service varied greatly through- out the state and was a continuing problem for election officials. l8

In addition to a voter's signature, New York's voter registration application forms at that time included a physical description of the voter- something that is nonexistent on the mail-in voter registration applications used today. Even so, the vote-fraud conspirators avoided detection eilher by

I2. Id. at 3.

13. Id. at 11.

14. Id

15. Id. Without serial numbers, an election jurisdiction cannoL determine which organization may be responsible for problem- atic or frdudulent registration forms that are received.

16. Id at 12.

17. Id. at 10-1 1.

18. Lynn, supra n. 7.

NO. 22 L e d Memorandum March 10, 2008

using their own physical descriptions or by provid- ing general descriptions that could be met by numerous people engaged in the scheme.

Thc fraudulent forms wcrc cithcr mailed or dcliv- ered to the Board of Elections. often with a group of legitimate registrations. The grand jury reported that in one 1978 legislative race alone, 1,000 bogus voter registration forms were successfull filed with- out detection by the b a r d of Elections.' Although New York law required a check at the polling place of the voter's signature, this proved to be no obstacle to this fraud because the persons creating the ficti- tious voter registration application forms would later vote under the same names. so their signatures at the polling place would match their signatures on the original registration forms.

These attempts to steal elections through the use of fraudulent voter registrations culminated each election day with votes cast using the fictitious cards. One witness testified that he first partici- pated as a fraudulent voter when he was only 17. voting in a legislative primary in 1968 "using a reg- istration card prepared under a different name by a member of the local Democratic club.n20

In 1970. the witness voted at least 10 times, at 10 different polling places, using bogus regis- tration cards. He was part of a crew of five per- sons, each of whom was paid $40 for the dayk activities. In the 1972 Democratic primary election, he received a promotion to crew chief, running a crew of five members. By 1974, his crew had grown to eight members, each of whom voted in excess of 20 times, and there were approximately 20 other crews oper- ating during that election. In 1976, the grand jury witness led a crew of five people who cast at least 100 fraudulent votes.

Moreover, the same witness had been present at a meeting prior to elec~ion da that was ..attended by twenty crew chlefs.'"'lf the other crews averaged as many lraudulent votes, then there would have been at least 2,000 phony votes cast in that election without detection by precinct poll workers or election officials. By 1982, the witness "was to have provided twenty-five workers to vote in a Congressional primary election again using bogus voter regis- tration cards."22

In addition to voting in the names of fictitious voters who had been successfully registered, the crews used several other methods of casting fraud- ulent votes. One method involved voting under the names of legitimate voters. By reviewing the voter registration records at the Board of Elections prior to election day, the conspirators were able to Find the names of newly registered voters. Using the names of these voters, the crews would go to the appropriate polling places as soon as the polls opened in the morning to vote under those names:

The reasoning behind this method, according to the experience of one witness, was that newly registered voters often do not vote. By arriving at the polling sites early. the bogus voter would not need to worry about the possibility that the real voter had actually voted.23

Another method e n d e d collecting, during nominating petition drives, the names of registered voters who had died or moved. Members of the various crews were then sent to polling places on election day to vote in the names of those voters. The signature requirement did not prevent such fraudulent voting ei~lier, which points out the inad- equacy of signature matching (a highly trained skill that cannot be taught in a matter of hours to the average poll worker) to prevent this type of fraud. Credit cards present a similar problem, since the

l9. Grand Jury- &port, juplu n. 6, at 13.

20. Id. at 14.

21. Id. at 14-15. 22. Id. at 15.

23. Id. at 15.

NO. 22 hd Memorandum March 10, 2008

signature requirement on credit cards does not pre- vent the ~ i ~ c a n t volume of credit card Fraud that occurs in the United States.

Database tcchnolog). is anothcr tool of thc rradc that was not available then but is widespread now. Voter registration lists are public information in most states, and databases containing detailed information on voters are available From a wide variety of commercial vendors.

The databases of such commercial vendors are usually much more up-to-date than the informa- tion contained in Lhe voler registration databases maintained by election officials. This makes it very easy for anyone with access to such information to determine the names of voters who are still regis- tered but who have died or moved out of a jurisdic- tion. As Justice Roberts pointed out in the Indiana voter ID case, the record in the litigation showed that 41.4 percent of the names on Indiana's voter registration rolls were bad entries, representing tens of thousands of ineli ible voters-a trove of potential fraudulent votes. & A Widespread Problem

The widespread impersonation fraud that occurred in Brooklyn raises the question of whether such fraud is a problem elsewhere in the country today. More recent cases provide evidence of what may be a wider problem that is very diffi- cult to detect in jurisdicrions that do not require voter identification.

For example, Dr. Robert Pastor, Executive Direc- tor of the Baker-Carter Commission on Federal Election Reform and Director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2006 that he was once unable to vote

because someone had already cast a ballot in his name at his polling place. He had no recourse at the poll to find out "why his had occurred, whether there was some error or whatever else, and the poll- ing station iwlf didn't keep any record of it."25

In a 2007 city council election in Hoboken. New Jersey, the former zoning board president noticed a group of men near his polling place being given index cards by two people shonly before the June election. One of those men later entered the polling place and triecl to vole in the name of another reg- istered voter who. it turned out, no longer lived in the ward. The imposter was caught only because he happened to be challenged by the zoning board president. He admitled ro the police that the group of men from a homeless shelter had been paid $10 each to vote using others' names.16

Last year, in a case reminiscen~ of Boss Tweed and the Brooklyn grand jury report, the U.5. Department of Justice won a voting rights lawsuit in Noxubee, Mississippi, against a defendant named Ike Brown, as well as the county election board.27 Brown, a convicted felon, was the head of the local Democratic Party. He had set up a political machine tha~ worked to guarantee the election of his approved candidates to local office+sentiaUy his version of Tarnrnany Hall. One of the conten- tions in the litigation was that the local election board's "failure to purge the voter registration roll to eliminate persons who have moved or died and who are thus no longer eligible voters" increased the opportunity for voter fraud by creating "the potential for persons to vote under others' names." The court cited the testimony of one of the govern- ment's witnesses, a former deputy sheriff. who said that "he saw Ike Brown outside the door of the pre- cinct talking lo a young black lady.. .and heard him

2-t. Transcript in Cruwford, supru n. 5 , at 18.

25. Transcript of Briefing on Votcr Fraud and Voter Intimidation, Unitcd States Commission on Civll Rights, OCL. 13,2006. nr 185.

26. See Madehe Friedman, Anatomy oJVokr Fraud- WIII OJ& Follow Up on Alleged $10 Vote Payoff? HUDSON REP~RTER July 1, 2007; Unclear Which Agency Wd Investlgm F r a d Proseatnrk 0 ) Nhnng for Rejenai, kIvmor\i R E P O K ~ Jdy 8,2007.

27. U.S. v. Brown, 494 E SUPP. 2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007). The lawsuil was filed under Sections 2 and 11 of the Voting kghts Act and led to the first judgment in the U.S. Finding racial discrimination in voling by black officials against white voters. The court said that it had -not had to look far to find ample direct and circumstaruial evidence of an intent to dk-rimmina against white voters which has manifested itself through practices designed to deny and/or dilute the voting rights of white voters in Noxubee." ld. at 449.

NO. 22 Legal Memorandum March 10. 2008

tell her to go in there and vote, to use any name, and that no one was going to say anything."2a

Mississippi does not require a photo ID for in- person voting, but it is now uncler court order to implement such a requirement due to a federal case filed by the Mississippi Democratic Party over its concern that the suteS open piirnaiy system and lack of party registration makes il unable to identlfy non-Democrats and prevent them from voting in its primaries.29 This effort by the Mississippi Dem- ocratic Party is instructive because it discloses that threats to free, fair. and open elections concern not only elective office and those who eventually hold them, but also the political parties as they recruit and organize voters and nominate heir candidates. Political parties merit protection as much as indi- vidual voters whose franchise is diluted and denied by the commission of fraud.

The Indiana voter ID case itself also demon- strates the problem of double voting by individuals who are illegally registered to vote in more than one state. Because different states do not generally run database matching comparisons between their voter registration lists, there is no national process by which to detect multiple registrations. One of the Lndiana voters highlighted by the League of Women Voters who supposedly could not vote due to the voter ID law turned out to be registered to vote not just in Indiana, but also in Florida, where she o ~ m s 3 home and claimed a homestead exemp- tion (which requires an individual to assert resi- dency). She was not allowed to vote in Indiana because she tried to use a Florida driver's license as her I k l e a r evidence ha t the law worked as

intended to prevent a fraudulent vote by an indi- vidual who not only had claimed to be a resident of a stale other than Indiana, but also had actually registered to vote there as well.30

Unfortunately. attempts by neighboring states such as Kentucky and Tennessee to compare their voter re@trauon lists Lor individuals registered iil both states have been met with lawsuits contesting their right to do so.31 A federal court even issued an injunction barring the State of Washington from refusing to regis~er individuals whose application information (such as their residence address) does not match infoinntion on that inditidual that is contained in other state databases, such as the Department of Licensing's (drivers licenses), thereby making it extremely difficult for a state to verify the accuracy and validity of information being provided by an individual in an attempt to register to vote. 32

One of the changes recommended by the New York grand jury to prevent problems caused by outside organizations filing fraudulent voter regis- tration forms was "serializing and recording the serial numbers of all voter registration cards dis- tributed in bulk and insisting on greater account- ability by organizations engaged in voter registration."33 A number of states have recently attempted to implement such requirements after they received large numbers of fraudulent voter registration forms, or received legitimate forms too late to be effective for an upcoming election, from third parties such as the Association o: Commu- nity Organiza~ions for Reform Now (ACORN). These fraud-prevention rlki~rts, however, were

28. Brown, 494 E SWP. 2d at 486, n. 73. According to news accounts and sources in h e Justice Depamnent, in an apparent attempt to intimidate this witness, a Noxubee deputy sheriff and political ally of Brown arrested the witness for disorderly conduct and reckless drihlng only days after the government named him as a witness in a filing with the federal court. In an unprecedented move, the federal judge stayed the county prosecution. See John Mott Coffey, Noxubee Voting Rights Trial to Begin Ticesday, COMMERCWL DISPATCH, Jan. 13,2007; Bill Nichols, Voting Rights Act Pointed in a New Direclion, USA TODAY, April 3,2006.

29. See Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F: SUPP. 2d 641 (N.D. Miss. 2007). 30. Cindy Bevington, Voter Cited by Opponents ojlndianak ID Law Registered in Two States, EVENING ST* January 9, 2008. 31. See Stumbo v. Keniucky State Board of Elections, No. 06-(3-610 (Franklin Cir., Ky. OCL. 2,2006). 32. See Washington Association of Churches v. Reed, 492 E Swr. 2d 1264 (W.D. Wash. 2006); see also Florida State Conf. of

NAACP v. Browning, No. 4:07CV-402 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2007). appeal filed Dec. 19, 2007.

33. Grand Jury Report, supra n. 6, at 22.

NO. 22 Legal Memorandum March 10.2008

halted by lawsuits filed by organizations such as Project Vote and the League of Women Voters that claimed that such requirements would impede their voter registration

Similarly, Ohio's attempt to improve third-party voter registration was also struck down. The law mandated training for individuals who assist appli- cants in voter registration; required them to pro- vide their name, signature, address, and employer on the voter registration form of each individual they assist; and required them to return the forms directly to election officials rather than entrust them to a third party for delivery. Thezie proviisions were all enjoined as violations of the National Voter Registration Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the ~onstitution.~' Even if the court rulings w-er2 legally correct (a questionable conclusion), that is all the more reason for a state to correct for potential fraud by requiring some form of reasonable voter ID at the polls.

Lessons Learned There were no indictmen& issued by the New

York grand jury as a result of its investigation "because the statute of limitations had run out in some cases and because several of those involved were given immunity in return for t e~ t i rnon~. ' '~~ Remarkably, [he fraud was apparently discovered only because of the actions of a former state senator, Vander L. Beatty, who was convicted of voter fraud and conspiracy. After Beatty lost the 1982 Demo- cratic congressional primary election, some of his "supporters hid in the Brooklyn Board of Elections office until after business hours and then made some obvious forgeries of registration cards to cre- ate the appearance of irregularities" in order to give Beatty the ability to challenge (unsuccessfully) the winner of the primary election.37

Even though it led to no indictments, the New York investigation still serves a valuable purpose. Most clearly, it demonstrates that voter imperson- ation is a real problem and one that is nearly impossible for election officials to detect given the weak tools usually at their disposal. Further, the investigation provides good reason to believe that this 14-year-long conspiracy to submit thousands (if not tens of thousands) of fraudulent votes in New York City could not have occurred if voters had been required to present photo identification when they voted.

New York's experience also demonstrata the fal- lacy of several arguments and assertions made by the petitioners' attorney, Paul Smith, in the Indiana case and by critics of voter ID in general. For exam- ple, Smith told Chief Justice Roberts that imper- sonation fraud is unlikely because it is not hard to detect: "When you're going into the polls and say- ing, I'm Joe Smith, you're dealing with a neighbor- hood person who knows a lot of people who are there, you have to match that person's signature."38

The idea that, in our mobile society today, all of the poll workers in a precinct will be "neighbor- hood" workers who know everyone in their pre- cinct (even a small precinct) does not match reality. The poll worker manual for the Board of Elections for the City of New York states that polling places have only 750 registered vo~ers,~' yet the imper- sonation fraud that occurred in Brooklyn involving thousands of fraudulent votes went undetected for 14 years even in such relatively small precincts. Many jurisdictions in other states and counties have much larger precincts, some of them contain- ing thousands of registered voters.

Contrary to Mr. Smith's claims, New York's sig- nature requirement also did nothing to stop this successful voter fraud conspiracy from casting

34. Szr: Projtxi Volt. v. Blacl\wcll, 455 E Sb-PP. 2cl69+ (N.D. Oluo 2006), Lrague oi\Vo~nerr Vo~crb of Florida v. CULL, +S7 E SUPP. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

35. Project Vote v. Blackwell, No. 1:06CV-1628 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 11 , 2008).

36. Lynn, supra n. 7. 37. Id. 38. Transcripi in Crawford, supra n. 5, at 19.

39. N.Y. Bd. Of Elections, POLL WORKERS MANUAL 2007 15, at ht~p://vote.nyc.nyus/pdVdocumen~s/bodpollworkers~ pollworkersmanual. pdl, page 15.

NO. 22 Lgd Memorandum March 10,2008

b o p s votes in person at polling places. The partic- ipants in the Brooklyn case impersonated newly registered, deceased, and moved voters by voting in their place for years without detec~ion.

Voter ID: A Sensible Solution In recent elections, thousands of fraudulent voter

registration forms have been detected by election offi- cials aU over the country. Given the minimal to non- existent screening efforts engaged in by most election jurisdictions, there is no way to know how many others slipped through. In states without identifica- tion require men^, election officials have no way to prevent bogus votes from being cast by unscrupulous individuals based on fictitious voter registrations, by impersonators, or by noncitizens who are registered to vote-another growing problem.40 This is a secu- rity problem that requires a solution.

As the New York voter fraud investigation and other cases illustrate, impersonation fraud does occur and can be difficult or impossible to detect. States such as Indiana and Georgia have a legiti- mate and entirely reasonable interest in requiring voters to idenufy themselves when they vote in order to prevent impersonation fraud and voting through the use of fraudulent voter registration forms. The Indiana case also demonstrates that voter identification can detect unlawful multiple voter gistr rations by individuals in ddferent states.

Finally, requiring a govemmenr-issued photo ID can prevent illegal aliens from voting (except in states that issue driver's licenses to noncitizens). A simple requirement that a voter demonstrate his authentic identity assures that free elections remain untainted by fraud that undermines their fairness and, in turn. disappoints the expectations of the voting public

In 1984. the New York grand jury recommended that the governor and state legislature examine as a possible remedy "requiring identification from vot- ers at the time of voting or regi~tration."~' In 2005, the bipartisan Baker-Carter Commission on Fed- eral Election Reform also recommended requiring photo ID for in-person voting because "[iln close or disputed elections, and there are many, a small amount of fraud could make rhe margin of diKer- ence. And second, the perception of possible fraud contributes to low confidence in the system.n42

Voters in nearly 100 democracies are required to present photo identlhcation to ensure the integrity of elections.43 Our southern neighbor, Mexico, requires both a photo ID and a thumbprint. and turnout has increased in its eleclions since this requirement was implemented.34 If Mexico can implement a s~~ccessful photo ID program for its voters, there is no valid reason the United States cannot do the same.

As the grand jury in New York properly con- cluded at the end of ics investigation of a vote-fraud conspiracy that had been successfully carried out without detection for 14 years, "The core of the democratic process is the right of the people to choose their representatives in fair elections. Fraud in the election process is into~erable."~~

-Hans A. von Spahovsky served as a member of the Federcll Election Commissionfor twoyears. Before that, he was Counsel io the Assistani Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department oflwtice, where he specialized in voting and election issues. He also served as a counfy election oficial in Georgiaforfive years us n member of the Fulton County Registration and Elec- tion Board.

40. In just one Texas county, jury summonses led to the discovery that ar least 330 ille~al aliens were registered to vote and that 41 had voted repeatedly "in more than a dozen local, state and federal elections between 2001 and (20071." Guillermo X Garcia, Vote Fraud Probed in Bcxar, EXPRESS Nnvs, June 8,2007.

41. Grand Jury Report, supra n. 6, at 2 1-22.

42. Commission on Federal Election Reform, B ~ ~ D M G C~NFIDENCI: I N U.S. ELECTIONS 18, Sep~. 2005

43. Id. at 5.

44. John R Lott, Jr., Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Irnpacl that REgulations ro Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates, August 18,20C%, pp. 2-3, at htcp~/~~.vore.caltech.edunioterID/ssm-id~2561l .pdi.

45. Grand Jury Report, slipra n. 6. at 3.

APPEAL, NPROSE

U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-CV-01744-ARR-LB

Strunk v. United States Postal Service et a1 Assigned to: Judge Allyne R. Ross Referred to: Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom Cause: 42: 1983 Civil Rights Act

Plaintiff

Christopher Earl Strunk

Defendant

United States Postal Service (VSPS)

Defendant

James C. Miller HI Chairmun USPS Board of Directors

Defendant

The City of New York (NYC)

Defendant

NYC Board of Elections: .James J. Sampel. President, Frederic M. Utnane, Secretary, Anthony Corno, Julie Dent. Nero Grcrhum Jr., Terrence C. O'Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco. Noncj. Mottola-Schacher. Gregory C. Sournas, ~Maryann Yennella, each in o#icial capacity and Individuully

Interested Party

NYC City Council and Speaker Christine Quinn

Date Filed: 04/18/2008 Date Terminated: 06/13/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

represented by Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 28 1 Brooklyn, NY 1 1238 7 18-574-770 1 Email: Uncasvotes2@yahoo.com PRO SE

interested P a m

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Interested Partly

Borough President Marty Markowik

Interested Party

New York State Board of Elections

Interested P m

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

Interested P& -

Senator Velamette Montgomery

Interested P-am

Brooklyn Community Board 3

Lnterested Party

House of Representatives Strbcomrniftee or? Conzmel-ce, Trude, und Con.slmrer Proteclion

Interested P& -- -

NY House Members: Edolphus Towns loth, Major Owens 11 th, Caroline Maloney 14th, John M. McHugh 23rd, Brian Higgins 27th

Interested Pam

U.S. Department of Homeland SecuriQ, Immigration Customs Enforcement

Interested P m

U.S. Department of Justice

I 1 # I Docket Text

COMPLAINT against United States Postal Service, James C. Miller 111. The City of New York. NYC City Council and Speaker Christine Quinn. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, NYC Board of Elections:, tiled by Christopl~er Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Jones. Sandra) (Entered: 05/01/2008)

MOTION for Lcave to Proceed in for~na pauperis by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Jones. Sandra) (Entered: 0510 112008)

Notice of Related Case Assignment~Designation (Jones. Sandra) (Entered: 05101 12008)

Letter dated 413012008 from pro se Christopher Earl Strunk to Clerk of the Court, re: "Notice of related case NDNY 04-c~- 1 193 with references." WlAttachments: # 1

A - 121

05/09/2008

06/09/2008

06/09/2008

0611 312008

06/30/2008

06/30/2008

5

6

7

8

9

Strunk's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. # 2 Notice of Motion, # 3 Appendix (part I), # 4 Appendix (part 11). (Fonilcirded to Judge Ross) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The complaint, filed in forma palperis, is dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2)(B). However. in an abundance of caution and in light of Pltff'spro se status. the court grants P l f l leave to replead within 30 days from the date of this order as set forth above. See G o m c v . Cnv,, 202 F.3d 593. 597 (2nd Cir. 2000)(citation omitted). If Pltff fails to replead within the time allowed. judgment dismissed the complaint shall be entered. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. tj 19 15(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in fortrrti pauperis status is diened for the purpose of an appeal. C o p p e d ~ U n i t e d S t a t e s , 369 U.S. 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 5/9/2008. (Abdallah, Fida) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

Letter dated 6/8/2008 fiom pro se Christopher Earl Strunk to Clerk of the Court, re: Amended Complaint. (Latka-Mucha Wieslawa) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

"-ED COMPLAINT (Jzrry Triul Reqrrest) with denrand for Tetnporury Restraint Preliminary Injzmction und Special M(ister Eqlrity Relief' against United States Postal Service: James C. Miller HI: The City of New York: NYC Board of Elections: James J. Sampel. President. Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony Como. Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr.. Terrence C. O'Connor. Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher, Gregory C. Soumas, Maryann Y e ~ e l l a : NYC City Council and Speaker Christine Quinn; NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Borough President Marty Markowitz; New York State Board of Elections; Attorney General Andrew Cuomo; Senator Velamette Montgomery; Brooklyn Community Board 3: House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce. Trade, and Consumer Protection; NY House Members: Edolphus Towns 10th. Major Owens 1 lth. Caroline Maloney 14th. John M. McHugh 23rd. Brian Higgins 27th; U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Immigration Custon~s Enforcement; U.S. Department of Justice; filed by pro se Christopher Earl Strunk, dated 6/8/2008. (Latka- Mucha, Wieslawa) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

ORDER AND CIVIL JUDGMENT: It is ORDERED. ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the action is dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. $ 19 15 (e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 191 5(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore ij7.fortnu pauperis status is denied for the purpose an appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. So Ordered. (Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross. on 611 112008) C/muiled ~c~/appeal.spacket (Latka- Mucha. Wieslawa) (Entered: 06/13/2008)

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 8 Judgment. by Christopher Earl Strunk. Filing fee $455 receipt # 354600. NOA served ECF. (Gonzalez, Mary) (Entered: 06/30/2008)

Elcctronic Index to Record on Appeal scnt to US Court of Appeals. For docket entries without a hyperlink, contact the court and we'll arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. 3 Notice of Related Case AssignmenVDesignation. 8 Judgment,. 9 Notice of Appeal, 4 Letter. 7 Amended Complaint..,. 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 5 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ... 6 Letter, 1 Complaint. (Gonzalez, Mary) (Entered: 06/30/2008)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RONALD G. LOEBER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

THOMAS SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS Supreme Court, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, filed by

Defendants Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, the State Senate, Sheldon Silver, the State

Assembly, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, ELiot Spitzer and all members of the NYS Senate

and Assembly previously named therein as John and/or Jane Doe's ("State Defendants") on April 9,

2008, seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint in its entirety and denial of Plaintiffs' request

for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. 4 2284. Dkt. No. 98. As per the Court's January 8,2008

Decision, the State Defendants are the only Defendants remaining in this action, Dkt. No. 8 1.

I. Background

On October 15,2004, pro se Plaintiffs filed a Complaint asserting, among other things,

various constitutional violations arising out of the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA") ( Pub. L. No.

107-252, 116 Stat. 1666,42 U.S.C. $15301-1 5545 (2002)). Dkt. No. 1. On October 29,2004, the

Court dismissed the Complaint. Dkt. No. 5. On appeal, the Second Circuit, inter alia, dismissed all

claims pertaining to the November 2004 elections, but remanded "the redistricting claims" including

the issue of whether the case should be referred to a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $2284.

Dkt. No. 19.

Plaintiffs then filed the Amended Complaint, bringing forth fourteen (14) causes of action

under HAVA and various other statutes, including 42 U.S.C. $9 1983 and 1985. Dkt. No. 25. In

addition to HAVA claims, Plaintiffs appear to challenge the reapportionment of the State of New

York's current legislative, judicial and con~essional districts. Id. at 829. By Decision and Order

dated January 8,2008, the Court dismissed all claims brought under HAVA and the False Claims

Act, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for a preliminary injunction, and dismissed the apportionment claims

as against the City of New York and Federal Defendants, as well as the National Association of

Secretaries of State. Dkt. No. 8 1. The Court noted that the constitutionality of the redistricting plan

was not yet before the Court at that time and that the State Defendants had not yet been heard on the

issue and deferred decision on whether the redistricting claim required a three-judge court. Id. The

Court W h e r directed the Plaintiffs to name and properly serve the John and Jane Doe defendants or

the action would be dismissed against them. Plaintiffs thereafter served all members of the State

Assembly and State Senate.

The State Defendants now seek to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to F.R.C.P.

12(b)(6) and 12(c), as well as F.R.C.P. 8(a). Initially, however, the Court must consider whether il

is necessary to convene a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. 5 2284(a).

11. Discussion

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not presented any cognizable constitutional question,

that the Plaintiffs lack standing, that the State Defendants are entitled to dismissal on the grounds of

legislative immunity and lack of personal involvement, and that the claims remaining in the

Amended Complaint do not pass muster under even the liberal standards of F.R.C.P. 8(a).

A. Legal Standard

As the Supreme Court has recently explained:

While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (internal quotations, alterations

and citations omitted). "Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a

claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only 'fair notice' of the nature of the claim,

but also 'grounds' on which the claim rests." Id. at 1965 n.3. "'[A] district court must retain the

power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual

controversy to proceed."' at 1967 (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v.

Carpenters, 459 U.S. 5 19, 528, n. 17 (1983)).

Thus, to survive a Rule 12 motion, Plaintiffs must pass the '"plausibility standard,' which

obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where

such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible." Isba1 v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58

(2d Cir. 2007).

B. Three judge panel

Defendants contend that because Plaintiffs lack standing and have not raised a substantial

Constitutional issue, the case should be dismissed without convening a three-judge panel. Under 28

U.S.C. 5 2284, "[a] district court of three judges shall be convened when . . . an action is filed

challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the

apportionment of any statewide legislative body." 28 U.S.C. (j 2284(a). First, however, to

determine whether a three-judge panel is required, the single judge must inquire (1) "whether the

constitutional question raised is substantial"; (2) ''whether the complaint at least formally alleges a

basis for equitable relief'; and (3) "whether the case presented otherwise comes within the

requirements of the three-judge statute." Idlewild Liquor Cow. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 71 3, 7 15

(1962).

A single judge may dismiss a claim if the Constitutional claim is insubstantial, Bailey v.

Patterson, 369 U.S. 3 l ,33 (1 962), or "if the plaintiff lacks standing or the suit is otherwise not

justiciable in the district court." 17A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure $4235,

at 2 13 (2007); see also Long v. District of Columbia, 469 F.2d 927,930 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Puerto

Rican Intern. Airlines, Inc. v. Colon, 409 F.Supp. 960. 966 (D.P.R. 1975) ("[Sltanding . . . is a

ground upon which a single judge can decline to convene a three judge court and order dismissal of

the complaint"); Am. Commuters Ass'n v. Levitt, 279 F-Supp. 40,45-46 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)).

B. Analysis of Plain tiffs claims

In turning to the Amended Complaint, the Court is aware that because Plaintiffs are

proceedingpro se, the Amended Complaint is to be construed liberally. Phillips v. Girdich, 408

F.3d 124, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2005). Initially, the Court notes that the first, fifth, ninth, tenth, eleventh.

thirteenth. and fourteenth causes of action allege violations related to HAVA. These claims,

however, were dismissed by the Court's Order dated January 8,2008. Dkt. No. 8 1.

Plaintiffs' second cause of action (and possibly the sixth cause of action) alleges violation of

New York State Constitution Article 3 Section 4 based on New York City's allotment of 26 senate

districts. Not only does this claim rest on an incorrect assumption that New York City is a single

county, as opposed to consisting of five separate counties, but Article 3, Section 4 was among the

constitutional reapportionment provisions declared unconstitutional in WMCA Inc. v. Lomenzo,

377 US 63 (1963). Accordingly, this claim is hereby dismissed under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). A three-

judge panel is not required to address this claim or to dismiss it. & Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S.

at 33 (holding that a three-judge panel is not required "when the claim that a statute is

unconstitutional is wholly insubstantial, legally speaking nonexistent.")

Plaintiffs' remaining causes of action (third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and twelfth) do

not comprehensibly refer to any federal provisions that are allegedly violated, and do not even all

relate to redistricting or apportionment.' The Amended Complaint does not appear to present a

discernable reapportionment claim under the federal constitution, such that there is no cause to

convene a three-judge panel. Although Plaintiffs claim various injuries including, for example,

discrimination2 (Am. Compl. f 30), "rotten boroughs injury" (n 32), and "disproportionate

diminished dilution injuries" (1 32), the Court is unable to decipher from the Amended Complaint a

' The seventh cause of action may possibly make a possible gerrymandering claim, but as discussed below, a gerrymandering claim against the 2002 New York redistricting plan is insubstantial based on a prior decision.

This comes fiom a very liberal construction of the following: "That Plaintiffs as US Citizens are denied equal protection and substantive due process suffer injury to individual Bottorn- up suffrage and Homerule autonomy of the PEOPLE within a municipal entity aq a firewall against corruption entitled to a respective board of elections therein, suffer infringement of speech in the state legislature the US House, unequal due process in the judiciary and unreasonable unequally reimbursed unhnded financial burden upon New York citizen property differently than that for citizens of the several states, as a taking imposed by unconstitutional provisions of HAVA in the Congressional definition of 'Voting Age Person" ('YAP") rather than "Citizen Voting Age Persons" ("CVAP"), is prima facie discrimination evidence proven in related case . . ." Am. Compl. 7 30.

clear Constitutional claim challenging New York State's 2002 redistricting plan or the connection of

any alleged Constitutional violations to any particular acts by the State Defendants. Accordingly,

the Amended Complaint may be dismissed without convening a three-judge panel. See e.g.,

Duckworth v. State Board of Elections, 213 F. Supp. 2d 543 (D.M.D. 2002) (dismissing challenge

to Maryland's congressional districting plan without referral to three-judge panel).

In addition, the Court notes that a constitutional question is insubstantial ifprior decisions

render the issue frivolous and leave no room for any inference of controversy. Goosby v. Osser, 409

U.S. 5 12. 5 18 ( 1 973); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. at 33 (holding that a three-judge panel is not

required when "prior decisions make frivolous any claim" of unconstitutionality). The redistricting

plan presently challenged by Plaintiffs has already withstood scrutiny under constitutional

challenges including one person-one vote, population-based and genymandering. Rodrirmez v.

Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 125 S.Ct. 627 (2004) (granting summary judgment and

dismissing complaint because the redistricting plan did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or

the Voting Rights Act, but instead reflected traditional districting principles by maintaining equality

of population). That decision upholding the redistricting plan was reached by a three-judge panel

and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Id.

As previously noted, a Court may dismiss a claim if the Constitutional claim is insubstantial,

Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 3 1. In this case, there is a prior decision finding that the 2002 New

York redistricting plan was constitutional. Even with a liberal construction of Plaintiffs' Amended

Complaint, there are no possibly comprehensible redistricting claims brought by Plaintiffs that raise

a controversy beyond the analysis in the prior decision. In addition, because Plaintiffs' claims, even

when liberally construed, do not present a discernable reapportionment claim under the federal

6

A - 128

constitution, the Plaintiffs' Constitutional claims are hereby dismissed in their entirety.

111. Conclusion

Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 98) is GRANTED; and it is

further

ORDERED. that Plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. $2284(a) (Dkt.

No. 104) is DENIED; and it is hrther

ORDERED, that the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 25) is DISMISSED in its entirety; and

it is fixther

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 3 1,2008 Albany, New York

U.S. District Judge \

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#28 1 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238

August 8,2008 BY MAIL U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Judge Lawrence E. Kahn N.D. OF N.Y. United States District Judge of the FILED U.S. District Court Northern District of New York James T. Foley U.S. Co~~rlhouse *UG 1 1 2008 445 Broadway, Room 424 Albany, NY 1 2207

LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN, CLERK ALBANY

Re: Lueber et al. v. S~mpo er d. NDNY 04cv- 1 193 Subject: FRCvP Rule 60 reconsideration of the August 1,2008 decision

Judge Lawrence E. Kahn,

As a sovereign nature1 person, I am above the corporate nature of this cou* and as a sovereign citizen of the State of New York am guaranteed my Supreme sovereignty in the people under the social contract of the state constitution and laws, and that no authority can on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state, and I demand reconsideration of the outrageous decision of August 1,2008 as guaranteed under FRCvP Rule 60.

That I am a natural person with We The People as natural persons of the State of New York (a corporate entity), who are grateful to Ahnighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings apart h m any such corporate fiction or pretender monarch, and or as further guaranteed by the 9* and 1 0 ~ Amendments to the Federal Constitution, and Magna Carte. That nunc pro tunc I inherit all the sovereign rights, privileges and property that a living n a n d human inures from the creator Yahweh whose son Jesus Christ gumantees my sovereign Freedom given from Almighty God against corporate fiction bent on enslaving unbelievers.

That for the record and with no dishonor intended, but may be a matter of 28 USC 455 recusai, if for no other reason other than clarification for our appeal from the August 1,2008 decision in which the court has d i e d our rights guaranteed under the Amendment, I must ask whether or not the Court is able to make a judgment free and clear of other commitments, the Court must answer the following questions:

Have you taken any oath other than that of your oath of office? Have you taken a Masonic oath? Have you taken a Kolnidre oath in which you must forgive all in your private capacity?

That the August 1,2008 dismissal disparages our social contract right to a republican form of government in New York, as such violates our ninth amendment right enumeration in the U.S. Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and that any false statement that d i d i t s or distracts from the qutation of rights, property, and by injurious falsehood libels and defames my title to our social contract equity in the August 1,2008 decision flies in the of the NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 that guarantees quote:

S 2. Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derivedfiom and gmnted by the people of thh state.

That any false statement that discredits or distracts from the reputation of my individual freedoms, liberty, property, that by such injurious falsehood libels and defames my title to our social contract is done in the presence of Yahweh our God, ignores the consolidated city of New York that remains the only home-rule temmtory described as such by "no two counties or the tern-tory thereof as now organized", that would be a certified question from 2"6 Circuit to NYS Appeals Court, and that applies under the NYS Constitution Artide Section 4 tirai quote:

No county shaU have four or more senators unless it shall have af i l l ratio for each senator. No county shall have more than one-third of all the senators; and no two counties or the

territory rhereofm now organized which are adjoining counties, or which are separated only by public waters, shall haw more than one-Mf of all the senatom.

The ratio for apportioning senators shall ahvays be obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, byfifiv, and the senate shall always be compsed offifiy members,

The WMCA case eliminated the formula: except that if any county having three or more senators at the time of any apportionment shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator or senators, such additional senator or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty senators, and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent.

The WMCQ care eliminafed the fonnrrlo; One member of assembly shall be apportioned to every county, including Fulton and Hamilton as one county, containing less than the ratio and one- half over. (ONLY as it applies to county population size that is determined by home rule status based upon entitlement to a board of efections within and that the assembly size ratio as with senate enlargement is declared uncoestitutionnl)

Two members shall be apportioned to every other county. ((Still requires a home-rule county to be en titled to at least two ADS within - WHOLLY WITHIN.)

That the court ignores the express provision for deficiencies in county home mle defined by:

The county of Hamilton shall elect with the county of Fulton, until the population of the county of Hamilton shall according to the ratio, entitle it to a member. But the legislature may abolish the said county of Hamilton and annex the territory thereof to some other county or counties.

Your finding based upon the proper use of WMCQ requires that only 50 senate districts and 150 assembly districts may be used until the legislature or a mandated twenty year constitutional convention determines otherwise a new legislative enlargement formula

That unless Your finding tes the existence of the entire New York State Constitution as 7 it appears, then requires that my 18 Senate District is only one of fifty to include 3 Assembly Districts already pre-cleared by the US DOJ Voting Rights Section wholly within the 18* SD.

Further, there is no legal authority in ReynaUv v. Sims or WMCA v Lomenzo that gives an Article I11 court the power to eliminate the NYSC Articles I11 section 1 through 6 in its entirety, You are absolutely bound to only a narrowty tailored rescission as done in the k b r v Caw case that would apply to a specific injury under the 14& Amendment.

Further, I was an intervener party in R&gua v Pataki and therein was granted standing to sue separately from the narrow complaint there that inter alia requested an increase in senate

districts within NYC from 62 to 63, along with other claims challenged under the so-called VRA as if the minority makeup of assembly districts within NYC varied violative of the VRA, and that all causes were dismissed for the reasons that your decision misconstrues and will not standup to my appeal will be reversed, in that Rodriguez v. Putaki was a sham case as defined under 28 USC 1359.

Furthermore, that any false statement that discredits or distracts from the reputation of my rights, property, and by such injurious falsehood libels and defames my title to our social contract equity as applies under the NYS Constitution Arlicle LIISection 5 thut for Brooklyn (alkla Kings County) from April 2002 applies to my New Yorlc 1 8 ~ Senate Distrid (SD) done differently for SDs within Brooklyn as my equity injury here despite express mandate, quote:

assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be, of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable, each of which shall be wholly within a senate district

In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be evenly divided among the senate districts of any county.

That the court disparages and deFames my and Plaintiffs' rights by cherry picking done with WMCA, Reynolb v Sims, and R h q u e z v Pa&& cases that were improperly applied by the court and when exposed to second circuit any fair dealing with the issues return to district again for the next Census on April 1 5,20 1 0 for delivery December 3 1,201 0.

At the heart of the cases is denial of a republican form of government in New Yo* that has destroyed any expectation of participation in the electoral process h m the vast majority of state citizens resident in a home rule county who in no less than 47 counties are without any dedicated voice in the legislature.

We have a right to know whether or not the court considers the state constitution has been nullified in its entirety by the WMCA, Reynolds v Sims, Rodriguez decisions and whether or not this court considers our citizen right to a republican form of government under the 9& amendment to Federal constitution continues. Nowhere in any federal case to date has there been any expression that would give anyone other than a state citizen who is also a USA citizen over 17 years of age the right to sufliage and when otherwise construed disparages that right prdected by the !Y" Amendment as you have done by your decision.

The express words of the state constihrtion have been ignored by this court which in itself is an outrageous disparagement of our 9* amen- rights.

After March 6,2006 only a F e d d Judge and the NYS BOE has authority under the State Constitution to redistricting state legislative and federal house districts, given the fact that the state legislature has no authority aRer March 6, of the sixth year following the redistricting.

I am only able to speak for myself herein and as such speak with the authority of a sovereign citizen with power over the federal courts who have screwed up here in New York and are required to correct ignorant mistakes; thus I urge the Court to reconsider the trespass upon me and if any of the questions listed above are answered in tk affirmative that recusal applies under 28 USC 455.

Respecthlly submitted by, Dated: August 8,2008 l s / t % & t + a E p a ~

Brooklyn New York Christopher Earl S W

cc PlaintifEs and Defendants' counsel(s)

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Case Odcv-1193 (LEK)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and USPS MAIL,

On August 8,2008 and under penalty of peajury, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, caused to be Electronically e-mailed, and sent by regular mail S-nk's : mCvP Rule 60 reansideration of the Apaust 1,2008 decision endorsed August 8,2008 for service to Plainti& and Defendants' attorneys as follows:

Plain- h NDNY 04-cv-l1!B: bbdemfalls(aad.com . bill-corn , bvde' i l .com, amkabel6hrahoo.com, fraben~Dtooline.net, hvanalIenliilhvc.rr.com. medicaid!axlew@ahoo.com , r a ~ t o ~ m o 2 ~ a h o o . c o m , rwmes&ml.com , u1~carvotes2 rl~vcab.rr,com..wm, and

postage paid by First Class U.S. Mail to PlaintBRoy Pierre Dcticge-Cormier 25 Haitte Jones Circle Brooklyn New York 1 1213

Defendants' Coa& io NDNY 04cv-1193: Londaw@mac.com. i e f f i e v . d v o ~ . m . n v . u s , tvalentine@ekdons.state.nv.us , jek@konstantvlaw.com , BarbaraCoUreIl~oi.~ov ,

I do declare and d f L under penalty of pejury:

Dated: August 8,2008 / s / ~ M S b U l u & Brooklyn New York

Christopher Earl Shank

Page 1 of 1

Bill Van Ailen

From: Christopher Strunk [ustrunck@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, August 08,2008 439 PM

Cc: bbglensfalb@aol.ann; bitlgage@bdrd.wrn; ~ @ a o l . c m ; cap$abel@yahoo.com; frabend&Wbnline.net hvanallenm.rr.com; m e d ~ ~ a h o 0 . m ;

Subject: C M i f h b of Service of SENnic's Raquest for Reconsideration of D e d s i in EDNY Wcv- 1193

Attaciunents: Strunk request for reconsideration of the 8-01 -08 Decision in NDNY Wcv-l193.pdf

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Case 04-cv-1193 (LEK)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and USPS MAIL

On August 8,2008 and under penalty of perjury, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, caused to be Electronically e-mailed, and sent by regular mail Strunk's : FRCvP Rnle 60 reconsideration o m Augu&1,2008 dee2i.b endorsed August 8 ,2008 for service to PlaintifE and Defendants' attorneys as follows:

Plniatifb in NDNY-W-1193: bbglensfalls@aol.com , billgage@otmail.com , bvdeitz@aol.com, captgabel@ahoo.com , hbenda@optonline.net , hvanallen@hvc.rr.com, medicaidtaxlevy@ahoo.com . raptorprimo2004~bd@yahoo.com , rsaxpress@aol.com , uncasvotes2, rloebe@nycap.rr.com , and

postage paid by First Class U.S. Mail to Plaintiff Roy Pierre Detiege-Cormier 25 Haitte Jones Circle Brooklyn New York 11213

Defendants' Coonseb in NDNY-OQcV-1193: Longlaw@rnac.com, jefiy.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us, ~alentine@elections.state.ny,us , jek@konstantylaw.com , B&araCottrell@usdoj.gov , dwkloss@klosslaw.com , aaron.baldwin@oag.state.ny.us

I do declare and certifj. undet penalty of pe jury:

Dated: August 8,2008 I d ~ ~ U S t U U L B Brooklyn New York

Ch&tophtr Earl Strank

STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General

Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn United States District Judge James T. Foley Courthouse 445 Broadway, Room 424 Albany. NY 12207-2926

STATE COUNSEL DIVISION Litigation Bureau

Writer Direct: (5 18) 474-2913 Fax: (518) 473-1572

August I 8.2008

via CMIECF

Re: Loeber, el al. v. Spargo, et al. 04-CV- 11 93 (LEWRFT)

Dear Judge Kahn:

Please accept this letter briefon behalfof the State Defendants in response to and opposition to the motion for reconsideration submitted by plaintiffChristopher Earl Strunk (docket # I 15). For the reasons set forth below and also set forth in the State Defendants' initial moving papers (docket #98) and reply papers (docket #102), the motion for reconsideration should be denied.

Plaintiff Strunk seeks reconsideration of the Judgment in favor of the defendants (docket #I 10) and this Court's corresponding Order (docket #109) dated July 3 1,2008 which dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety and denied the plaintif&' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C.A. §2284(a).

Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for very limited grounds for relief from a judgment or order. Rule 60(a) allows correction of clerical mistakes, oversights. and omissions, but has no application to the instant motion. Although the plaintiff does not specify the basis for the relief sought or what sub-section he moves under, it is presumed that the plaintiffmoves under Rule 60(b). That Rule allows for relief fiomjudgment based on mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence and fraud, among other reasons justifying relief. F.R.C.P. 60(b)( 1)-(6). Since the plaintiffdoes not suggest either that there has been an intervening change in controlling law or that he has discovered new evidence, the defendants fiuther assume that Strunk seeks to argue that reconsideration is necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Under the applicable legal standards, however, reconsideration should bc denied.

The Capitol . Albany. N Y 12224-0341 (518) 474-2913. Fax (518) 473-1572 NOT FOR S E R m OF PAPERS

While the granting or denial of a motion under such rule is within the broad discretion of the Court, "[slince 60(b) allows extraordinary judicial relief, it is invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 6 1 (2d Cir. 1986). "Final judgments should not be lightly reopened." Id.

The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict and the plaintiffs burden in seeking reconsideration is heavy. The Second Circuit has instructed that "reconsideration will generally be denied unless the rnoving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked - matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,257 (2d Cu. 1995).

A motion for reconsideration "should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Id. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration is not to be used "for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a 'second bite at the apple'. . . ." Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). This is essentially what the plaintiffis improperly seeking to do in this instance.

The plaintiffhas not pointed to any overlooked controlling decision or constitutional provision which may reasonably be expected to alter the Court's dismissal of the matter. Instead, the plaintiff merely claims that the court's Order dismissing the Amended Complaint was "outrageous" and "drsparages our social contact right to a republican form of government in New York." (Docket #115).

It is respecthlly submitted that in the July 3 1,2008 Order, the Court properly reviewed the relevant law and properly applied it to the facts of this case. Specifically, the Court appropriately addressed and rejected the plaintit%' arguments under New York State Constitution Article 3, Section 4 (g, Order at docket #I09 at pp. 4-5) and the plaintiffs' potential federal constitutional challenges to the redistricting plan at issue m., at pp.5-6). Thus, the Court's Order was legally correct and did not work a manifest injustice on the plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Court should deny Strunk's motion for reconsideration as this case does not present any exceptional cucurnstances warranting such extraordmry relief. The plaintiff has simply not met his heavy burden ofdemonstrating any grounds upon which the Court's prior decision should be altered.

Respectfklly Submittcd,

/J/ c9/nwn oft. *ULA(nt>Z

Aaron M. Baldwin Assistant Attorney General Bar Roll #510175

cc: All Plaintif% (via First Class Mail per attached Declaration of Service); All Counsel (via CM/ECF)

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

I, Aaron M. Baldwin, declare pursuant to 28 USC 5 1746, that on August 18, 2008, 1

served the annexed Letter Brief upon all defendants of record via CMIECF and upon the

following individuals by depositing true copies thereof, properly enclosed in sealed, postpaid

wrappers, in a post office box in the City of Albany, a depository under the exclusive care and

custody ofthe United States Post Office Department, directed to the individuals at the addresses

designated for that purpose. as follows:

Dated: August 18,2008 Albany, New York

l~/&mJJu M W I N AARON M. BALDWIN

Christopher Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Apt #281 Brooklyn, NY 1 1238

Ronald G. Loeber 2 130 Berne Altamont Road Altamont, NY 12009

William E. Bombard P.O. Box 882 Glens Falls, NY 12801

William A. Gage 10 Greenfield Lane Hampton, NY 12837

John Fo done P.O. Box 28 Clarendon, NY 14429

H. William Van Allen 35 1 North Road Hurley. NY 12443

Ronald E. Sacoff 84 Boylan Street Staten Island, NY 103 12

Gabriel Rassano 135 Gordon Place Freeport, NY 1 1520

Edward M. Person, Jr. 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon, NY 1 1703

The Ad tioc NYS Citizens Tor Constitutional Legislative Redistricting 351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443

Burr V. Deitz 444 Whitehall Road Albany, NY 12208

Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cornier 25 Hattie Jones Circle Brooklyn, NY 1 12 13

Fairlene G. Rabenda 8 Claudia Lane Poughkeepsie, NY 12603

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RONALD G. LOEBER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

THOMAS SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS Supreme Court, et al.,

Defendants.

1 :O4-CV- 1 I93 (LEWRFT)

ORDER

Presently before the Court is a Letter Motion filed by Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk

( " S W ' ) requesting reconsideration of this Court's Order, dated July 3 1.2008, dismissing the

Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C.A. (j

2284(a). Letter Motion (Dkt. No. 1 15); July 3 1 Order (Dkt. No. 109). Defendants have filed a

response in opposition to Strunk's Motion. Response (Dkt. No. 117).

A. Legal Standard

The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict, and "reconsideration will

generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court

overlooked--matters. in other words. that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion

reached by the court." Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,257 (2d Cir. 1995). The burden I

I on a party moving for reconsideration of an order is thus substantial. Toland v. Walsh, No. 9:04-

CV-0773,2008 WL 657247, at * I (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7.2008). There are only three possible grounds I

upon which motions for reconsideration may be granted: (1) an intervening change in law, (2) the

availability of evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or

prevent manifest injustice, Shannon v. Verizon New York, Inc., 519 F.Supp.2d 304,307 (N.D.N.Y.

2007) (citing Doe v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983). It

appears that Strunk is basing his motion for reconsideration on a need to correct an error of law or to

prevent manifest injustice.

B. Recusal

Initially, Strunk's Letter Motion appears to also suggest that the Court should recuse itself

for "disparaging" Plaintiffs' rights unless the Court "is able to make a judgment fiee and clear of

other commitments."' Letter Motion at 1 (Dkt. No. 115). However, Plaintiff has not actually

moved for recusal, and certainly not in any format that complies with the statutory requirements.

Plaintiff has also not alleged any basis that would warrant recusal under either of the two statutes

that govern the recusal of federal judges--Sections 144 and 455 of the Judicial Code. 28 U.S.C. 44

144,455.

So far as Section 144 is concerned, Plaintiff failed to file the requisite affidavit sufficiently

alleging "that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either

against him or in favor of any adverse party." In addition, as the Supreme Court said in Liteky,

"judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." L i t eh

v. United Slates, 510 U.S. 540,555-56 (1994).2 Plaintiff has also failed to meet the requirements of

' Strunk then includes examples, asking whether the Court has taken any oath other than the oath of office, such as "a Masonic oath ... [or] a Kolnidre oath in which you must forgive all in your private capacity."

It should also be noted also that the determination oiwhether such an affidavit is timely and legally sufficient is made by the judge whose recusal is sought. See, e . h Berger v. United States 255 U.S. 22,32,36 (1 92 I ) ; LoCascio 473 F.3d 493,498 (2d Cir.2007) -7

Section 455(a), which requires that a judge recuse when "an objective, disinterested observer fully

informed of the underlying facts [would] entertain significant doubt that justice would be done

absent recusal." See Ln re Aguinda, 241 F.3d 194,201 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting United States v.

Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 8 1 1, 8 1 5 (2d Cir. 1992)) ('Where a case, by contrast, involves remote,

contingent, indirect or speculative interests, disqualification is not required.").

C. Discussion

Strunk then claims that by affecting Plaintiffs' rights, the July 3 1 Order -'flies in the face of

the NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 that guarantees quote: 'S 2. Supreme sovereignty in

the people. No authority can, or any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this

state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state."' Letter Motion

at 1-2. To the extent that this argument appears to challenge the Court's personal jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs, this claim is waived since it cannot be brought after the Court's disposition of the case,

and since Plaintiffs already waived any challenge to the Coud's personal jurisdiction over them by I I filing this suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h); see, e.& Andros Compania Maritima, S.A. v. Intertanker Ltd,

7 18 F-Supp. 1215, 12 17 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (appearing and seeking affirmative relief from the Court is

the paradigm of such a waiver) (citing Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59,67-68 (1938)). I

Plaintiff Strunk next reiterates various legal arguments already presented to the Court

regarding New York State Constitution's Article 3, Section 4 and the Plaintiffs' potential federal

constitutional challenges to the redistricting plan. However, a motion for reconsideration "should

not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader,

(quoting > 572 F.2d 953,958 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. 1 denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1 979)) ("'a judge has an affirmative duty to inquire into the legal sufficiency

of such an affidavit and not to disqualify himself unnecessarily. . ."').

70 F.3d at 257. A motion for reconsideration is not to be used "for relitigating old issues, presenting

the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a 'second bite at

the apple'. . . ." Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

"Since 60(b) allows extraordinary judicial relief, it is invoked only upon a showing of

exceptional circumstances." Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). "Final judgments

should not be lightly reopened." Plaintiff has not alerted the Court to any overlooked

controlling decision, constitutional provision. or data which may be reasonably expected to alter the

Court's dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established any '-exceptional circumstances" under

which reconsideration is warranted.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, based on the foregoing. it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 115) is DENIED; and

it is fiu-ther

ORDERED, that the Court's July 3 1,2008 Order, dismissing the Amended Complaint and

denying Plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel (Dkt. No. 109) is AFFIRMED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 10,2008 Albany, New York

U.S. District Judge \

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF APPEAL

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please take notice that on September2,2008 the court received a notice of appeal in the action set forth below. This notice serves to inform the Second Circuit of the pending appeal and provide them with the basic information they need to begin processing the appeal. After receipt of this notice, the Second Circuit will prepare and issue a scheduling order which will outline the obligations and responsibilities of the parties with regard to this appeal. Should you have any questions priorto the issuance of a scheduling order, please feel free to contact the District Court Clerk's Office.

Sincerely,

Lawrence K. Baerman U.S. District Court

By: Britney Norton Deputy Clerk

For Court Use Only:

CASE TITLE: Ronald G. Loeber, et al. v. Thomas J. Spargo, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 1:04-CV-1 193 LEKIRFT

NOTICE OF APPEAL - Docket # 118

Document being Appealed:

Final Judgement: Docket # 109, 1 10 Interlocutory Appeal: Docket # Other: Docket #

FEE STATUS: Paid - D u e X Waived (IFP1CJA)-

IFP revoked - Application Attached - IFP pending before USDJ -

COUNSEL: CJA - RETAINED - PRO S E X

TIME STATUS: TimelyX Out of Time -

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Granted - Denied -

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY: Granted - Denied - NIA -

L U I S ~ J . ~ L , o c I Federal Rules of Appellate R From a Judgment or Order 01 a D&trkt Court. I- 1

United States District Court for the Dimict of - DNY m e r h o a ~ m ~ r OF uw w )

File ~ ~ m b c r 0 Y- CL/- U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF N.Y. nLEo

. .

v. ) N d c e of Appeal SEP 0 2 2008

C.D., 1 ~ ~ t . 1

LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN, CLERK ALBANY

Notice is hereby given that (,

*See Rule 3(c) far permissible ways of identifying appellants

/hu,g CF/ t f ip ~ * l ) r ( ~ m ~

General Docket US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Second Circuit Court of Appeals INDIV OPEN Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-3242-cv Nsuit : 2440 CIVIL RIGHTS-Other Strunk v. United States Postal Service Filed 6/30/08 Appeal EDNY (BROOKLYN) from: Case type information: Civil United States None Lower court information: District: 08-cv-1744 Trial Judge: Allyne Ross MagJudge: Lois Bloom Date Filed: 04/17/08 Date order/judgement: 6/13/2008 Date NOA filed: 6/30/2008 Fee status: Paid Panel Assignment: Panel: SS RAK RCW None Date of decision: Prior cases: NONE Current cases NONE Official Caption 1/ � INDIV OPEN

Page 1 of 7USCA2 Docket Sheet for 08-3242

1/10/2010http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=08-3242&puid=01263147226

-------------------------------------- Docket No. [s] : 08-3242 -cv Christopher Earl Strunk, Plaintiff-Appellant, United States Postal Service, James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS Board of Directors, The City of New York, NYC Board of Elections: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane, Secretary, Anthony Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O`Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher, Grgory C. Soumas, Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and Individually, Defendant-Appellee. -------------------------------------- Authorized Abbreviated Caption 2/ -------------------------------------- Docket No. [s] : 08-3242 -cv Strunk v. United States Postal Service -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- 1/ Fed. R. App. P. Rule 12 [a] and 32 [a]. 2/ For use on correspondence and motions only. Docket as of January 06, 2010 1:38 am Page 2 � INDIV OPEN Christopher Earl Strunk Christopher Earl Strunk Plaintiff-Appellant n/a 593 Vanderbilt Ave. 281 Brooklyn , NY , 11238 718-574-7701 NYC Board of Elections: Michael A. Cardozo Esq. Defendant-Appellee [ LD n ] Corporation Counsel of the, City of New York 100 Church St. New York , NY , 10007 917-472-3434

Page 2 of 7USCA2 Docket Sheet for 08-3242

1/10/2010http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=08-3242&puid=01263147226

The City of New York Michael A. Cardozo Esq.(See above) Defendant-Appellee [ LD n ] James C. Miller Peter A. Norling Esq. Defendant-Appellee [ LD n ] U.S. Attorney`s Office, Eastern District of New York 1 Pierrepont Plaza, Att: Ms. Brooklyn , NY , 11201al Specialist 718-254-6280 Docket as of January 06, 2010 1:38 am Page 3 � INDIV OPEN United States Postal Service Peter A. Norling Esq.(See above) Defendant-Appellee [ LD n ] United States Postal Service Varuni Nelson Esq. Defendant-Appellee [ n ] U.S. Attorney`s Office for the Eastern District of New York 1 Pierrepont Plaza, Att: Ms. Brooklyn , NY , 11201al Specialist 718-254-6015 Docket as of January 06, 2010 1:38 am Page 4 � INDIV OPEN 6/30/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, Copy of notice of appeal and district court docket entries on behalf of APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, filed. [Entry date Jul 3 2008 ] [CM] 6/30/08 Note: This appeal was PRO SE when filed. [Entry date Jul 3 2008 ] [CM] 6/30/08 Note SEE case number(s): 037679-cv, 03-9072-cv, 03-9132-cv, 03-9204-cv, 04-0910-cv, 04-1085-cv, 04-3758-cv, 04-5720-cv, 04-1566-cv, 05-2216-cv, 05-6536-op, 05-6956-cv, 06-0635-cv06-2390-cv, 07-0051-cv, 07-0103-cv, 08-0739-cv. [Entry date Jul 3 2008 ] [CM] 6/30/08 Copy of district court order dated 6/11/08, the action is dismissed for failure ro state a claim and as frivolous RECEIVED. Signed by:

Page 3 of 7USCA2 Docket Sheet for 08-3242

1/10/2010http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=08-3242&puid=01263147226

Allyne r. Ross, U.S.D.J. [Entry date Jul 3 2008 ] [CM] 6/30/08 Record on Appeal Electronically Filed (Original documents remain in the originating court). [Entry date Jul 3 2008 ] [CM] 7/3/08 Instructional Forms sent to Pro Se litigant [Entry date Jul 3 2008 ] [CM] 7/3/08 Appellant Christopher Strunk motion allow emergency relief for ballot access , TRO, preliminary injunction, mandumus and remand appeal filed with proof of service. [Entry date Jul 7 2008 ] [CM] 7/10/08 Appellant Christopher Strunk motion expedite emergency motion for ballot access at the New York September 9, 2008 Republican Party Primary filed with proof of service. [Entry date Jul 11 2008 ] [CM] 7/10/08 Appellee James Miller et al. in opposition to motion allow, remand appeal filed with proof of service. [Entry date Jul 11 2008 ] [CM] 7/15/08 Notice to all parties of Motion Order dated 7/15/08. [Entry date Jul 15 2008 ] [CM] 7/15/08 Order FILED DENYING motion allow emergency relief for ballot access, TRO, Preliminart injunction, mandamus by Appellant Docket as of January 06, 2010 1:38 am Page 5 � INDIV OPEN Christopher Strunk, Order FILED DENYING motion remand appeal by Appellant Christopher Strunk (JF). [Entry date Jul 15 2008 ] [CM] 7/16/08 Notice to all parties of Order dated 7/16/08. [Entry date Jul 16 2008 ] [CM] 7/16/08 Scheduling order #1 filed. Appellants brief due 8/15/2008. Appellees brief due 9/15/2008. Ready week 10/27/2008. [Entry date Jul 16 2008 ] [CM] 7/16/08 Notice to all parties of scheduling order #1. [Entry date Jul 16 2008 ] [CM] 7/16/08 Order FILED GRANTING motion expedite motion by Appellant Christopher Strunk. The motion has been expedited and determined. (JF)

Page 4 of 7USCA2 Docket Sheet for 08-3242

1/10/2010http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=08-3242&puid=01263147226

[Entry date Jul 16 2008 ] [CM] 7/18/08 The new case manager assigned to this case is: Gonzalez, Armando. [Entry date Jul 18 2008 ] [RR] 8/20/08 Notice of appeal acknowledgment letter from Varuni Nelson received. [Entry date Aug 25 2008 ] [GP] 9/5/08 Order to Show Cause for not filing brief, by APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, , FILED. Response due by: 9/19/08. [Entry date Sep 5 2008 ] [AG] 9/5/08 Notice to Pro se Order to Show Cause. [Entry date Sep 5 2008 ] [AG] 9/19/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, brief FILED with proof of service. [Entry date Sep 22 2008 ] [AG] 9/19/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, appendix filed w/pfs. [Entry date Sep 22 2008 ] [AG] 9/25/08 Scheduling order #2 filed. Appellees brief due 10/27/2008. Ready week 12/8/2008. [Entry date Sep 25 2008 ] [AG] 9/25/08 Notice to counsel/Pro Se informing them of Scheduling Order #2. [Entry date Sep 25 2008 ] [AG] 10/1/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, brief FILED Docket as of January 06, 2010 1:38 am Page 6 � INDIV OPEN WITH ERRATA CORRECTIONS, FILED with proof of service. [Entry date Oct 8 2008 ] [AG] 10/2/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, brief RECEIVED. With "Errata Corrections" [Entry date Oct 2 2008 ] [AG] 10/2/08 Appellant Christopher Strunk motion allow to file Appellant's brief with Errata Corrections, filed with proof of service. [Entry date Oct 3 2008 ] [AG] 10/8/08 Notice to counsel/Pro Se Order dated 10/08/08. [Entry date Oct 8 2008 ] [AG] 10/8/08 Order FILED GRANTING motion allow by Appellant Christopher Strunk, endorsed on motion dated 10/2/2008 [Entry date Oct 8

Page 5 of 7USCA2 Docket Sheet for 08-3242

1/10/2010http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=08-3242&puid=01263147226

2008 ] [AG] 10/29/08 Order filed stating, "Petitioner, pro se, has filed motions for "Emergenecy Relief for Ballot Access, TRO, Preliminary Injunction, Mandamus, and Remand," and to expedited the "Emergency Motion for Ballot Access." Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk's Office shall issue a briefing schedule. " [Entry date Oct 29 2008 ] [AG] 10/29/08 Scheduling order #3 filed. Appellees brief due 12/29/2008. Ready week 2/9/2009. Appellants brief due 11/28/2008. [Entry date Oct 29 2008 ] [AG] 10/29/08 Notice to counsel/Pro Se Scheduling Order #3. [Entry date Oct 29 2008 ] [AG] 12/29/08 Letter received from Mr. Sternberg, informing the court that as counsel to Michael Cardozo they will not be filing responsive papers on plaintiff`s appeal to this Court because he was never served in this case. [Entry date Jan 8 2009 ] [AG] 12/29/08 APPELLEE NYC Board of Elections:, The City of New York, United States Postal Service, James Miller, LETTER BRIEF filed with proof of service. [Entry date May 20 2009 ] [AG] 6/5/09 The new case manager assigned to this case is: Crossman, Ahronda. [Entry date Jun 5 2009 ] [RR] 7/28/09 Local Rule 34 Notice Sent [Entry date Jul 28 2009 ] [AC] Docket as of January 06, 2010 1:38 am Page 7 � INDIV OPEN 11/5/09 Proposed for argument the week of 1/11/10 A Panel. [Entry date Nov 5 2009 ] [CA] 11/24/09 Set for submission on 1/15/10 A Panel {on Submission without oral argument}{10am} [Entry date Nov 24 2009 ] [AV] 12/9/09 Calendar argument notice mailed to attorneys/parties. [Entry date Dec 9 2009 ] [AG] Docket as of January 06, 2010 1:38 am Page 8

Page 6 of 7USCA2 Docket Sheet for 08-3242

1/10/2010http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=08-3242&puid=01263147226

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in re Appeal Case 08-3242-cv

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On January 10,2010, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjury with 28 USC $1746

caused the service of seven complete sets of the T1080 Motion with supporting declaration to have

the 08-3242-cv January 15,2010 on submission hearing changed to be heard with the 08-4323-cv

oral panel hearing signed January 8,2010 pursuant to the Schedule upon counsels to Appellees by

placing each complete package in a properly addressed envelope with proper postage f$deliv& 0

C' r L

by the United States Postal Service as follows: " ';rZ 0s- c=,>. - 4

"'; 5 tf: , . -.- m 'I C - 2

*

AARON M. BALDWIN a Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. 3 p ;, ZIZ "". .-. : i

Assistant Attorney General of New York New York State ~ o a r d of ~ l e c t i & g ~ > - mln " i

The Capitol 40 Steuben St. P * Albany, New York 12224-0341 Albany , NY ,12207 r m

vs

THE CITY OF NEW YORK Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo NYC Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

JAMES E. LONG, ESQ. 668 Central Avenue Albany, New Yo* 12206

JAMES E. KONSTANTY, ESQ. Konstanty Law Office 252 Main Street Oneonta, NY 13820

WAN J. KIM United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Room 7254--NWB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530

Peter A. Norling Esq. U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York 1 Pierrepont Plaza, Att: Ms. Brooklyn , NY , 1 120 1

I do declare and certify under penalty of pe jury: n

Dated: January 1 1,2010 Brooklyn, New Yo

593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1 Brooklyn., New York 11238

(845) 90 1-6767 Email: chris(ii),strunk.ws