Strunk's Notice of Motion with Affidavit and Exhibits to Intervene as Defendant in ACORN v USA EDNY...

8/14/2019 Strunk's Notice of Motion with Affidavit and Exhibits to Intervene as Defendant in ACORN v USA EDNY 09-Cv-4888_012010

1/55

; i F->

A C o R N ( & m d ~ W s f ~ ~ f a r ..:., C...), c --c-3Refarm Now) ACORN Institute, Inc., and NE W YORK w~mj; j,, L.-. .,%ACORN HOUSING INC. -.-..- - C.-; r7t u': ..? -.." !

, r\ 3 -v-..-. .,.. . ,, : :- ! 0 2 --'J 0 3 , '. . -9

v. = cz3-3 r= :eC Z 2 -.

UNFTED STATES of AMERICA et aL.0X

F

m

and

& h p h e $ - E a ? k ! % u & f a i & % 1 e . 5 9 3 V ~ A ~- #28 1 BmoHya, Mew York 11238(845) 90 -6767 FJnlrit: Cuishsbvnkw~

~ ~ h ~ N m C I T , O F M m O N T o ~ ~ MRELATOR MTERVENER-DEPENDANT U.S.A. c I l 3 Z E N A M )

STATE OF NEW YORK C m N .

P L Q g $ E T A l B m ~ m * ~ t h e ~ ~ ~ d ~ g r i :SH-Appearance, affirmed J~smwry 0,201 0 will move tbis Court to intervene ass e x - r e bmenerdef-t USA. Ci- rrnd ~ ~ ~ Y o r kftficn befort District Judge W iGershon st a time afforded by tbe Court if necessay at the United States Courthouse, at 225~PlaeEaErrstBm~NewYork,mtfme:dhyandmoslthin201O,atatimtandcourbrrnnndesignated by the court, or as soon hereah as counsel can be heard.

B d y n , New York;Email: chi-wsCe1I-845-90 1 6767c w - E a r l : Sbunlr 8in eese


2/55

Darius Charney, Esq.Center for Constitutional Rights

666 Broadway, 7th FloorNew York, NY 10012

Peter D. Leary USAAGUS Department of Justice20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7322Washington, DC 20530

Andrew CuomoNew York State Attorney GeneralOffice of Attorney General

120 Broadway 24th

FloorNew York New York 10271


3/55

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK------------------------------------------------------------------x Case No.: 09-cv-4888

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations forReform Now) ACORN Institute, Inc., and NEW YORK (NG) (LB)ACORN HOUSING INC.

Plaintiffs,v.

UNITED STATES of AMERICA et al..

Defendantsand

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

Ex-relator-Intervener-Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------x

Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THENOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR

INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN ANDSTATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

STATE OF NEW YORK )) ss.:

COUNTY OF KINGS )

I, ChristopherEarl: Strunk in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say:

1. Affirmant place for service is 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn,

New York 11238 with telephone 845-901-6767 and email; [email protected].


4/55

- 2 -

2. Affirmant files this Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion to

Intervene as a Ex-relator Intervener-Defendant United States of America (USA)

Citizen and State of New York Citizen with FRCvP Rule 19(a) and 19(b).

3. That Affirmant filed a letter motion on December 16, 2009 (See

Exhibit A ) requesting permission to file with Local Rule (LR) 50.3.1(d), to which

on December 21, 2009 Defendants Local Counsel F. Franklin Amanat of the

Department of Justice responded (See Exhibit B ) in opposition to granting such

request, and then on December 22, 2009 at the hearing before Judge Nina Gershon

Affirmant was instructed to submit a motion through the Court Clerk Pro Se Office

with particular attention to respond to the DOJ Response; that with LR 50.3.1(d)(2)

is to be filed by January 21, 2010.

4. Based upon information and belief, Affirmant contends this petition

must be considered a Related Case matter with LR 50.3.1 (a) and (e)(2) (1) as filed

1 (a) Related Civil Case Defined . A civil case is related to another civilcase for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts andlegal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, asubstantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both casesto the same judge and magistrate judge.

(e) Assignment of Related Cases . Cases which have been judiciallydetermined to be related shall be assigned by the clerk to the judge to whom wasassigned the case with the lowest docket number in the series of related cases. Theclerk shall advise the judge of such assignment of a related case. In the interest of

judicial economy, the following categories of civil cases shall be deemed to berelated without further order of the court: (1) all habeas corpus petitions filed bythe same petitioner; (2) all pro se civil actions filed by the same individual;


5/55

- 3 -

by a Pro se litigant. In that Judge Nina Gershon was assigned Strunk v. United

States House of Representatives , No. 99-CV-2168 (NG/MDG) as a matter related

to census tract effect upon federal funding for HUD projects under the 1990

Census allotment of capped U.S. House Seats dismissed as to Defendants

FRCvP Rule 12 motion, and as related to the meritorious Bivens / State Action

injury complaint Strunk v. Department of Housing & Urban Devt , No. 99-CV-

6840 (NG/MDG) that was dismissed sua sponte for failure to comply with the

order to amend the complaint with Rule 8 without including any Brooklyn

Democratic Party Defendants that in retrospect involve Party Boss Clarence

Norman, presently in prison, and ex-Assemblyman William F. Boyland Sr. of the

55 th AD, whose vendetta against Affirmants HUD housing project were essential

parties notwithstanding anything the Court would desire otherwise; nevertheless

the Courts desire to protect the Brooklyn Democrats compounded Affirmants

injury suffered there in Bedford Stuyvesant not only as to Affirmant but to

Affirmants family too.

5. Further, that Affirmants marriage and family had been irreparably

harmed in the process and despite efforts to rebuild economically, Affirmant was

then further injured as complained of in the related case Strunk v the New York

State Insurance Fund et al. EDNY 02-cv-1193 as a Bill of Pains and Penalty (Bill

of Attainder) enforced against Affirmant in that in perpetuity Affirmant is banned


6/55

- 4 -

from ever getting General Contractor insurance in the State of New York (a

monopoly) again without personally paying an outrageous levy for an entity, in

which the entity owner / manager had no employees and Affirmant was a minority

stockholder involved as a DBA General sub-contractor who fully paid the State

Fund in the HUD project and historically for years of coverage; and that Affirmant

contends to this very day on the merits the HUD and State Insurance Fund cases

should have been heard as a Bills of Pains and Penalty matter as a State action

injury that if the premise for the preliminary injunction herein holds as a permanent

injunction, the State Insurance Fund complaint should be restored to calendar, as

Plaintiff(s) herein directly involved with Defendant U.S. Housing and Urban

Development et al. and co-defendants challenged herein in the ongoing appearance

of impropriety in the friendly political relationship to Plaintiff ACORN et al.

6. Further, every case Affirmant ever filed that went before Judge Nina

Gershon is related to failure to guarantee individual rights with available remedy.

7. Further, when a Affirmant related case re-emerged in 2007 as to the

RICO enterprise fraud involving Alvin Dwormans Sub-prime Mortgage scheme

developed after the 1986 Savings and Loan collapse with the Resolution Trust

Corporation carried out a land grab in our community using then HUD Secretary

Andrew Cuomos plenary rules for Freddy and Fanny government backed

mortgages combined with Secretary Cuomos mandate after 1998 that NYC HPD


7/55

- 5 -

and NYC Housing Development Corporation divest a large number of hoarded

properties for an inside dealing relationship with Goldman Sachs whose partner in

such deals was Timothy Geithner then Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve

Bank, and in which the enterprise formed still dismantles real property in Bedford

Stuyvesant under the rubric of the Community Reinvestment Act that includes the

ACORN affiliated entities.

8. That Affirmant contends that the ACORN plaintiffs close partisan

political dealing as unregistered lobbying agents against State Lobbying Law with

State officers such as Senator Velmanette Montgomery in the NY 18 th SD (whose

2009 Committee assignments are: Agriculture; Crime Victims, Crime and

Correction; Education; Finance; Health; Mental Health and Developmental

Disabilities; Rules.) and against whom Affirmant campaigned as a Republican in

the 2008 State 18 th Senate Campaign, requires close scrutiny by the State Attorney

General and or Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes in the lobbying and

other serious suffrage matters as was done by then Brooklyn District Attorney

Elizabeth Holtzman in regards to Vote Fraud (See Exhibit C ).

9. Further, that all my current political gerrymandering appeal cases are

presently in Second Circuit Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. 08-4323-cv (Thomas J.

Spargo is presently in prison) and Strunk v USPS et al. 08-3242-cv are both rooted

in the denial of equal treatment and substantive due process for individual rights


8/55

- 6 -

that challenge the appearance of mere privileges afforded by men not Almighty

God all started here in Eastern District in 1999.

10. Further, Affirmant is a Plaintiff in four on-going cases before District

Judge Richard J. Leon in the Washington District of Columbia with application for

two others as well; and additionally with two related original proceedings at DCD

Circuit, one of which awaits Affirmants motion for more specific proof as to 28

USC 144 and 28 USC 455.

11. Further, Affirmant is a plaintiff in the NYS Election Law 16-100

matter in New York State Supreme Court of Kings County case Strunk v Paterson

et al. with Index No.: 29642-08 active before the Honorable Supreme Court Justice

David I. Schmidt; and that awaits discovery in the DCD case 08-cv-2234, along

with response from the Defendant NYS BOE disregard of FOIL requests, and in

which State Action by Andrew Cuomo and ACORN et al. are subjects in the

alleged little RICO matter complained of in provision of the 2008 General

Election. The States action affords Affirmant FRCvP Rule 19(b) Intervener-

Defendant status herein; and

12. Furthermore, in that regard on November 24, 2009 Affirmant

appeared in an Order to Show Cause hearing before Justice Schmidt for a

Protective Order against potential reprisals in the 2008 General Election matter that

involves ACORN close dealing with the Brooklyn Democratic Party et al. and that


9/55

- 7 -

mysteriously the Transcript of the hearing has been lost by the Court Reporter

whose delay action is affirmed to in the loss matter (see Exhibit D ).

13. The activities of ACORN affiliated organizations are a compelling

State interest as to persons within such entities with the Benevolent Orders Law,

Corporation Law, Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A among other New York

laws as to actions by members and employees; especially with the various

Lobbying Laws (2) apply to all state of New York government officials statewide

in every county, municipality, towns, and or villages with over 50,000 residents;

and that Affirmant contends ACORN et al. closely deal with the all too numerous

public benefit agencies and entities with unelected boards of directors that

circumvent citizen scrutiny over vast areas of governance and public policy.

14. That based upon direct observation during February 2007 Affirmant

contends that ACORN et al. by its agents are Lobbying State and Local

Government officials in violation of the New York State Lobbying Law and

related Municipal Lobbying Law as related to the enterprise complained of therein.

15. That Affirmants Intervention as of right is governed by Rule 24(a),

which provides the right to intervene is unconditionally granted by federal statute

with 18 USC 1964(c) and FCA, when a non-party right to intervene shows that:

2 (d) The term organization shall mean any corporation, company, foundation,association, college as defined by section two of the education law, labororganization, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, state agency or publiccorporation.


10/55

- 8 -

a) Affirmants motion to intervene is timely filed by Local Rules as herein;

b) Affirmant has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the

subject of the action in that the Usurper Barack Hussein Obamas

impropriety as the prior attorney to ACORN and its affiliates in

affiliation with SEIU and crony Eric Holder, who are all part of a

continuing enterprise that have maliciously orchestrated a friendly

constitutional tort herein to: circumvent due administrative process under

existing contracts, pre-empt public fiduciary duty to perform substantive

due process and oversight required under statutes including the RICO Act

that beyond the tame report issued by Representative Issa must also

investigate offenses related to:

18 USC 1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related

activity in connection with identification documents); 18 USC 1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens); 18 USC 1341 (mail fraud); 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud); 18 USC 1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization

unlawfully); 18 USC 1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with

witness, victim ); 18 USC 1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents); 18 USC 1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) (interstate and foreign travel

in aid of racketeering Enterprise) ; 18 USC 1957 (engaging in monetary transaction in property

derived from specific unlawful activity);

the False Claims Act by obtaining government funds under false pretense

to facilitate unjust enrichment that by comingling of funds by the opaque


11/55

- 9 -

Social Justice organizations closely affiliated with the Holy See that

must be subjected to scrutiny with the Logan Act and related Foreign

affairs law (See Exhibit E ) including but limited to those actions that

interfere with the domestic and foreign interest of the United States and

other foreign nations in contradiction to 18 USC Chapter 45 for Foreign

relations relate to:

951. Agents of foreign governments; 952. Diplomatic codes and correspondence; 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments; 954. False statements influencing foreign government; 955. Financial transactions with foreign governments; 957. Possession of property in aid of foreign government; 958. Commission to serve against friendly nation; 959. Enlistment in foreign service; 960. Expedition against friendly nation ;

and moreover, not least of which actions under New York State law

relate to any exclusive membership organizations whose partisan political

activities are subject to compelling State interest and oversight; and

herein on a State by State basis the citizens therein are unrepresented as

to the foreign entity ACORN legal fiction per se, that in effect despite

being alleged by Plaintiffs Counsel to be to big to fail, ACORN appearsas an out of control leviathan that as a Federal matter is involved in a

class action situation that effects the outcome in multi-district litigation

as defined with 28 USC 1407 that belongs before a Judicial panel and


12/55

- 10 -

not before a single Judge as herein to the determent of Affirmant and all

U.S. Citizens and State Citizens of the several States affected by the oval

office usurpation of the 2010 Census Enumeration intend to be executed

with the Usurpers ACORN, its affiliates and SEIU cronies.

c) That Affirmant is so situated that without intervention the disposition of

the action may as a practical matter impair or impede Affirmant ability to

protect interest in the cases Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234,

Strunk v US DOC Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295, Strunk v.

The New York Province of the Society of Jesus et al. DCD 09-cv-1249,

Strunk v US Department of Interior et al. 10-cv-0066, and Strunk v.

Paterson et al. NYS Sup Ct in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642.

d) Affirmants interest is not adequately represented by existing parties, in

that the Usurpers Attorney General and or his agents have not

vigorously represented U.S.A. Citizen, the State Of New York Citizen

and or any other States citizen of the several states accordingly, and as

such Affirmant is also an Ex-Relator litigant herein in that the necessary

Affirmative defense to the Complaint and counter claims have not been

entered into the record.

16. That Affirmant contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to show it has

exhausted the administrative process with the various contracts;


13/55

- 11 -

17. That Affirmant contends that an alleged Bill of Pains and Penalty /

Bill of Attainder injury, to be such, must inure to an in esse individual per se, and

that otherwise any legal fiction registered on a year by year basis by various fees

that only exists as a non-profit and or for profit entity at the pleasure of

government authority, and because only 3 of ACORNs entities out of say 300 or

so shown in Plaintiffs Complaint exhibit (See Exhibit F ) are alleged injured by the

Continuing Resolution and Minibus Bill, requires FRCvP Rule 12 applies as to:

Rule 12 (b) (1) The Court lacks Jurisdiction over the subject matter as

administrative process has not been exhausted with the various Contracts;

Rule 12 (b) (2) The Court lacks jurisdiction over the person without

necessary in esse injured persons joined;

Rule 12 (b) (3) that due to the nature of the litigation and complexity 28

USC 1407 applies and as such there is improper venue;

Rule 12 (b) (4) without an opportunity of other direct parties of interest

involved especially the New York State Attorney General and the various

attorneys general of the several States with authority over ACORN and

affiliates and SEIU, as such there is an insufficiency of process;

Rule 12 (b) (6) without the proper parties and not having exhausted

administrative process plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted especially since with prior admission of wrong doing Plaintiffs

do not have clean hands contrary to clean hands doctrine the court lacks

jurisdiction; and


14/55

- 12 -

To reiterate given the foregoing, as with Rule 12 (b)(7) Plaintiffs fail to join

a party under Rule 19.

18. That in the matter of Affirmants response to Defendants Counsels

letter and allegations shown in Exhibit B:

19. The DOJ has violated FRCvP Rule 11(c)(1)(A) in that by combining

the single letter motion in opposition with the motion for Sanctions that shall

not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the

motion. is done in bad faith with the court.

20. Defendants Assistant Counsel F. Franklin Amanat had previously

opposed the Affirmant in case Strunk v CIA et al. EDNY 08-cv-1196 who

righteously filed the FOIA request of the CIA for information on a Fr. Pierre

Teilhard De Chardin S.J. who had died in April 1955 who had been instrumental infacilitating Maos genocide in China, and that Affirmant contends such records are

not protected as a matter of National Security; nevertheless, the Court dismissed

the case alleging Affirmant had not shown bad faith on the part of the CIA!

21. Further the Usurpers choice for Attorney General, which Affirmant

contends is an action void ad initio as an active Quo Warranto Matter in the motion

before District Judge Richard J. Leon in DCD 08-cv-2234, Affirmant was injured

by Eric Holder directly and is hostile to Affirmant; and therefore, his agents, no

matter how great an assistant attorney general they may otherwise be, cant


15/55

- 13 -

possibly represent my interests herein.

22. That as a direct injury to Affirmant as a result of the Courts Decision

and Order, if the alleged Bill of Pains and Penalty were to inure directly to an in

esse individual per se associated with the Plaintiffs which is not proven or intended

by the Continuing Resolution or Minibus Bill, then as such would also apply to

Affirmant in the Strunk v the New York State Insurance Fund et al. EDNY 02-cv-

1193 State action matter dismissed sua sponte; and if Plaintiffs Counsels had

properly framed the Complaint with injured in esse parties the Court Decision

would also apply to Affirmant and warrants that case restoration to the calendar.

23. That Affirmant takes strenuous exception in opposition to Defendants

Assistant Counsel F. Franklin Amanat abuse of process in this court in his attempt

to impose a bill of pains and penalty against Affirmant.

24. This case raises important legal and constitutional issues, the

resolution of which has the potential to affect not only the parties to this case but

many non-parties, as well; and that Affirmants intervention, in particular, should

not be rejected as to do so would not contribute to a just and equitable adjudication

of the issues in this case, but instead would be likely to distract both the Court and

the parties with frivolous and tendentious litigation over collateral and

inconsequential matters that may only be characterized as having the appearance of

a friendly suit filed in bad faith with this court.


16/55

25. I have read the foregoing abng with Plaintiffs' Complaint with3

Exhibits and herebyoppose equity relief for Plaintiffs pursuant to ab&e

paragraphs 16 and 17, and have read all the subsequent responsesand reply by

both sides and kno%the contents thereof, and effects those matters have upon me,. I

:.*

and that this affidavr't is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein

stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to

be true. The grounds: f my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and

belief are as follows: third parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Christopher -Earl: Strunk in esse

Sworn o befm me this

NOTARY PUBLIC

QEOROE ANbERSONNetary Public, State of New Vkk

No. OlAN5070990Qualified in Mngr CountyCommission Expires Jan. 6,20 1 I


17/55

Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OFTHE NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR


Exhibit A


18/55

Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23 Filed 12/16/09 Page 1 of 4


19/55 C a s e 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 4 8 8 8 - N G - L B D o c u m e n t 2 3 F i l e d 1 2 / 1 6 / 0 9 P a g e 2 o f 4


20/55 C a s e 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 4 8 8 8 - N G - L B D o c u m e n t 2 3 F i l e d 1 2 / 1 6 / 0 9 P a g e 3 o f 4


21/55

Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23 Filed 12/16/09 Page 4 of 4


22/55

\



Exhibit B


23/55

U.S. Department of JusticeUnited States AttorneyEastern District of New York

271 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, New York 11201-1820

December 21, 2009

BY ELECTRONIC COURT FILING

Honorable Nina GershonUnited States District JudgeEastern District of New York225 Cadman Plaza EastBrooklyn, NY 11201

Re: ACORN v. United States , No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.)

Dear Judge Gershon:

We write in response to the December 15 letter from Christopher Earl Strunk, a prose non-party to the above-referenced action, requesting a premotion conference inconnection with his planned motion for leave to intervene as a defendant in this actionpursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.

We respectfully ask that the Court deny Strunks request for a premotion conferenceon the ground that any motion that he might file seeking leave to intervene in this case would not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and would be subject to denial on thatground. Alternatively, if the Court elects to proceed with the premotion conference, we askthe Court to admonish Strunk that, even as a pro se litigant, he must comply with therequirements of Rule 11 and is subject to sanctions if he fails to do so.

We likewise request that the Court bar Strunk from filing any motion in this case without paying a plaintiffs initiating filing fee, and that it correspondingly deny any application for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. 1915. As the Court is no doubtaware, Strunk is a frequent filer in this and other federal courts, and the vast majority of hisproceedings have been dismissed as frivolous. PACER shows 31 cases involving Strunk in thelast ten years, nine of which have been in this District. In one recent case, Judge Rossdismissed the bulk of Strunks claims under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that the factsalleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible . . . and that there is no legaltheory on which he may rely. Strunk v. CIA , No. 08-CV-1196 (ARR/LB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27,2008) (docket no. 4). See also Thomas v. Federal Reserve Bank , No. 07-CV-1171 (ARR/LB)


24/55

Honorable Nina Gershon ACORN v. United States , No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.)December 21, 2009Page 2

(E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2007) (dismissing Strunks complaint as frivolous and denying IFP statusfor purposes of appeal); Strunk v. United States Postal Service , No. 08-CV-1744 (ARR/LB)(E.D.N.Y. May 9 and June 13, 2008) (same); Strunk v. New York State Bd. of Elec. , No. 08-CV-4289 (ARR/LB) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) (same).

Indeed, your Honor repeatedly dismissed Strunks seriatim motions as frivolous, andultimately dismissed the complaint as devoid of merit, in Strunk v. United States House of Representatives , No. 99-CV-2168 (NG/MDG) (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2002). See also Strunk v.Department of Housing & Urban Devt , No. 99-CV-6840 (NG/MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2001)(sua sponte dismissing claims for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). And at least one judge of this Court has denied as frivolous motions by Strunk to intervene in cases to whichhe was not a party. See, e.g., Torres v. New York State Bd. of Elec. , No. 04-CV-1129 (JG/SMG)(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2006) (denying motion to intervene, and subsequently (on Feb. 13, 2007),denying IFP status for Strunks appeal); Green Party of New York State v. New York State Bd.of Elec., No. 02-CV-6465 (JG/SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2003) (same).

Regardless of Strunks filing history, we can envision no circumstances under whichStrunk could meet the requirements of Rule 24 for either of-right or permissive interventionin this case. Intervention as of right is governed by Rule 24(a), which provides that, unlessa right to intervene is unconditionally granted by federal statute, a non-party has no right tointervene in a case as a plaintiff or defendant unless it shows that (1) its motion to intervene

was timely filed; (2) it has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is thesubject of the action; (3) it is so situated that without intervention the disposition of theaction may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4)its interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Butler,Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp. , 250 F.3d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 2001). All four parts of the testmust be satisfied to qualify for intervention as of right. Washington Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Elec. Co. , 922 F.2d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 1990); accord DAmato v. Deutsche Bank , 236 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (Denial of the motion to intervene is properif any of these requirements is not met); United States v. New York , 820 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir.1987). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating its entitlement to intervene.Seils v. Rochester City Sch. Dist. , 199 F.R.D. 506, 509 (W.D.N.Y. 2001).

Permissive intervention is governed by Rule 24(b), which provides that, unless a rightto intervene is conditionally granted by federal statute, a court may not exercise its discretionto permit a non-party to intervene in an action unless the non-party shows that its claim ordefense . . . shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P.24(b)(2). The district court has broad discretion to deny an applicants motion forintervention under Rule 24(b)(2). Seils, 199 F.R.D. at 512 (citation omitted). In exercising


25/55


this discretion, the Court may consider the nature and extent of the intervenors interests, whether the intervenors participation will contribute to a just and equitable adjudication of the issues, and whether the intervenors [interests] are adequately represented by the partiesof record. Sharif v. New York State Educ. Dept , 709 F. Supp. 365, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)(citation omitted); Seils, 199 F.R.D. at 513.

Strunk seems to be seeking to intervene largely for purposes of appealing, or seekingreconsideration of, this Courts preliminary injunction order of December 11. Given that theGovernment has already sought reconsideration of that order, and has also filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from it, Strunks proposed intervention can serve no valid purpose.Moreover, Strunk may not be allowed to intervene as a defendant in this case because he hasno bona fide individualized interest relating to the transactions that are the subject of thisproceeding. The interests Strunk claims in his premotion conference letter to avoid injury by Plaintiffs involvement in the alleged racketeering enterprise otherwise properly protectedby the . . . Continuing Resolution, to ensure that other essential parties in-interest (namely,the State Attorney General) are brought into the suit, to prevent this Court from exceedingits equity jurisdiction, and to seek your Honors recusal are either frivolous on their face orelse are not distinguishable from any interests that the public at large has in the outcome of this case. And even if Strunk could demonstrate that he possesses such an individualizedinterest in the outcome of this litigation, he can make no showing that such interest will notbe adequately protected by the existing defendants. Any interests implicated by this

litigation will more than adequately be advanced and protected by the parties to the case.

This case raises important legal and constitutional issues, the resolution of which hasthe potential to affect not only the parties to this case but many non-parties, as well. But notall individuals claiming to be affected by, or interested in, the outcome of this case have aright (or should be allowed) to participate in the case as a party. Strunks intervention, inparticular, should be rejected. It would not contribute to a just and equitable adjudicationof the issues in this case, but instead would be likely to distract both the Court and theparties with frivolous and tendentious litigation over collateral and inconsequential matters.

We appreciate the Courts time and considered attention to these matters.


26/55


Respectfully submitted,

TONY W EST BENTON J. C AMPBELL Assistant Attorney General United States Attorney Civil Division Eastern District of New York

I AN HEATH GERSHENGORNDeputy Assistant Attorney General /s/ {FILED ELECTRONICALLY}

F. FRANKLIN A MANAT (FA6117)MICHAEL SITCOV Assistant United States Attorney PETER D. LEARY (718) 254-6024BRADLEY H. COHEN [email protected] Trial AttorneysUnited States Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs Branch20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 7322P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044(202) [email protected]

Counsel for Defendants

cc (by ECF notification only):Counsel for Plaintiffs

cc (by regular mail and e-mail):Christopher Earl Strunk593 Vanderbilt Avenue, Apt. 281Brooklyn, NY [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


27/55


INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND

STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

Exhibit C


28/55

FMJ&an -=-q=sJss=qn

fWUU1swWT'mq0*"mq%MTw-

ues'x@qfa%Wpaq~nuU,A&nMw:q-esI'slmmmaKsX

%qJUmqhmqps

-@3wW%

!o

m~

7@-wU@mmwU

JU

&S

80ZO

U


29/55

NO. 22 Legalmemo ran dun^ March 10, 2008

A 14-Year Vote-Fraud ConspiracyA strikin g exam ple of iden tity fraud at polling

places, well within living memory,is described in agrand jury repon publicly released in1984 by theKings County District Attorney and former Demo-

cratic Congresswoman Elizabeth~ o l t z m a n . ~adit checked its own archives, The New York Timeswould have found a story from1984. "Boss TweedIs Gone, But Not His Vote," that detailed the find-ings of the g rand jury7As that article reported, thegrand jury report "disclosed that cemetery votingand othe r forms of stuffing the ballot box were notburied w ith Tammany all."'

The grand jury report revealed extensive voterregistration and voter impersonation fraud in pri-mary elections in Brooklyn between 1968 an d1982 that affected races for theUS. Congress and

the New York Smte Senate and Assembly. Accord-ing to H o l ~ m a n , [~ Ih e rand jury investigationhas uncovered a systematic attack on the integrityof elections in Brooklyn." Holtzman warned thatunless there were immediate changes in proce-dure s, there was "a danger that serious fraud couldoccur in connection with the upcoming e~ e ct io n ." ~

This 14-year conspiracy was detailed by wit-nesses who participated in the fraud and w ere ableto describe in great derail howit was accomplished.The grand jury founcl evidence of fraudulent andillegal practices in "two primary elections for Con-gress held in 1976 and 1982, four primary elec-tions for the Assembly in three difierent assemblydistricts, three primary elections for the State Sen-ate in one senatorial district and two elections forstate committee in two different districts."1 For14years, the conspirators engaged in practices thatincluded:

the forgery of voter registration cards withthe names of fictitious persons, the filingof these cards with the Board of Elections,[a nd ] the recruitm ent of people to castmultiple votes on behalf of specifiedcandidates using these forged cards or thecards of deceased and 01 her persons.1'

Th e grand jury explained that "the ease andboldness with which these fraudulent schemeswere canied nut shows the vulnerability of ourentire electoral process to unscrupulous and fraud-ulent man ipulation.n12

1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., Nos.07-21 and 07-25 (U.S. Suprem e Court, ce n. granted Sept.25,2007);2005IND.LEGIS.S m . PL. 109; scc I N D . CODE 3-1 1-8-23.1(c),-5-2-40.5. This voter ID law does not apply to those who areover 65, disabled, or confinedby illness or injury, all of whom may cast abse ntee ballots. See IND .CODE 3-11-10-24(a)(3)-(5).Th e law a h oes nor applyLO individuals -who vore in person at a precinct pollingplace that is located at astare licensed care facility wherethe vorrr resides." Id. at 3-11-8-25.1(e).

2. Indiana Democratic Partyv. Rokita,458 E Supp. 2d 775 S.D. Ind. 2006).3. Crawford v. Marion County Election B d.,472 E3 d 949 (7th Cir. 2007).4. The Court and Voter1D5, .Y. TIMES, an . 9, 2008.5. Linda Greenhouse,Justic~sndicate They May Uphold VoterID Rulcs,N.Y. IIMES, an . 10,2008.According to Mr. Smith,

-there's not a single recorded exam ple of voter impersonation fraud... tS not ha ppening and , indeed, every single indica-tion in this record is that the eviden ce of this kind of fraud occ um ng, to call it scantis to overstate it." Transcript at19-20.Crawford v. hlarion Cou nty Election Bd., Nos.07-21an d 07-25(U.S. Suprem e Court, cert. granted Sept.25.2007).avail-ableat h ~ ~ p ~ / ~ ~ ~ . s u p r e m e c ou ~ . g o v / o r a l ~ a r g u m e n t s / ~e n t ~ t r a ~ ~ n p ~ O 7 - L 1 ~ p d f .

6. Press Release, Brooklyn, New York, District A ttorney's OEfice, D.A. Holtz man Anno unce s Grand Jury Report D isclosingSystematic Voting Fraud in Brooklyn (Sepr.5, 1984); n the Matter of Confidential Investigation, No.R84-11 (N.Y.Supreme Court 1384)[hereinafter Grand Jury Report].

7. Frank Lynn,Boss hveed Ish e , ut Not His Vole, N.Y. TIMES,ept. 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 grandjury could not determine whether these illegal activities had

altered the outcom e of those elecrions.i t did find that the ourcome of at least one S tate Comm ittee election in1978 wa schanged by fraudulent voting.Id.

11 . Id.


30/55

NO. 22 LegalMemorandum March 10,2008

The Tools of Vote Fraud

One of the key factors in the success of thisscheme was the "advent of mail-in registration [inNew Yorkl in 1976 [which] made the creation ofbogus registration cards even easier an d less subject

to detection."13 Congress mandated the same lypeof New York-style mail-in registration nationwidein 1993 with the passage of the N ational Voter Reg-istration Act, thus ensuring that the security prob-lems caused by unsu pervised mail-in registration inNew York were spread nationwide. In fact, accord-ing to the grand jury, "mail-in registration hasbecome the principal means of perpetrating elec-tion fraud" in New york.14

Another change in the law that increased fraudwas the new practice that allowed any o rganizationto ob tain bulk quan tities of voter registration formsfrom the Board of Elections h a t "contain no identi-fyin serial number at the time they are given

The con spirators obtained blank voter reg-istration carcls and then filled them out with ficti-tious first names and real last names taken fromparty enrollment books within the targeted voting~recinct :

For example, i f a John Brown actually lived at1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York, theapplication wouldbe completed in the nameof Mary Brown, 1 Park Place, Brooklyn, NewYork. It was anticipated that when the mailfor the fictitious MaryBrown was delivered toJohn Broun at his address, John Brownwould discard the nolice rather than returnitto the post office. This plan reduced thelikelihood that the voter registration noticecard would be returned to the Board ofElections. hereby mi~umii ing l ~ e ~ i b d i t ythat the fraud would be detected.'

This process was also successful because of theway the Postal Service handled the mail. The nor-mal procedure of all election jurisdictions in theUnited States is to mail a voter registration card to anewly registered voter after the rep tra tio n applica-tion form has been received and processed.Although the primary purpose of the mailingis toprovide the new voter with the voter registrationcard , it is also intended to ensure that a real perso nhas registered and provided an accurate address.The New York Board of Elections thu s relied o n thePostal Service to return any registration cards thatwere undeliverable because the registrant was ficti-tious or did not live at the a ddress on the applica-t ion form. Election jurisdictions today still rely onthe Postal Service for this validation.

However, the grand jury found that "mail carri-ers did not return these cards particularly wherethe address on the card was that of a large multipledwelling... and] would frequently leave the und e-liverable voter registration cards ina common areaof the buildii~g."To take advan~ageof this, theconspirators used the addresses of multiple dwell-ings in w hich m emb ers of their crews lived, which

them the ability to collect the bogus registra-tion cards." The Executive Director of the StateBoard of Elections at he time, Thom asW Wallace,commented that the handling of voter registrationcards by the Postal Service varied greatly throug h-out the state and was a continuing problem for

election officials.l8In addition to a voter's signature, New York's

voter registration application forms at that timeincluded a physical description of the voter-something that is no nexistent on the mail-in voterregistration applications used today. Even so, thevote-fraud conspirators avoided detection eilher by

I2. Id. at 3.13. Id. at 11 .

14. Id

15. Id. Without serial numb ers, an election jurisdiction cannoL determine wh ich organization may be respo nsible for problem -atic or frdu dulent registration forms that are received.16. Id at 12.17. Id. at 10-1 1.18. Lynn, upra n. 7.


31/55

NO. 22 L e dMemorandum March 10, 2008

using their own physical descriptions orby provid-ing general descriptions that could be met bynumerous 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 reportedthat in one 1978 legislative race alone, 1,0 00 bogusvoter registration forms were successfull filed with-ou t detection by the b a r d of Elections.' AlthoughNew York law required a check at the polling placeof the voter's signature, this proved to be no obstacleto this fraud because the persons creating the ficti-tious voter registration application forms wouldlater vote under the same names. so their signaturesat the po lling place would match their signatures onthe original registration forms.

These attempts to steal elections through the use

of fraudulent voter registrations culminated eachelection day with votes cast using the fictitiouscards. One witness testified that he first partici-pated as a fraudulent voter when he was only 17.voting in a legislative primary in 19 68 "using a reg-istration card prepared und er a differen t name by amem ber of the local Democratic club.n20

In 19 70 . the witness voted at least 1 0 times, at10 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 daykactivities.

In the 1972 Democratic primary election, hereceived a promotion to crew chief, running acrew of five members.By 19 74 , his crew had grown to eight members,each of whom voted in excess of 20 times, andthere were approximately 20 other crews oper-ating during that election.In 19 76 , the grand jury witness led a crew offive people who cast at least 100 fraudulentvotes.

Moreover, the same witness had been presen t ata meeting prior to elec~ ion da that was..attended by twenty crew chlefs.'"'lf the othe rcrews averaged as many lraudulent votes, thenthere would have been at least 2,000 phonyvotes cast in that election without detection byprecinct poll workers o r election officials.By 19 82 , the witness "was to have providedtwenty-five workers to vote in a Congressionalprimary election again using bogus v oter regis-tration cards."22In addition to voting in the names of fictitious

voters who had been successfully registered, thecrews used several other m ethods of casting fraud-ulent votes. One method involved voting unde r thenam es of legitimate voters. By reviewing the voterregistration records at the Board of Elections prior

to election day, the conspirators were able to Findthe names of newly registered voters. Using thenames of these voters, the crews would go to theappropriate polling places as soon as the pollsopened in the morning to vote under those names:

The reasoning behind this method,according to the experience of on e witness,was that newly registered voters often donot vote. By arriv ing at the polling sitesearly. the bogus voter would not need toworry about the possibility that the realvoter had actually voted.23

Another method e n d e d collecting, duringnom inating petition d rives, the names of registeredvoters who had died or moved. Members of thevarious crews were then sent to polling places onelection day to vote in thenames of those voters.The signature requirement did not prevent suchfraudulent voting ei~ lier , hich points out the inad-equacy of signature matching (a highly trained skillthat cannot be taught in a matter of hours to theaverage poll worker) to prevent this type of fraud.Credit cards present a similar problem, since the

l9. GrandJury-&port, juplu

n. 6, at13.20. Id. at 14.

21. Id. a t 14-15.22. Id. at 15.2 3 . Id. at 15 .


32/55

NO. 22 hd Memorandum March 10, 2008

signature requirement on credit cards does not pre-vent the ~ i ~ c a n tolume of credit card Fraud thatoccurs in the United States.

Database tcchnolog). is anothcr tool of thc rradcthat was not available then butis widespread now.Voter registration lists are public information inmost states, and databases containing detailedinformation on voters are available From a widevariety of com mercial vendors.

The databases of such commercial vendors areusually much more up-to-date than the informa-tion contained in Lhe voler registration databasesmainta ined by election officials. This makesit veryeasy for anyone with access to suc h informa tion todetermine the names of voters who are still regis-tered but who have died or moved ou t of a jurisdic-tion. As Justice Roberts pointed out in the Indiana

voter ID case, the record in the litigation showedthat 41.4 percent of the nam es on Indiana 's voterregistration rolls were bad entries, representingtens of thousands of ineli ible voters-a trove ofpotential fraudulen t votes.&

A Widespread ProblemThe widespread impersonation fraud that

occurred in Brooklyn raises the question ofwhether such fraudis a problem elsewhere in thecountry today. More recent cases provide evidenceof what may be a wider problem thatis very diffi-cult to detect in jurisdicrions that do not requirevoter identification.

For example, Dr. Robert Pastor, Executive Direc-tor of the Baker-Carter Com mission on FederalElection Reform and Director of the Center forDemocracy and Election Management at AmericanUniversity, testified before the U.S. Com mission onCivil Rights in 2006 that he was once unable to vote

because someone had alreadycast a ballot in hisname athis polling place. He had no recourse at thepoll to find out "why his had occurred, whetherthere was some e rror or whatever else, and the poll-ing station iwlf didn't keep any record of it."25

In a 200 7 city council election in H oboken . NewJersey, the former zoning board presiden t noticed agroup of men near his polling place being givenindex cards by two people shonly before the Juneelection. One of those men later entered the pollingplace and triecl to vole in the name of another reg-istered voter who. it turned out, no longer lived inthe ward. The imposter was caught only because hehappened to be challenged by the zoning boardpresident. He admitled ro the police that the groupof men from a homeless shelter had been pa id$10each to vote using others' names.16

Last year, in a case reminiscen~of Boss Tweedand the Brooklyn grand jury report, the U.5.Department of Justice won a voting rights lawsuitin Noxubee, Mississippi, against a defendantnamed Ike Brown, as well as the county electionboard.27 Brown, a convicted felon, was the head ofthe local Democratic Party. He had set up a politicalmachine t h a ~ orked to guarantee the election ofhis approved candidates to local office+sentiaUyhis version of Tarnrnany Hall. One of the conten-tions in the litigation was that the local electionboard's "failure to purge the voter registration rollto eliminate persons who have moved or died andwho are thus no longer eligible voters" increasedthe opportunity for voter fraud by creating "thepotential for persons to vote under others' names."The court c ited the testimony of one of the govern-ment's witnesses, a former deputy sheriff. who saidthat "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 Intim idation,Unitcd States Comm ission onCivllRights,OCL. 3,20 06 . nr 185.26. See M ad eh e Friedman,Anatomy oJVokr Fraud- WIII OJ& Follow Up on Alleged $10 Vote Payoff?HUDSONREP~RTERJuly 1,

2007; Unclear WhichAgency W d Investlgm F r a d Proseatnrk 0 ) hnng or Rejenai, k I v m o r \ i R E P O K ~ dy ,2007.27. U.S. . Brown, 494 E SUPP. d 440 (S.D. Miss. 200 7). The lawsuilwas filed under Sections2 an d 11 of the Voting k g h ts

Act and led to the first judgmentin the U.S. Finding racial discrimination in volingby black officials against white voters.The court said that it had -not had tolook far to find ample direct a nd circumstaruial evidence of an inten t todk-rimminaagainst white voters which has man ifested itself through practices designedto deny and/or dilute the voting rights of whitevoters in Noxube e." ld. at449.


33/55

NO. 22 LegalMemorandum March 10. 2008

tell her to go in there and vote, to use any name,an d that n o 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 toimpleme nt such a requirement du e to a federal casefiled by the Mississippi Democratic Party over itsconcern that the suteS open piirnaiy system andlack of party registration makes il unable to identlfynon-Democrats and prevent them from votinginits primaries.29 This effort by the Mississippi Dem-ocratic Party is instructive because it discloses thatthreats to free, fair. and open elections concern notonly elective office and those who eventually holdthem, but also the political parties as they recruitand organize voters and nominate h e ir candidates.Political parties merit protectionas much as indi-vidual voters whose franchiseis diluted and deniedby the com mission of fraud.

The Indiana voter ID case itself also demon-strates the problem of d ouble voting by individualswho are illegally registered to vote in more thanone state. Because different states do not generallyrun database matching comparisons between theirvoter registration lists, thereis no na tional processby which to detect multiple registrations. One ofthe Lndiana voters highlighted by the League ofWomen Voters who su pposedly could no t vote dueto the voter ID law turned out to be registered tovote not just in Indiana, but also in Florida, whereshe o ~ m shome and claimed a hom estead exemp-tion (which requires an individual to assert resi-dency). She was not allowed to vote in Indianabecause she tried to use a F lorida driver's license asher I k l e a r ev idence 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 ofa stale other than Indiana, but also had actuallyregistered to vote thereas well.30

Unfortunately. attempts by neighboring statessuch as K entucky and Tennessee to comp are theirvoter re@trauon lists Lor individuals registered iilboth states have been m etwith lawsuits contestingtheir right to do so.31 A federal court even issuedan injun ction barring the State of Washington fromrefusing to regis~ er ndividuals whose applicationinformation (such as their residence address) doesnot match infoinntion on that inditidual thatiscontained in other state databases, such as theDepartment of Licensing's (drivers licenses),thereby making it extremely difficult for a state toverify the accuracy and validity of informationbeing provided by an individual in an attempt toregister to vote.32

One of the changes recommendedby the NewYork grand jury to prevent problems caused byoutside organizations filing fraudulent voter regis-tration forms was "serializing and recording theserial numbers of all voter registration cards dis-tributed in bulk and insisting on greater account-ability by organizations engaged in voterregistration."33A number of states have recentlyattempted to implement such requirements afterthey received large numbers of fraudulent voterregistration form s, or received legitimate forms toolate to be effective for an upcoming election, fromthird parties such as the Association o: Commu-nity Organiza~ionsfor 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 sourcesin h e ustice Depamnent, in an apparentattempt to intimidatethis witness, a Noxu bee dep uty sheriff and political ally of Brown arrested the witness for disorderlycond uct and reckless drihlng only days after the government name d him as a witnessin a filing with the federal court . Inan unpreceden ted m ove, the federal judge stay ed the county prosecution.See John Mott Coffey,Noxubee VotingRights Trialto Begin Ticesday,COMMERCWLISPATCH, Jan. 13,2007;Bill Nichols,Voting Rights Act Pointed in a New Direclion,USA TODAY,April 3,2006.

29. See Mississippi State Democratic Partyv. Barbour, 491 F: SUPP. d 641 (N.D. iss. 2007).

30. Cindy Bevington,Voter Cited by Opponents ojlndia nak ID Law Registeredin Two States,EVENINGT* January 9, 2008.31. See Stumbo v. Keniucky State Board of Elections, No.06-(3-610(Franklin Ci r., Ky. OC L. ,2006).32. See Washin gton Association of Churches v. Reed,492 E S w r. 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.


34/55

NO. 22 LegalMemorandum March 10.2008

halted by lawsuits filed by organizations such asProject Vote and the League of Women Voters thatclaimed that such requirements would impedetheir voter registration

Similarly, Ohio's attempt to improve third-partyvoter registration was also struck down. The lawmand ated training for individuals wh o assist appli-cants in voter registration; required them to pro-vide their nam e, signature, address, and employeron the voter registration form of each individualthey assist; and required them to return the formsdirectly to election officials rather than entrustthem to a third party for delivery. Thezie proviisionswere all enjoined as violations of the National VoterRegistration Act and the First and FourteenthAmendments to the ~ on st itu tio n. ~' ven if thecourt rulings w-er2 legally correct (a questionableconclusion), thatis all the more reason for a state tocorrect for potential fraud by requiring some formof reasonable voter ID at the polls.

Lessons LearnedThere were no indictmen& issued by the New

York grand jury as a result of its investigation"because the statute of limitations had run out insome cases and because several of those involvedwere given immunity in return for te~tirnon~.' '~~Remarkably, [he fraud was apparently discoveredonly because of the actions of a form er state senator,Vander L. Beatty, who was convicted of voter fraudand conspiracy. After Beatty lost the 1982 Demo-cratic congressional primary election, some ofhis"supporters hid in the Brooklyn Board of Electionsoffice until after business hours and then madesom e obvious forgeries of reg istration cards to cre-ate the appearance of irregularities" in ord er to giveBeatty the ability to challenge (unsuccessfully) thewinner of the primary election.37

Even though it led to no indictments, the NewYork investigation still serves a valuable purpose.Most clearly, it demonstrates that voter imperson-ation is a real problem and one that is nearlyimpossible for election officials to detect given theweak tools usually at their disposal. Further, theinvestigation provides good reason to believe thatthis 14-year-long conspiracy to submit thousands(if not tens of thousands) of fraudulent votes inNew York City could not have occurred if votershad been required to present photo identificationwhen they voted.

New York's experience also dem on str ata the fal-lacy of several arguments and assertions made bythe petitioners' attorney , Paul Smith, in the Indianacase and by critics of voter ID in general. For exam-ple, Smith told Chief Justice Roberts that imper-sonation fraud is unlikely becauseit is not hard todetect: "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 arethere, you have to match that person'ssignature."38

The idea tha t, in ou r mobile society today, all ofthe 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 Electionsfor the City of New York states that polling placeshave only 750 registered vo~ers,~'et the imper-sonation fraud that occurred in Brooklyn involving

thousands of fraudulent votes went undetected for14 years even in such relatively small precincts.Many jurisdictions in other states and countieshave mu ch larger precincts, some of them contain-ing thousand s of registered voters.

Contrary to Mr. Smith's claims, New York's sig-nature requirement also did nothing to stop thissuccessful voter fraud conspiracy from casting

34. zr: Projtxi Volt. v. Blacl\wcll, 45 5 E Sb-PP. 2cl69+(N.D. Oluo 2006),Lrague oi\Vo~nerr Vo~crb f Florida v. CULL, +S7 ESUPP.2d 1314 S.D. Fla. 2006).

35. Project Vote v. Blackwell, No . 1:06CV-1628 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 1 1 , 2008).36. Lynn, upra n. 7.37. Id.

38. Transcripi in Crawford, supra n. 5, at 19.

39. N.Y. Bd. Of Elections, POLL WORKERSANUAL 2007 15,at ht~p://vote.nyc.nyus/pdVdocumen~s/bodpollworkers~pollworkersmanual. pdl, page 15 .


35/55

NO. 2 Lgd Memorandum March 10,2008

b o p s votes in person at polling places. The partic-ipants in the Brooklyn case impersonated newlyregistered, deceased, and moved voters by votingin their place for years without detec~ion.

Voter ID: A Sensible SolutionIn 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 electionjurisdictions, there is no way to know how manyothers slipped through. In states without identifica-tion require men^, election officials have no way toprevent bogus votes from being cast by unscrupulousindividuals based on fictitious voter registrations, byimpersonators, or by noncitizens who are registeredto vote-another growing problem.40 This is a secu-rity problem that requires a solution.

As the New York voter fraud investigation andother cases illustrate, impersonation fraud doesoccur and can be difficult or impossible to detect.States such as Indiana and Georgia have a legiti-mate and entirely reasonable interest in requiringvoters to idenufy themselves when they vote inorder to prevent impersonation fraud and votingthrough the use of fraudulent voter registrationforms. The Indiana case also demonstrates thatvoter identification can detect unlawful multiplevoter gistr rationsby individuals in ddferent states.

Finally, requiring a govemmenr-issued photo ID

can prevent illegal aliens from voting (except instates that issue driver's licenses to noncitizens). Asimple requirement that a voter demonstrate hisauthentic identity assures that free elections remainuntainted by fraud that undermines their fairnessand, in turn. disappoints the expectations of thevoting public

In 1984. the New York grand jury recommendedthat the governor and state legislature examine as apossible remedy "requiring identification from vot-ers at the time of voting or regi~tration."~' n 2005,the bipartisan Baker-Carter Commission on Fed-eral Election Reform also recommended requiringphoto ID for in-person voting because "[iln close ordisputed elections, and there are many, a smallamount of fraud could make rhe margin of diKer-ence. And second, the perception of possible fraudcontributes to low confidence in the system.n42

Voters in nearly 100 democracies are required topresent photo identlhcation to ensure the integrityof elections.43 Our southern neighbor, Mexico,requires both a photo ID and a thumbprint. andturnout has increased in its eleclions since thisrequirement was implemented.34 If Mexico canimplement a s~~ccessful hoto ID program for itsvoters, there is no valid reason the United Statescannot do the same.

As the grand jury in New York properly con-cluded at the end of ics investigation of a vote-fraudconspiracy that had been successfully carried outwithout detection for 14 years, "The core of thedemocratic process is the right of the people tochoose their representatives in fair elections. Fraudin the election process is in to ~e ra bl e. "~ ~

-Hans A. von Spahovsky servedas a member of theFedercll Election Commissionfor twoyears. Before that,he was Counsel io the Assistani Attorney General forCivil Rights at the U.S. Department of lw tic e, where hespecialized in voting and election issues. He also servedas a counfy election oficial in Georgiaforfive years usn member of the Fulton County Registration and Elec-tion Board.

40. In just one Texas county, jury summonses led to the discovery that ar least330 il le ~a l liens were registered to vote andthat 41 had voted repeatedly"in more than a dozen local, state and federal elections between2001 and (20071." GuillermoX Garcia, Vote Fraud Probed in Bcxar, EXPRESS N n v s , June 8,2007.

41. Grand Jury Report,supra n. 6, at 2 1-22.

42. Com mission o n Federal ElectionReform, B ~ ~ D M G~NFIDENCI:N U.S. ELECTIONS8,S e p ~ . 00543. 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%, p. 2-3, at htcp~/~~.vore.caltech.edunioterID/ssm-id~2561l pdi.

45. Grand Jury Report,slipra n. 6. at 3.


36/55



Exhibit D


37/55



Exhibit E


38/55

Left-Wing Radicalism in the Church:The Catholic Campaign for Human Development

CONTENTS

September 2009

Left-Wing Radicalismin the Church

Page 1

Philanthropy NotesPage 8

By Matthew Vadum

Bishop Roger Morin announced last fall that CCHD was cutting off the corrupt groupACORN but as this years Thanksgiving collection approaches, the churchs charitycontinues to support similar radical community organizing groups.

It must have been a sad day at the of ces

of the Catholic Campaign for Human De-velopment (CCHD) in Washington, D.C.,

last year when the United States Conferenceof Catholic Bishops (USCCB) announced thatits temporary suspension of funding for theembattled radical group ACORN was beingmade permanent.

CCHD is the grantmaking arm of USCCB,the 350-person Washington, D.C.-based or-ganization that acts on behalf of the nationsRoman Catholic bishops, a group widelyassumed to be conservative defenders of traditional morality. However, CCHD andACORN share a left-wing sociopoliticalideology that puts a premium on aggressivecommunity organizing but more on thatin a moment.

After channeling $7.3 million of parishionersmoney to ACORN over the last decade, the

Catholic bishops were coming under intensepressure from conservative Catholics whowere outraged by reports of gross legal andethical improprieties involving ACORN.

Founded in 1969, CCHD has given morethan $280 million over the years to fundwhat it calls over 7,800 low-income-led,community-based projects that strengthenfamilies, create jobs, build affordable hous-ing, ght crime, and improve schools and

Summary : Each November around Thanks-giving every Roman Catholic parish takesup a collection for the nonpro t Catho-lic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), a program run under the auspices

of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Last November, under intense pressure from Catholic parishioners,CCHD nally stopped collecting money for the fraud-ridden radical group ACORN.

But the Bishops Conference continues tosupport other radical community activist groups with similar goals, such as the In-dustrial Areas Foundation (IAF) founded inChicago by Saul Alinsky, the founding fa-ther of community organizing. President Obama, a self-professed community orga-nizer, has ties to both ACORN and CCHD.


39/552 September 2009

Foundation Watch

Editor: Matthew Vadum

Publisher: Terrence Scanlon

Foundation Watch is published by Capital ResearchCenter, a non-partisan education andresearch organization, classi ed bythe IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity.

Address:1513 16th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036-1480

Phone: (202) 483-6900Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950

E-mail Address:[email protected]

Web Site:http://www.capitalresearch.org

Organization Trends welcomes let-ters to the editor.Reprints are available for $2.50 pre-paid to Capital Research Center.

neighborhoods. The projects funded mustdevelop local solutions to help break thecycle of poverty. CCHD says it educatesCatholics about the causes of poverty andseeks to build solidarity between impover-ished and af uent persons.

Its mission statement calls for raising fundsto support organized groups of white andminority poor to develop economic strengthand political power. It also declares CCHDspurpose is to educate the People of God toa new knowledge of todays problemsthat can lead to some new approaches thatpromote a greater sense of solidarity.

On Nov. 11, 2008, Bishop Roger Morin,chairman of the Bishops subcommitteeon CCHD, announced that ACORN was

permanently cut off as a grant recipient.No funds from the annual collection takenat every Catholic parish during the thirdSunday of November will go to ACORN inany place or at any level, he said. ACORNstands for Association of Community Orga-nizations for Reform Now, a group that hashundreds of af liates across America. (Formore on ACORN, see the November 2008editions of CRCs Foundation Watch and

Labor Watch .)

Bishop Morin announced that the ve-

month-old provisional suspension of fund-ing for ACORN had been made permanentbecause of serious concerns about nancialaccountability, organizational performanceand political partisanship.

He made it clear that a major case of em-bezzlement eight years ago that was coveredup by ACORN staff leadership, was the

tipping point and noted that CCHD and theBishops Conference had hired forensic ac-countants to help determine if any CCHDmoney was taken or misused.

It is unclear if that forensic audit has beencompleted. Ralph McCloud, director of CCHD, said the groups that will bene tfrom this years collection have yet to bedetermined. The decision will be made inJune next year, McCloud said.

CCHD, which insists it does not supportorganizations that engage in partisan politics,became concerned that ACORN had usedits money in a way that might jeopardizeCCHDs tax-exempt status. Morin saidthat although CCHD had funded only localaf liates of ACORN, the national groupsconduct, including its involvement in allegedelection fraud, raised serious concerns aboutnational ACORNs nancial accountability,transparency, governance and organizationalintegrity.

Of course public concerns about ACORNhave only grown since Morin announcedthe funding cutoff. In July congressional in-vestigators released a report concluding thatACORN was a highly partisan organizationinvolved in racketeering and serial violationsof tax, campaign nance, and other laws.

CCHD and ACORN are cousins in a

sense, and their common bonds must havemade it excruciating for CCHD to disownACORN.

Both CCHD and ACORN were inspired bySaul Alinsky, the father of community orga-nizing. Alinsky is the Marxist Machiavelliwho dedicated his 1971 manual on grassrootsactivism, Rules for Radicals , to Lucifer,whom he called the rst radical known toman who rebelled against the establishmentand did it so effectively that he at least wonhis own kingdom.

Alinsky believed poor people had to rise upand take what belonged to them. I tell people,The hell with charity. The only thing youllget is what youre strong enough to get.

To that end, he developed the concept of community organizing to mobilize poorneighborhoods to make demands, long andloud, on public of cials and the private sector.To Alinsky, organizing was a euphemisticterm for revolution.

Heather Booth of the Midwest Academy


40/553September 2009

Foundation Watch

Radical GoalsWhile CCHD poses as a mainstream Chris-tian charity trying to help the poor, it usesleft-wing euphemisms in its mission state-ment. It seeks to address the root causes of poverty in America through promotion and

support of community-controlled, self-helporganizations and through transformativeeducation.

ACORNs mission statement, by compari-son, is far more aggressive. Its PeoplesPlatform, is a manifesto for Americasdowntrodden:

But we have nothing to show for thework of our hand, the tax of our labor.Our patience has been abused; our ex-perience misused. Our silence has been

seen as support. Our struggle has beenignored. Enough is enough. We will waitno longer for the crumbs at Americasdoor. We will not be meek, but mighty.We will not starve on past promises, butfeast on future dreams.

CCHDs website sells bumper sticks that say,If you want peace, work for JUSTICE. Itsa variation on the radical slogan no justice,no peace, that Thomas Sowell notes hasbeen used to justify settling legal issues inthe streets, instead of in courts of law.

CCHDs 2007 annual report declares,Poverty is caused not simply by the lack of nancial resources, but by the lack of quality education, affordable housing, healthcare, child care, fair wages, and vocationaltraining. In the same report, CCHD statesthat it supports programs that help poor andlow-income people to help themselves.

Indeed it does, if helping the poor consistsof funding Alinsky-inspired poverty groupsto help themselves to taxpayer money.Here are some of the left-wing local groupsthat received grants from CCHD in 2008:Chinese Progressive Association; VOZWorkers Rights Education Project; TexasTenants Union Inc.; Border Network forHuman Rights; Figueroa Corridor Coalitionfor Economic Justice; and Power U Centerfor Social Change. With names like these,do these groups seem focused primarily onhelping the poor?

Funding the Radical Left and CommunityOrganizersCCHD reported distributing $10.2 millionfor grants and projects in 2007, up from $9.7million the year before.

But not much of CCHDs money over theyears has actually gone to the poor. Almostall of it has been disbursed to ACORN-likegroups for political activities and commu-nity organizing and many of those groups

have been founded or are run by Catholicpriests.

Here are some select recipients of CCHDgrants:

*Alinskys Industrial Areas Foundation ,the mother of all community organizingnetworks with dozens of af liates nationwide(and af liates in Canada, Germany, and theUnited Kingdom), has received plenty of money over the years from CCHD. Alinskyreferred to its training institute as a schoolfor professional radicals. It has been headedby ex-seminarian Edward T. Chambers sinceAlinskys death in 1972.

*The Midwest Academy founded byHeather and Paul Booth has been fundedby CCHD, according to Catholic writerPaul Likoudis. IAF trained Heather Booth,the founder of a number of activist trainingacademies, including the Midwest Academy,Citizen Action and USAction. Her husband

is Paul Booth, a founder and former nationalsecretary of Students for a Democratic Soci-ety (SDS), now an aide to Gerald McEntee,president of the powerful public sector unionAFSCME

According to the David Horowitz FreedomCenter, the Midwest Academy is an Alinsky-inspired school that teaches radical activiststactics of direct action, targeting, confronta-tion, and intimidation. It describes itself asone of the nations oldest and best knownschools for community organizations, citizenorganizations and individuals committed toprogressive social change.

*People Improving Communities ThroughOrganizing (PICO), was founded in 1972 byFather John Baumann, a Jesuit priest trained

in Alinskys techniques. The training schooland activist group was originally called Pa-ci c Institute for Community Organizations,but ve years ago it adopted its current name.It claims to have 53 af liates in 17 states.

Also known as the PICO National Network,the group describes its mission as trying toincrease access to health care, improve pub-lic schools, make neighborhoods safer, buildaffordable housing, redevelop communities,and revitalize democracy. PICO also says,[W]e need to insure that new Americansare welcomed and not exploited.

According to the group, government canplay a vital role in improving society. Itfavors using people of faith to maximizethe potential for transformation of people,institutions, and of our larger culture. Thisyear it has worked with Sojourners and Faith-ful America, which is a political arm of theNational Council of Churches, to encouragechurchgoers to campaign for a governmenttakeover of the nations healthcare system.

*Direct Action and Research TrainingInstitute (DART) was created in 1982. Itboasts 20 locally af liated organizations insix states and claims to have trained morethan 10,000 community leaders and 150 pro-fessional community organizers. AcademicDavid Walls wrote that it practices strictlycongregation-based community organization[and] conducts ve-day orientation train-ings for community leaders and has a four-month training program for organizers.

Edward T. Chambers of the IndustrialAreas Foundation (IAF)


41/554 September 2009

Foundation Watch

*Gamaliel Foundation , founded in 1968 inChicago, says its mission is to be a powerfulnetwork of grassroots, interfaith, interracial,multi-issue organizations working togetherto create a more just and more democraticsociety. Its executive director is Gregory

Galluzzo, a former Jesuit priest.Originally focused on helping low-incomeblack Americans, Galluzzo changed its focusto community organizing when he took overin 1986. It is refocusing its efforts on widermetropolitan areas and assessing how to im-

pact national policy on immigration reform,according to Walls. As of last year, Gamalielreported having 60 af liates in 21 states, aswell as af liates in the United Kingdom andSouth Africa. The group claims to representmore than one million people.

Gamaliel brags on its website about itsconnection to President Obama. Obamaworked for the Developing CommunitiesProject, which was a spinoff of the CalumetCommunity Religious Conference, itself acreation of several Chicago area Catholicchurches.

The Obama ConnectionBoth President Obama and his secretaryof state, Hillary Clinton, were inspired byAlinskys teachings. Clinton even wrote her

senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky.

It has not been widely reported that CCHDhas a longtime friend in the White House. Ac-cording to The Catholic Case for Obama,a monograph published by a group called

Catholic Democrats, Barack Obama re-ceived support in his community organizingwork for Chicago from the Archdiocese of Chicago and the United States Conferenceof Catholic Bishops through the Campaignfor Human Development. (It is available athttp://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/pdf/ Catholic_Case_for_Obama_booklet.pdf .)

Candidate Obama himself acknowledgedCCHDs importance to his early career incommunity organizing in an October 2008interview with Catholic Digest:

I got my start as a community organizerworking with mostly Catholic parisheson the South Side of Chicago that werestruggling because the steel plants hadclosed. The Campaign for Human Devel-opment helped fund the project, and sovery early on, my career was intertwinedwith the belief in social justice that is sostrong in the Church.

From 1985 to 1988 Obama ran the CCHD-funded Developing Communities Project(DCP) from an of ce located in ChicagosHoly Rosary Church.

Obama has said he tried to apply the preceptsof compassion and care for the vulnerablethat are so central to Catholic teachings tomy work [such as in] making health care aright for all Americans I was the sponsorin the state legislature for the BernardinAmendment, named after Cardinal Bernar-din, a wonderful gure in Chicago I had theopportunity to work with who said that healthcare should be a right.

The Alinsky ConnectionCCHD has long supported groups such asACORN that engage in left-wing communityorganizing.

In fact, it was created speci cally to do so.

Former Treasury Secretary William E.Simon, a prominent Catholic layman whoserved on the board of Capital ResearchCenter, complained in the late 1980s that

CCHD was a funding mechanism for radi-cal left-wing political activism in the UnitedStates, rather than for traditional types of charities.

Catholic writer Paul Likoudis observes that

CCHD could be considered a politicalmechanism bonding the American Churchto the welfare state.

Likoudis wrote that CCHD was created inSaul Alinskys twilight years speci cally toserve as a permanent funding mechanismfor his Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). Inturn, IAFs model of organizing religiouscongregations into powerful local and re-gional networks has been taken up by threeother groups PICO, Gamaliel [Foundation],and DART most of whose leaders got their

start with IAF, according to David Walls of Sonoma State University.

The connections between CCHD and Alinskywere clari ed in a March 2002 article in So-cial Policy, a journal of the ACORN-af liatedAmerican Institute for Social Justice.

While organizing in Chicago, Alinsky gainedmany Catholic allies. He began working in1938 for the Institute for Juvenile Researchin Chicago, which worked with local leadersto combat juvenile delinquency. While there,Alinsky teamed up with Joseph Meegan, adevout Catholic who was director of a localrecreation facility, to create the Back of theYards Neighborhood Council.

Among friends, he could be openly con-temptuous about not only Catholic rituals butreligious rituals in general, wrote Sanford D.Horwitt, an Alinsky biographer. But despitehis atheism Alinsky found common causewith religious leaders on political matters.

Sometimes he invoked religious imageryand used salty language to make a point:I think that somebody who goes off in amonastery and starts praying for the salvationof mankind and doesnt do a damn thing butsits there and prays, I think that when thatguy comes up for judgment that the judge isgoing to sit there and say why you cruddybastard.

Alinsky concentrated his efforts on unions,while Meegan focused on churches andcommunity groups. Meegan helped Alinsky

Father John Baumann, founderof People Improving Communities

Through Organizing (PICO)


42/555September 2009

Foundation Watch

CCI, an af liate of ACORN, is where theshell game begins.

ACORN has over 200 different entities thatthe money gets moved around to - for thispurpose to that purpose, this organization to

that organization, said Turner. We believethe way the money has been moved around,theyve been laundering money.

Former ACORN of cials say these activi-ties are controlled by the mysterious CCI,which is located in ACORNs headquartersin New Orleans. CCI handles the nancialaffairs of hundreds of af liates within theACORN network. ACORN member dues,government money, and foundation grants,are all sucked into the CCI vortex often neverto be seen again.

When the cover-up became public in thesummer of 2008, Drummond Pike, thefounder of the far-left Tides Foundation,stepped forward and paid off the debt usinghis personal funds. Wade Rathke had beena member of the board of the Tides Founda-tion (2007 assets: $186 million), which hasprovided more than $400 million in grantsto activist nonpro ts since 2000.

ACORN concealed the embezzlement byentering the missing funds as a loan toan ACORN of cer on the ledgers of CCI.At the national ACORN board meeting inJune last year, Wade Rathke told his fellowcommunity organizers that he had to coverup the embezzlement so the groups right-

ingratiate himself with the Chicago Archdio-cese. His brother, Monsignor Peter Meegan,served as Bishop Bernard Sheils secretary.Over time Alinskys organizing efforts in theBack of the Yards, a section in the SouthwestSide of Chicago, gained the support of Bishop

Sheil, a liberal who founded the nationalCatholic Youth Organization.

Alinsky also worked with Jack Egan, astudent at Chicagos Mundelein Seminary,who later became a crusading left-wingpriest. Monsignor Egan became an importantAlinsky ally and a member of the board of Alinskys Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF).He also went on later to play a signi cant rolein the creation of CCHD and the CatholicCommittee on Urban Ministry (CCUM).

CCHDs kinship with ACORN is furtherdiscussed in a March 2000 Sojourners maga-zine article by Helene Slessarev

Strunk's Notice of Motion with Affidavit and Exhibits to Intervene as Defendant in ACORN v USA EDNY...

Documents

Transcript of Strunk's Notice of Motion with Affidavit and Exhibits to Intervene as Defendant in ACORN v USA EDNY...