2nd Circuit Case 08-4323 APPENDIX

08-4323
United States Court Of Appeals

For The Second Circuit
Ronald G. Loeber, et al.
Plaintiffs,
H. William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher Earl Strunk,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V.
Thomas J. Spargo, et al.
Defendants – Appellees
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York Decision
and Order of Lawrence E. Kahn, District Court Judge in Case No. 04 Civ. 1193
=====================================================================
APPENDIX
=====================================================================
THE AD HOC NYS CITIZENS FOR Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE self-represented w/o being an attorney
REDISTRICTING 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281
351 North Road Brooklyn, New York 11238
Hurley, NY 12443 (845) 901-6767 email: chris@strunk.ws
Docket
Date Appendix Item Description Page
Item No.:
10/2/2008 126 SECOND AMENDED ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to

US Court of Appeals of Record on Appeal re 125 Notice of …..A-1
Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
9/29/2008 125 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 110 Judgment, 109
Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Letter Request, by
Christopher Earl Strunk, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William .…A-2
Van Allen. (ban) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
9/19/2008 123 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 110 Judgment, 109
Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Letter Request by
Christopher Earl Strunk, H. William Van Allen. (ban) ..….A-9
(Entered: 09/19/2008)
9/19/2008 124 SECOND AMENDED ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to
US Court of Appeals of Record on Appeal re 123 Notice of
Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 09/19/2008) …...A-8
9/18/2008 USCA Case Number is 08-4323-cv for 118 Notice of Appeal

filed by H. William Van Allen. (cbm ) (Entered: 09/18/2008)
….A-14
9/11/2008 122 AMENDED ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court

of Appeals of Record on Appeal re 118 Notice of Appeal.
(ban) (Entered: 09/11/2008) ….A-12
9/10/2008 121 ORDER denying 115 Motion for Reconsideration re 109

Order on Motion to Dismiss. ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Motion for reconsideration is DENIED. ORDERED that the
Court's 7/31/08 Order, dismissing the Amended Complaint ….A-32
and denying Plaintiff's request for a three-judge panel is
AFFIRMED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on
9/10/08. (ban) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
9/2/2008 118 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 110 Judgment, 109 Order on
Motion to Dismiss, Order on Letter Request, by H. William ….A-13
Van Allen. (ban) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
8/18/2008 117 RESPONSE in Opposition re 115 MOTION for
Reconsideration re 110 Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 109 Order on
Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Letter Request, filed by. ….A-29
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Baldwin, Aaron)
(Entered: 08/18/2008)
8/11/2008 115 MOTION for Reconsideration re 110 Judgment 109 Order on
Motion to Dismiss, Order on Letter Request. filed by ….A-24
Christopher Earl Strunk. (ban) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
Index Page i
Docket
Item No.:
12/29/2009 Current District Docket for 04-cv-1193 ….A-36

8/1/2008 110 JUDGMENT in favor of DOE, Otsego County Board of
Elections, The New York State Board of Elections, et al.
against AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional
Legislative Redistricting, Burr V. Deitz, Christopher Earl
Strunk, Edward M. Person, Jr, Fairlene G. Rabenda, Gabriel ….A-23
Razzano, H. William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone,
Ronald E. Sacoff, Ronald G. Loeber, Roy-Pierre Detiege-
Cormier, William A. Gage, William E. Bombard. (ban)
(Entered: 08/01/2008)
7/31/2008 109 ORDER granting Defendant's 98 Motion to Dismiss.
ORDERED that Plaintiff's request 104 Letter Request for a
three-judge panel is DENIED. ORDERED that the Amended
….A-16
Complaint 25 is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by
Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 7/31/08. (ban) (Entered:
08/01/2008)
7/2/2008 105 DECISION AND ORDER denying 92 Appeal of District
Judge Decision to District Court. The Plaintiff's Objections to
the Magistrate Judge's Decision are DENIED. ORDERED
………..
that the Magistrate Judge's Order dated 2/21/08 (Dkt#90) is
UPHELD. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on
7/2/08. (ban) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
5/1/2008 102 REPLY to Response to Motion re 98 MOTION to Dismiss
pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an
order denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel ………..
under 28 U.S.C. §2284; filed by (Baldwin, Aaron) (Entered:
05/01/2008)
4/29/2008 101 Strunk's RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 MOTION to
Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and
for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge
...A-140
panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284 filed by Christopher Earl
Strunk. (ban) Modified on 4/30/2008 (ban). (Entered:
04/30/2008)
4/10/2008 100 LETTER REQUEST AND ORDER re 96 Order to Strike.
Request for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Senior
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 4/10/08. (ban) (Entered: ………..
04/11/2008)
4/9/2008 98 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c)
and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a
three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; Response to
Motion due by 4/29/2008 Reply to Response to Motion due
...A-132
by 5/5/2008. Motion Hearing set for 5/16/2008 09:30 AM
before Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn by (Attachments: # 1
Memorandum of Law, # 2 Declaration of Service) (Baldwin,
Aaron) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
Index Page ii
Docket
Item No.:
3/31/2008 96 ORDER TO STRIKE 95 Letter Motion from Christopher

Earl Strunk requesting Transfer . Signed by Senior Judge ...A-131
Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/31/08. (ban) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
3/28/2008 95 **STRICKEN Pursuant to Judge Kahn's 3/31/08 Strike
Order** REPLY/Letter Motion from Christopher Earl
Strunk, pro se, requesting Transfer submitted to Judge Kahn. ...A-130
(ban) Modified on 4/1/2008 (ban). (Entered: 03/28/2008)
3/10/2008 94 RESPONSE to Motion re 92 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Christopher Earl
Strunk re 90 Order on Letter Request filed by Thomas J.
………..
Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, George E. Pataki, Randy A.
Daniels, Eliot Spitzer, Sheldon Silver, DOE. (Baldwin,
Aaron) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
2/27/2008 TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 92 APPEAL OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by
Christopher Earl Strunk re 90 Order on Letter Request :
Response to Motion due by 3/18/2008 Motion Hearing set for ………..
4/4/2008 09:30 AM in Albany before Senior Judge Lawrence
E. Kahn. (MOTION ON SUBMIT) (ban) (Entered:
02/27/2008)
2/27/2008 93 NOTICE of Objections to NYS AAG Motion for Extension
of time to Answer by Christopher Earl Strunk. (ban) ...A-127
(Entered: 02/27/2008)
2/25/2008 92 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District
Court by Christopher Earl Strunk re 90 Order on Letter ………..
Request. (ban) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
2/21/2008 90 TEXT ORDER granting 89 , Defendants' Letter Request to
extend the time to serve and file either an answer or motion
until April 9, 2008. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by ………..
Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece on 2/21/08. (Treece,
Randolph) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
2/20/2008 89 Letter Motion from AAG Aaron M. Baldwin requesting
Extension of time to answer for legislators submitted to ………..
Judge Kahn. (Baldwin, Aaron) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
1/8/2008 81 DECISION AND ORDER granting 45 Letter Request, ;
granting 64 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; granting
65 Motion to Dismiss; denying 66 Motion to Change Venue.
ORDERED, that unless Plaintiffs name and properly serve
………..
the John and Jane Doe Defendnats within 30 days of the date
of this Order, this action shall be dismissed as to them.
Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 1/8/08. (ban)
(Entered: 01/08/2008)
Index Page iii

Docket
Item No.:
4/7/2006 77 ORDER granting 76 Letter Request and directing the

affirmation be added to the response papers previously filed.
Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 4/7/06. (amt, ) ………..
(Entered: 04/10/2006)
3/28/2006 76 Letter Motion from Jeffrey M. Dvorin for Thomas J. Spargo,
Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A.
Daniels, Eliot Spitzer requesting permission to file
Defendants' Affirmation in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
………..
to Change Venue submitted to Judge Kahn. (Attachments: #
1 Affirmation of Jeffrey M. Dvorin in Opposition to Motion
to Change Venue)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) Modified on 3/28/2006
(wbl, ). (Entered: 03/28/2006)
3/27/2006 74 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 66 Motion to Change
Venue,,, filed by Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno,
Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot ……..
Spitzer. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
3/27/2006 75 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 66 MOTION to Change Venue
filed by Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver,
George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Declaration of ………..
Service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) Modified on 3/28/2006 (wbl, ).
Additional attachment(s) added on 4/10/2006 (amt, ).
(Entered: 03/27/2006)
3/21/2006 73 STRUNK'S RESPONSE in Opposition re 65 First MOTION
to Dismiss filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # ...A-125
1 Certificate of Service)(ban) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
3/9/2006 70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 First MOTION to

Dismiss the Complaint filed by The City of New York,
Michael Bloomberg. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Giardina, ...A-123
Anthony) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
3/6/2006 69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 64 MOTION to Dismiss,
66 MOTION to Change Venue Opposition to Motion to
Change Venue filed by John Ashcroft. (Attachments: # 1 ………..
Exhibit(s) Exhibit A# 2 certificate of service)(Cottrell,
Barbara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
2/28/2006 67 MEMORANDUM OF LAW r: opposition to 64 Motion to
Dismiss,, 65 Motion to Dismiss, and in support of 66 Motion
to Change Venue, filed by AD HOC New York State
...A-121
Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting.
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(wjg, ) (Entered:
03/02/2006)
Index Page iv
Docket
Item No.:
2/27/2006 66 CROSS-MOTION to Change Venue by Roy-Pierre Detiege-

Cormier, Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Rassano, Edward M.
Person, Jr, Christopher Earl Strunk, AD HOC New York
State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting,
Burr V. Deitz, Ronald G. Loeber, William E. Bombard,
William A. Gage, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William Van
Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda. Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2006
09:30 AM in Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. ….A-67
Response to Motion due by 3/27/2006. (Attachments: # 1
Strunk declaration in support of cross-motion and in
opposition to motions to dismiss# 2 Forjone declaration in
support of cross-motion and in opposition to motions to
dismiss# 3 Van Allen declaration in support of cross-motion
and in opposition to motions to dismiss# 4 Proof of
Service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
2/17/2006 65 First MOTION to Dismiss Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2006
09:30 AM in Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn.
Response to Motion due by 3/21/2006 Reply to Response to
Motion due by 3/27/2006. by Michael Bloomberg, The City …A-64
of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law # 2
Certificate of Service)(Giardina, Anthony) (Entered:
02/17/2006)
2/10/2006 64 MOTION to Dismiss Motion Hearing set for 3/17/2006 09:30
AM in Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. Response to
Motion due by 2/28/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due
by 3/6/2006. by John Ashcroft. (Attachments: # 1 Motion to …A-57
Dismiss# 2 Declaration # 3 Memorandum of Law # 4
Attachment# 5 Certificate of Service)(Cottrell, Barbara)
(Entered: 02/10/2006)
2/6/2006 63 Complaint filed in WDNY 06-CV-0080 ...A-107
12/30/2005 57 NOTICE of Appearance by James E. Konstanty on behalf of
Otsego County Board of Elections (Attachments: # 1
…A-75
Affidavit of service)(Konstanty, James) (Entered:
12/30/2005)
12/29/2005 56 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Thomas J. Spargo,
Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A. …A-53
Daniels, Eliot Spitzer.(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
12/28/2005 55 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by The New York State
Board of Elections and Peter Kosinski.(Valentine, Todd) …A-52
(Entered: 12/28/2005)
12/26/2005 53 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by National Association
of Secretaries of State.(Long, James) (Entered: 12/26/2005) …A-51
Index Page v
Docket
Item No.:
12/16/2005 46 REPLY DECLARATION to Response to Motion re: 33

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Christopher
Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of service)(wjg, ) ………..
(Entered: 12/16/2005)
12/16/2005 47 REQUEST & ORDER, Answer due date updated for The
City of New York, answer due 1/30/2006. Signed by Judge
………..
Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/16/05. (wjg, ) (Entered:
12/16/2005)
12/16/2005 50 REPLY MEMORANDUM to Response to Motion re 33
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by AD HOC New
York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative ………..
Redistricting. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
12/12/2005 37 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER as to Pltf. Christopher
Strunk; Returning Letter addressed to Chief Judge Scullin
dated 12/1/05; Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on ………..
2/7/05. (kcl, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
12/12/2005 39 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for
Preliminary Injunction filed by The New York State Board of ………..
Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
Injunction Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for
Preliminary Injunction filed by The New York State Board of ………..
Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
12/12/2005 42 NOTICE of Appearance by James E. Long on behalf of
National Association of Secretaries of State (Long, James) ………..
(Entered: 12/12/2005)
Injunction filed by John Ashcroft. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) # 2 Declaration # 3 certificate of service)(Cottrell, ………..
Barbara) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
12/12/2005 45 Letter Motion from Leslie Reynolds for deft NASS
requesting removal from this case for National Association of
Secretaries of State, submitted to Judge Kahn. (wjg, ) ………..
(Entered: 12/13/2005)
12/9/2005 44 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER rejecting papers
submitted by pltfs. Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on ………..
12/9/05. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
12/8/2005 35 ORDER granting 34 Letter Request . Signed by Judge
Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/8/05. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005) ………..
Index Page vi
Docket
Item No.:
11/29/2005 33 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for Preliminary Injunction and

to further address the issue of the convening of a three-judge
panel, on application filed by Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier,
Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Rassano, Edward M. Person, Jr,
Christopher Earl Strunk, AD HOC New York State Citizens
for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, Ronald G. ………..
Loeber, William E. Bombard, William A. Gage, John-Joseph
Forjone, H. William Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda.Hearing
date is 12/16/05 @ 9:30am in Albany. Response ddl is set to
12/12/05 and reply ddl is set to 12/14/05.(wjg, ) (Entered:
11/30/2005)
11/29/2005 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 33 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for
Preliminary Injunction. Response to Motion due by
12/12/2005 Reply to Response to Motion due by 12/14/2005.
………..
Motion Hearing set for 12/16/2005 09:30 AM in Albany
before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. (wjg, ) (Entered:
11/30/2005)
11/23/2005 29 MEMORANDUM OF LAW filed by AD HOC New York
State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting in
support of application for Order to Show Cause and TRO. ………..
(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Van Allen in support of
application)(wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
11/21/2005 25 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by
Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Cover letter advising of related …A-96
cases)(wjg, ). (Entered: 11/22/2005)
10/17/2005 23 AMENDED ORDER; The Court amends the 10/4/05 order at
paragraph referenced within; In light of the amended order,
defts' counsel is hereby granted a 15 day extension of time in
………..
which to comply with the Court's instructions w/ in the
amended paragraph. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.
on 10/17/05. (kcl, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
10/4/2005 22 ORDER: Plaintiff's request for reassignment of this matter to
a different Judge is denied; Clerk shall serve a courtesy copy
of this order upon the attys. listed within according to the 2nd
Circuit's Summary Order; Further, either Ms. Miller of Mr.
Smirlock or another atty from their office shall either file a
………..
notice of appeal on behalf of defts w/in 15 days if they intend
to continue to represent defts in this action or notify the Court
whether defts will be proceeding pro se or whether they will
be represented by other counsel. Signed by Judge Frederick J.
Scullin Jr. on 10/4/05. (kcl, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
9/23/2005 21 Letter from pro se pltf Strunk to CJ Scullin requesting
reassignment of case, submitted to Judge Scullin. (wjg, ) ………..
(Entered: 09/23/2005)
Index Page vii

Docket
Item No.:
9/22/2005 20 ORDER. Amended Pleadings ddl (for filing of amended

complaint) set to 11/21/2005.Within 30 days of the filing of
the amended cmp, all parties shall submit briefing re: request ………..
for three-judge panel. Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on
9/22/05. (wjg, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
9/21/2005 19 MANDATE of USCA that appeal is DISMISSED in part,
VACATED in part and REMANDED, and that the several
motions of plaintiffs-appellants are DENIED. (wjg, ) ...A-179
(Entered: 09/21/2005)
6/08/2008 Brief from Strunk v USPS et al. Appeal Case 08-3242-CV
...A-147
6/08/2008 Appendix from Strunk v USPS et al. Appeal Case 08-3242
...A-155
10/29/02 Rodriguez v Pataki SDNY 02-cv-618 ORDER in re Strunk
...A-201
12/24/65 Jack B. Weinstein Columbia Law Review (Vol. 65:21)
Article on WMCA set of cases in re “the Effect of The
...A-191
Federal Reapportionment Decisions on Counties and Other
Forms of Municipal Government”
12/04/09 Times Union Article in RE Thomas J. Spargo; NY
Legislative Gazette Article re Thomas Spargo; Article re ...A-206
Thomas Spargo’s sentencing
12/30/09 Times Union Article re: Thomas J. Spargo role in Election of

Rep. Sweeny; Spargo role in Pyramid Companies Shopping ...A-207
Malls
12/30/09 New York Times end of Year 2009 Articles regarding
Turmoil in New York State debt, Legislature and need to ...A-209
Split New York in two parts
08/07/1879 Society of Jesus website
http://www.sjweb.infor/jesuits/chronShow.cfm - page 29 of
36 portion of History for the Society of Jesus especially when ...A-211
the New York Province of the Society of Jesus was formed
11/24/1963 Society of Jesus website
http://www.sjweb.infor/jesuits/chronShow.cfm - page 33 of
36 portion of History for the Society of Jesus especially when ...A-212
the word “justice” appears in re: the Social Justice strategy of
the New York Province of the Society of Jesus
08/05/09 Vatican Assassins website
http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 - regarding the most
comprehensive list of the Chain of Command leading and ...A-213
controlling Barack Hussein Obama and his administration
Index Page viii

Case 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SECOND AMENDED
Loeber, et al. CLERK’S CERTIFICATION
vs. Civil/Criminal No: 04-cv-1193

CCA No: 08-4323-cv
Spargo, et al.
I, LAWRENCE K BAERMAN, CLERK of the District Court of the UNITED STATES for the
Northern District of New York, DO, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing docket entries, with the
exception of the documents listed below are maintained electronically on the court’s CM/ECF
system and constitute the Record on Appeal in the above-entitled action.
The following documents are not available electronically and are currently maintained
in traditional fashion in the city of Albany Clerk’s Office.
This case is 100% Electronic.
Any additional records which are not currently available electronically, please feel free to
contact us and we will arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

caused the Seal of said Court to be hereto affixed at the City of
Albany, New York, this 2nd day of October, 2008.
Lawrence K. Baerman, Clerk

U.S. District Court
s/
By: Britney Norton

Deputy Clerk

SECOND AMENDED
Ronald G. Loeber, et al. CLERK’S CERTIFICATION
vs. Civil/Criminal No: 1:04-cv-1193

CCA No: 08-4323-cv
This case is 100% Electronic

Albany, New York, this 19th day of September, 2008.

U.S. District Court
s/
By: Britney Norton

Deputy Clerk

AMENDED
Ronald G. Loeber, et al. CLERK’S CERTIFICATION
vs. Civil/Criminal No: 1:04-cv-1193

CCA No:
This case is 100% Electronic. FILING FEE PAID 9/8/08.

Albany, New York, this 11th day of September, 2008.

U.S. District Court
s/
By: Britney Norton

Deputy Clerk
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please take notice that on September 2, 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 prior to 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
s/
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-1193 LEK/RFT
NOTICE OF APPEAL - Docket # 118
Document being Appealed:
Final Judgement: Docket # 109, 110

Interlocutory Appeal: Docket #
Other: Docket #
FEE STATUS: Paid Due X Waived (IFP/CJA)
IFP revoked Application Attached IFP pending before USDJ
COUNSEL: CJA RETAINED PRO SE X
TIME STATUS: Timely X Out of Time
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Granted Denied
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY: Granted Denied N/A


RONALD G. LOEBER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against- 1:04-CV-1193
(LEK/RFT)
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. § 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. 81.
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. §15301-15545 (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
1
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. §§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 congressional districts. Id. at ¶29. 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. 81. 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 further 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 it
is necessary to convene a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a).
II. 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
2
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 plaintiff’s 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.’” Id. at 1967 (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v.
Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 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.” Iqbal 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. § 2284, “[a] district court of three judges shall be convened when . . . an action is filed
3
challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the
apportionment of any statewide legislative body.” 28 U.S.C. § 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 Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715
(1962).
A single judge may dismiss a claim if the Constitutional claim is insubstantial, Bailey v.
Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33 (1962), 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 213 (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) (“[S]tanding . . . 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 Plaintiff’s claims
In turning to the Amended Complaint, the Court is aware that because Plaintiffs are
proceeding pro 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. 81.
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
4
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. See 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.1 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. ¶ 30), “rotten boroughs injury” (¶ 32), and “disproportionate
diminished dilution injuries” (¶ 32), the Court is unable to decipher from the Amended Complaint a
1
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.
2
This comes from a very liberal construction of the following: “That Plaintiffs as US
Citizens are denied equal protection and substantive due process suffer injury to individual Bottom-
up suffrage and Homerule autonomy of the PEOPLE within a municipal entity as 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 unfunded 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” (“VAP”) rather than “Citizen Voting Age
Persons” (“CVAP”), is prima facie discrimination evidence proven in related case . . .” Am. Compl.
¶ 30.
5
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 if prior decisions
render the issue frivolous and leave no room for any inference of controversy. Goosby v. Osser, 409
U.S. 512, 518 (1973); 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 gerrymandering. Rodriguez 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. 31. 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
constitution, the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional claims are hereby dismissed in their entirety.
III. 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 further
ORDERED, that the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 25) is DISMISSED in its entirety; and
it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 31, 2008

Albany, New York
7
====================================================================
* * * * * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * * * * *
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
DOCKET NO: 1:04-cv-1193 (LEK/RFT)

Plaintiff,
THOMAS J. SPARGO, et al.,
Defendant(s).
JURY VERDICT. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The
issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
XX DECISION by COURT. This action came to trial or hearing before the

Court. The issues have been tried and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be entered in favor of defendants

and against plaintiffs.. ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is Granted;
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a three-judge panel is Denied; ORDERED that the
Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety, all pursuant to the Order of the
Honorable Lawrence E. Kahn, dated July 31, 2008.
DATE: July 31, 2008 LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN

CLERK OF THE COURT
s/B. Norton
By:
DEPUTY CLERK
Case 1:W-cv-Oll93-LEK-RFT Document 115 Filed 0811112008 Page 1 of 5
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK

593 Venderbi A m u e 428 1
Brooklyn, New York 1 1238
-
(631) 745-6402 1 Email uncasvotes2@vahoo.com
August 8,2008
BY MATL U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Judge Lawrence E. Kalm N.D. OF N.Y.
United States Distrid Judge of the FILED
U.S. District Court Northern D i of New York
James T. ~ o l e yU.S. Cburthause AUG 1 1 2008
445 Broadway, Room 424 LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN,CLERK
Albany, NY 12207 ALBANY
Re: b & r et aL v. Snraeo et al. NDNY 04cv-1193
Subject FRCvP Rule 60 reconsideration of the August 1,2008 decision
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn,
As a sovereign natural pason, I am above the cqomte mtme of this anat, and as a
sovereign citilien of the State of New York am guaranteed my Supreme sovereignty in the people
under the social contract of the state -on and laws, and that no authority can oa any
pretence whtsoewer, be exercised over the citizens of this state,but such as is or shall be derived
fiom 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 pmollsof the State of New Yorlc
(a c q m a k entity), who are gndeful to Ahnighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its
blessings apart hany such corporate fiction or pretender n#match, and or as fimther guaranteed
by the 9and I@ Amendments to the Federal Constitution, and Magna Carte. That nunc pro tunc I
inherit all the sovereign rights, privileges and property that a living natural human inures from the
creator Yahweh whose son Jesus Christ guarantees my sovereign Freedom given firm Almighty
Gad against corporatefidion bent on enslaving unbelievffs.
That for the record and with no dishonot intended, but may be a matter of 28 USC 455
recusal, if for no other reasonnotherthan clarification for out appeal firom the August 1,2008
decision in which the collrt has disparaged our rights gulrranteed under the Amendment, I must
ask whether or not the Court is able to make a judgment h e and clear of other commitments, the
Court must mwer tbe following questions:
Have you taken any oath other than that of your oath of oflice?
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 1,2008dismissal disparages our social contract right to a republican fonn
of governmat in New York, as such violates our nintb medment right enumeration in the U.S.
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be canstrued to deny or disparage athers retained by the
people; and that m y false statanent that discredits or distracts &om the reput&on of rights,
p rom ,and by injurious falsehoodlibels and defames my title to our social contract equity in the
August 1,2008 decision flies in the fbce of the NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 that
guarantees quote:
. Case 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Document 115 Filed 0811112008 Page 2of 5
S2. Supmne mmmignty m tire@.

No anthori@ecm,onanypretmae w h d a m w , be
acercised~tlreci~oftfislrr~e,~btdharisorJItaUbe~~dgna~edby
tire people of this Sme.
That any faise sbtenmt that discreditsor distracts fiom the reputdon of my individual
freedoms, liberty, pmperty, that by such injurious falsehood libels and d e h 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 homerule t-tory d e s c n i i as such by "no two cotmtiesor the
fedtory thereof as now oqpnhd", that would be a certifiedquestion 6vm 9Circuit to NYS
Appeals Court, and that applies unda the NYS CoPLptihEtion&le IUSectios, 4 that quote:
No wunty shaU hawfotn or m m senators unless it SMhave aJiJl rrdio* each senator.
No county shall haw more than one-third ofall the senators; and nu two d e s or t k
territory thereof as now o+d, which me adjoining counties, or which am separated on& by
public waters, shallhaw mom than me-ltakfof all tk emtors.
The mtiojbr apportioning senators shall ahvays be obtained by dividw the mmber of
inhtabikmts, excluding aliens, bym,and the senate shall always be composed of$& members,
The W m cme ehnhafdthef d a : 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 a d d i t i d senator or senators shall be given to such county m addition to the fifty
senators, and the whole number of senatom shall be increased to tha! extent.
The WC4 cuse &nrh,oicd tkcf o d ; t%e 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 popmhticn size that is determined by home rule
status based apom entitkmcmt to a board of elections witbm and that the assembly size ratio as
with m a t e enhrgcmemt is dcctired e n ~ t i o n a l )
Two members shall be apportioned to every other county. (Still q a h r s a b o a ~ a r ~county
lt
-
to be entitled to at least two ADs within WHOLLY WITHIN.)
That the court ignoresthe express povision for d e f i c ' i e s in county home rule Mined 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 t h e o f to some other county or counties.
Your finding based upon the proper use of WMiCi quires that mly 50 senate districts and
150 assembly districts may be used until the legislattm or a mandated twenty year constitutional
convention determines othmvk a new legislative en- formula.
That ~mkssYour tinding negates the existence of the entire New Y a k Sme Cmdtution n
it appears, then q u i r e s that my 18 Senate D i is only one of fifty to include 3 Assembly
Districts alresdy prscleared by the US DOJ Voting Rights Sectionwholly within the I 8thSD.
Further, there is no legal ardhority m Reynolds v. Sims or W m v Lomenu, tfiat gives an
ArticleIUcourtthepwertodiminstetheWSCArticltsIIlsectiorr1 tbougb6initsentirety,
You are absolutely bound to only a nanvwty tailored rescission as done in the &rker v Caw case
that would apply to a specific injury under the 14&Amendment.
Further, I was an intervener parly in R&guez v Pat& and therein was granted stmding to
sue sepamkly firwn the nanvw complaint there that inter alia quested an hmase m senate
Case 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Document 115 Filed 0811112008 Page 3 of 5
districts within NYC fiom 62 to 63, along with other claims challarged under the so-called VRA as
if the minority makeup of assembly dislricts within NYC varied violative of the VRA, and that all
causes were dismissed fur the masons that your decision misconstrues and will not standup to my
appeal will be reversed, in that R d g w e z v. Put& was a sham case as defined under 28 USC 1359.
Furthermore, that any fithe sta&mmt that discrcdi or distracts from the Fepucetion of my
rights, property, and by such injurious falsehood libels and defames my title to our social con-
equity as applies under the NYS ConstihdionAdele lll Section 5 tiwd f i r Brooklyn ( W a Kings
County)firom April 2002 applies to my New York 18* Senate District (SD)daae diff'tly for
SDswithin Brooklyn as my equity mjuq here despite cxp.ess mandate, quote:
assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be,
of convenient and contiguous tenitory in as compact f m 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 districtscannot be evenly divided
among the senated i of any county.
That the court disparagesand defiunes my and Plaintie' rights by cheny picking done with
~,Reyn,JdsvSims,andR~vPrdaAicasesttratwereimpmpglyappliadbythe~
and when exposed to second circuit any fair dealmg with the issues retunr to district again fw the
nextCensuson April 15,201Ofot~iveryDecemba31,2010.
At the heart of the cases is denial of a republican h m of government in New Yorlc that has
-ed any expecbtion of participation in the electoral process fromthe vast majody of state
citizens resident in a home rule county who in no less than 47 counties are withoutany dedicated
voice in the legislature.
WehavearighttobwhetbaornotthecourtcansidersthemcanstiMionhasbeen
nullified in its entirety by the WMX Re!ynoldp v Siins, R&guez decisions and whether or not this
court miders our c i b n right to a republican fibrin of gov-t under the amendment to
F e d d constitutioncontinues.Nowhere in any -f case to date has there been any expression
that would give anyone other than a state citizen who is also a USA citizen over 17years of age the
right to sufbge and when otherwise conshued dispareges that right pro4ected by the 9h
Amendment as you have done by your decision.
The expms words of the state constitution have been ignored by this court which in itself is
an outrageous dispmpmmt of our 9amenQnart rights.
After March 6,2006 only a Federal Judge and the NYS BOE has aukwity under the State
Canstihrtion to redistricting state legislative and federal house districts, given the Cact that the state
legislature has no authority after Merch 6, of the sixlh year following the redistricting.
I am only able to speak fiw myself haem and as such speak with the authority ofa sowreign
citizen with power over the Weral courts who have screwed up here m New Yorlc and are required
to correct ignorant mistakes; thus I urge the Court to reconsider the tresl#rssupon me aad if any of
the questions listed above are amwered in the affimtetive that recusal applies under 28 USC 455.
Respedttlly dmiaed by,

Dabed: August8,2008 I s l ~ E d S C l o l r )
BmoklynNewYorlc
Chrktopher Earl Stnmk
cc Plaintiffsand Dckndants' coumcl(s)
STATE OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AN D R EW M. C U O MO ST AT E C O U N S EL D IVISIO N
Attorney G eneral Litigation Bureau
Writer Direct: (518) 474-2913

Fax: (518) 473-1572
August 18, 2008
Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn via CM/ECF

United States District Judge
James T. Foley Courthouse
445 Broadway, Room 424
Albany, NY 12207-2926
Re: Loeber, et al. v. Spargo, et al.

04-CV-1193 (LEK/RFT)
Dear Judge Kahn:
Please accept this letter brief on behalf of the State Defendants in response to and opposition
to the motion for reconsideration submitted by plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk (docket #115). 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
#110) and this Court’s corresponding Order (docket #109) dated July 31, 2008 which dismissed the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and denied the plaintiffs’ 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 plaintiff moves
under Rule 60(b). That Rule allows for relief from judgment 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 plaintiff does not suggest either that there has been an intervening change in controlling law
or that he has discovered new evidence, the defendants further 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 be denied.
T h e C a p i t o l , Albany, N Y 12224-0341 (518) 474-2913 Fax (518) 473-1572

* NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS
While the granting or denial of a motion under such rule is within the broad discretion of the
Court, "[s]ince 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." Id.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict and the plaintiff’s burden in
seeking reconsideration is heavy. The Second Circuit has instructed that "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." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 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 plaintiff is improperly seeking to do in this
instance.
The plaintiff has 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
“disparages our social contact right to a republican form of government in New York.” (Docket
#115).
It is respectfully submitted that in the July 31, 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 plaintiffs’ arguments under New York State Constitution Article 3,
Section 4 (see, Order at docket #109 at pp. 4-5) and the plaintiffs’ potential federal constitutional
challenges to the redistricting plan at issue (Id., 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 circumstances warranting such extraordinary relief. The plaintiff has simply
not met his heavy burden of demonstrating any grounds upon which the Court’s prior decision should
be altered.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Aaron M. Baldwin
Aaron M. Baldwin
Assistant Attorney General
Bar Roll #510175
cc: All Plaintiffs (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 § 1746, that on August 18, 2008, I
served the annexed Letter Brief upon all defendants of record via CM/ECF 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 of the 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
/s/ AARON M. BALDWIN
AARON M. BALDWIN
Christopher Strunk Ronald E. Sacoff

593 Vanderbilt Avenue 84 Boylan Street
Apt # 281 Staten Island, NY 10312
Brooklyn, NY 11238
Gabriel Rassano
Ronald G. Loeber 135 Gordon Place
2130 Berne Altamont Road Freeport, NY 11520
Altamont, NY 12009
Edward M. Person, Jr.
William E. Bombard 392 Saldane Avenue
P.O. Box 882 North Babylon, NY 11703
Glens Falls, NY 12801
The Ad Hoc NYS Citizens for Constitutional
William A. Gage Legislative Redistricting
10 Greenfield Lane 351 North Road
Hampton, NY 12837 Hurley, NY 12443
John Forjone Burr V. Deitz

P.O. Box 28 444 Whitehall Road
Clarendon, NY 14429 Albany, NY 12208
H. William Van Allen Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier

351 North Road 25 Hattie Jones Circle
Hurley, NY 12443 Brooklyn, NY 11213
Fairlene G. Rabenda
8 Claudia Lane
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Plaintiffs,
-against- 1:04-CV-1193
(LEK/RFT)
THOMAS SPARGO, individually and as Justice of
the NYS Supreme Court, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Letter Motion filed by Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk
(“Strunk”) requesting reconsideration of this Court’s Order, dated July 31, 2008, dismissing the
Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiffs’ request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C.A. §
2284(a). Letter Motion (Dkt. No. 115); July 31 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
on a party moving for reconsideration of an order is thus substantial. Toland v. Walsh, No. 9:04-
CV-0773, 2008 WL 657247, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2008). There are only three possible grounds
upon which motions for reconsideration may be granted: (1) an intervening change in law, (2) the
1
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 free and clear of
other commitments.”1 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. §§
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.” Liteky
v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994).2 Plaintiff has also failed to meet the requirements of
1
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.” Id.
2
It should also be noted also that the determination of whether such an affidavit is timely
and legally sufficient is made by the judge whose recusal is sought. See, e.g., Berger v. United
States, 255 U.S. 22, 32, 36 (1921); LoCascio v. United States, 473 F.3d 493, 498 (2d Cir.2007)
2
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 In re Aguinda, 241 F.3d 194, 201 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting United States v.
Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811, 815 (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 31 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 Court’s personal jurisdiction over them by
filing this suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h); see, e.g., Andros Compania Maritima, S.A. v. Intertanker Ltd.,
718 F.Supp. 1215, 1217 (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)).
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 Nat’l Auto Brokers Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 572 F.2d 953, 958 (2d Cir.1978), cert.
denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979)) (“‘a judge has an affirmative duty to inquire into the legal sufficiency
of such an affidavit and not to disqualify himself unnecessarily . . .’”).
3
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.” Id. 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 Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 115) is DENIED; and
it is further
ORDERED, that the Court’s July 31, 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
4
Loeber et al v. Spargo et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT - ... Page 1 of 58 Loeber et al v. Spargo et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT - ... Page 2 of 58
Loeber et al v. Spargo et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT PRO SE

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:26 PM
From: "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> Plaintiff
To: "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com>
William A. Gage represented by William A. Gage
10 Greenfield Lane
Box 73
1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Loeber et al v. Spargo et al Hampton, NY 12837
Lawrence E. Kahn, presiding 518-282-9818
Randolph F. Treece, referral Email: billgage@hotmail.com
Date filed: 10/15/2004 PRO SE
Date terminated: 08/01/2008
Date of last filing: 09/25/2009 Plaintiff
APPEAL, CLOSED John-Joseph Forjone represented by John-Joseph Forjone
U.S. District Court 141 Harris Ave.
Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE - Version 4.0.3] Lake Luzerne, NY 12846
(Albany) PRO SE
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Plaintiff
H. William Van Allen represented by H. William Van Allen
Loeber et al v. Spargo et al Date Filed: 10/15/2004 351 North Road
Assigned to: Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn Date Terminated: 08/01/2008 Hurley, NY 12443
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece Jury Demand: Plaintiff 845-389-4366
Case in other court: 2CCA, 04-05720cv-Pro se Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Fax: 845-339-2835
2nd Circuit, 08-00739-cv Voting Email: hvanallen@hvc.rr.com
2nd Circuit, 08-04323-cv Jurisdiction: U.S. Government PRO SE
SDNY, 02-00618 Defendant
Plaintiff
NDNY, 03-00502
SDNY, 04-cv-4881 Fairlene G. Rabenda represented by Fairlene G. Rabenda
WDNY, 05-cv-395 8 Claudia Lane
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Poughkeepsie, NY 12603-5606
914-462-5820
Plaintiff Email: frabenda@optonline.net
Ronald G. Loeber represented by Ronald G. Loeber PRO SE
2130 Berne Altamont Road Plaintiff
Altamont, NY 12009
Email: rloeber@nycap.rr.com Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier represented by Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier
PRO SE 25 Hattie Jones Circle
Brooklyn, NY 11213
Plaintiff PRO SE
William E. Bombard represented by William E. Bombard Plaintiff
P. O. Box 882
Glens Falls, NY 12801 Ronald E. Sacoff represented by Ronald E. Sacoff
Email: bbglensfalls@aol.com 84 Boylan Street
http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=20&filterBy=&.rand=6267306... 12/30/2009 http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=20&filterBy=&.rand=6267306... 12/30/2009
Staten Island, NY 10312 PRO SE

Email: rsaxpress@aol.com
PRO SE
V.
Plaintiff Defendant
Gabriel Razzano represented by Gabriel Razzano Thomas J. Spargo represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
135 Gordon Place individually and as Justice of the NYS New York State Attorney General -
Freeport, NY 11520 Supreme Court Albany Office
516-223-6883 The Capitol
PRO SE Albany, NY 12224
Plaintiff 518-473-6045
Fax: 518-473-1572
Edward M. Person, Jr. represented by Edward M. Person, Jr. Email: aaron.baldwin@oag.state.ny.us
no address given LEAD ATTORNEY
Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com
PRO SE Jeffrey M. Dvorin
Plaintiff Office of Attorney General - Albany
Department of Law
Christopher Earl Strunk represented by Christopher Earl Strunk The Capitol
593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Albany, NY 12224
Brooklyn, NY 11238 518-474-4441
434-825-9901 Fax: 518-473-1572
Email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com Email: jeffrey.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us
PRO SE LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AD HOC New York State Citizens represented by AD HOC New York State Citizens Defendant
for Constitutional Legislative for Constitutional Legislative Joseph L. Bruno represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Redistricting Redistricting (See above for address)
c/o H. William Van Allen LEAD ATTORNEY
351 North Road ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hurley, NY 12443
845 389-4366 Jeffrey M. Dvorin
Fax: 845 339-2835 (See above for address)
PRO SE LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burr V. Deitz represented by Burr V. Deitz Defendant

444 Whitehall Road George E. Pataki represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Albany, NY 12208 individually and as NYS Governor (See above for address)
518-489-0167 LEAD ATTORNEY
Email: bvdeitz@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Kosinski represented by Todd D. Valentine

Jeffrey M. Dvorin individually and his official capacity at New York State Board of Elections
(See above for address) the NASS Office of Special Counsel
LEAD ATTORNEY TERMINATED: 01/08/2008 40 Steuben Street
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Albany, NY 12207-1650
518-474-6236
Defendant
Fax: 518-486-4068
Randy A. Daniels represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Email:
NYS Secretary of State with authority (See above for address) tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us
and repository for corporations and LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
unincorporated associations service ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Jeffrey M. Dvorin John Ashcroft
(See above for address) per 28 USC 2403, The United States
LEAD ATTORNEY Attorney General
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Defendant
The New York State Board of represented by Todd D. Valentine
Eliot Spitzer represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Elections (See above for address)
per CPLR 1012, New York State (See above for address) and every Municipal Board of ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Attorney General LEAD ATTORNEY Elections, along with every
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Corporation Counsel of every
Municipality with a Board of Elections
Jeffrey M. Dvorin
(See above for address) Defendant
LEAD ATTORNEY The City of New York represented by Anthony Giardina
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED ("NYC"), Michael Bloomberg NYC's New York City Law Department -
Mayor Kingston
Defendant
TERMINATED: 01/08/2008 P.O. Box 1277
National Association of Secretaries represented by James E. Long Kingston, NY 12402
of State Office of James E. Long 845-340-7559
"NASS" 668 Central Avenue Fax: 845-340-7564
TERMINATED: 01/08/2008 Albany, NY 12206 Email: agiardin@law.nyc.gov
518-458-2444 TERMINATED: 01/15/2008
Fax: 518-458-2448 LEAD ATTORNEY
Email: Longlaw@mac.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED David W. Kloss
Kloss, Stenger Law Firm
Defendant
69 Delaware Avenue
Leslie Reynolds Suite 1003
Executive Director for the Executive Buffalo, NY 14202
Committee 716-847-2923
Fax: 716-847-2924
Defendant
Email: dwkloss@klosslaw.com John J. Bonacic represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

LEAD ATTORNEY (See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant Defendant
United States Election Assistance Neil D. Breslin represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Corporation NYS Senator (See above for address)
("EAC") ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TERMINATED: 01/08/2008
Defendant
Defendant
Martin Connor represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Thomas R. Wilkey NYS Senator (See above for address)
EAC Executive Director ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TERMINATED: 01/08/2008
Defendant
Defendant
John A. DeFrancisco represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Otsego County Board of Elections represented by James E. Konstanty NYS Senator (See above for address)
Konstanty Law Office ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
252 Main Street
Oneonta, NY 13820 Defendant
607-432-2245 Ruben Diaz, Sr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Fax: 607-432-4337 NYS Senator (See above for address)
Email: jek@konstantylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant
Defendant Martin Malave Dilan represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

NYS Senator (See above for address)
Michael Bloomberg represented by David W. Kloss ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TERMINATED: 01/08/2008 (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY Defendant
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Thomas K. Duane represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Defendant NYS Senator (See above for address)
Eric Adams represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
NYS Senator (See above for address) Defendant
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Hugh T. Farley represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
James S. Alesi represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John J. Flanagan represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

Loeber et al v. Spargo et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT - ... Page 9 of 58 Loeber et al v. Spargo et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT ... Page 10 of 58
Defendant ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) Jeffrey D. Klein represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED NYS Senator (See above for address)
Martin J. Golden represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) Liz Krueger represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Efrain Gonzalez, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) Carl Kruger represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Joseph A. Griffo represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) Andrew J. Lanza represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Kemp Hannon represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) William J. Larkin, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Ruth Hassell-Thompson represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) Kenneth P. LaValle represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Shirley L. Huntley represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) Vincent L. Leibell, III represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Craig M. Johnson represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) Thomas W. Libous represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Owen H. Johnson represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address)
Loeber et al v. Spargo et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT ... Page 11 of 58 Loeber et al v. Spargo et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT ... Page 12 of 58
Elizabeth O'C. Little represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Senator (See above for address) Frank Padavan represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Serphin R. Maltese represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Senator (See above for address) Kevin S. Parker represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Carl L. Marcellino represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Senator (See above for address) Bill Perkins represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
George D. Maziarz represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Senator (See above for address) Mary Lou Rath represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Velmanette Montgomery represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Senator (See above for address) Joseph E. Robach represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Thomas P. Morahan represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Senator (See above for address) John D. Sabini represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Michael F. Nozzolio represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Senator (See above for address) Stephen M. Saland represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
George Onorato represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Senator (See above for address) John L. Sampson represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Suzi Oppenheimer represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Senator (See above for address) Diane J. Savino represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Antoine M. Thompson represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

Eric T. Schneiderman represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ceasar Trunzo represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Jose M. Serrano represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED David J. Velesky represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
James L. Seward represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Dale M. Volker represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Dean G. Skelos represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED George H. Winner, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Malcolm A. Smith represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Catharine M. Young represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
William T. Stachowski represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter J. Abbate, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Defendant NYS Assemblyman (See above for address)
Toby Ann Stavisky represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Marc S. Alessi represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Andrea Steawrt-Cousins represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Tom Alfano represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
George Amedore represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Michael Benjamin represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED NYS Assemblyman (See above for address)
Carmen E. Arroyo represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Jonathan L. Bing represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Darrel J. Aubertine represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) William F. Boyland, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Jeffrion L. Aubry represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Philip Boyle represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Jim Bacalles represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Adam Bradley represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Greg Ball represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) James F. Brennan represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
William A. Barclay represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Richard L. Brodsky represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Bob Barra represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Alec Brook-Krasny represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Michael Benedetto represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address)

Daniel J. Burling represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Mike Cole represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Assemblyman (See above for address)
Marc W. Butler represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) William Colton represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Kevin A. Cahill represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) James D. Conte represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Nancy Calhoun represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Vivian E. Cook represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address)
Karim Camara represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Clifford W. Crouch represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Ron Canestrari represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Michael Cusick represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Ann Margaret Carrozza represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
Assemblywoman (See above for address) Steven Cymbrowitz represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Joan K. Christensen represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Francine DelMonte represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Barbara M. Clark represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) RoAnn M. Destito represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Herman D. Farrell, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

Luis M. Diaz represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Defendant
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ginny Fields represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Defendant NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address)
Ruben Diaz, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Gary D. Finch represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Jeffrey Dinowitz represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael J. Fitzpatrick represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Janet L. Duprey represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Defendant
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED George S. Latimer represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Patricia A. Eddington represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Charles D. Lavine represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Steve Englebright represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Joseph R. Lentol represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Joseph A. Errigo represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Barbara Lifton represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Adriano Espaillat represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter D. Lopez represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

Vito J. Lopez represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) John J. McEneny represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Donna A. Lupardo represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Tom McKevitt represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
William Magee represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Joel M. Miller represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
William B. Magnarelli represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Joan L. Millman represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Alan Maisel represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Marcus Molinaro represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Margaret M. Markey represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Joseph D. Morelle represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Nettie Mayersohn represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Catherine Nolan represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Roy McDonald represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Daniel J. O'Donnell represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
David G. McDonough represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

Thomas F. O'Mara represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Adam Clayton Powell, IV represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Bob Oaks represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) J. Gary Pretlow represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Felix Ortiz represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Jack Quinn represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
William L. Parment represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Annie Rabbitt represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Amy Paulin represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Andrew P. Raia represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Crystal D. Peoples represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Phil Ramos represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Jose R. Peralta represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Bill Reilich represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
N. Nick Perry represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Bob Reilly represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Audrey I. Pheffer represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Jose Rivera represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Aurelia Greene represented by Aaron M. Baldwin

Dennis H. Gabryszak represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Aileen M. Gunther represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Sandy Galef represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stephen Hawley represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
David F. Gantt represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jim Hayes represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Joe Giglio represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Carl E. Heastie represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Deborah J. Glick represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Andrew Hevesi represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Diane Gordon represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Dov Hikind represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Tim Gordon represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
NYS Assemblman (See above for address) Defendant
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Earlene Hooper represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Richard N. Gottfried represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sam Hoyt represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Janele Hyer-Spencer represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) David Koon represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Rhonda Jacobs represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Ivan C. Lafayette represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Ellen Jaffee represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Rory I. Lancman represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Hakeem Jeffries represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Naomi Rivera represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Susan V. John represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Peter M. Rivera represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Brian P. Kavanagh represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Annette Robinson represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Micah Z. Kellner represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Linda B. Rosenthal represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Tom Kirwan represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Joseph S. Saladino represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Brian M. Kolb represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant


Teresa R. Sayward represented by Aaron M. Baldwin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address)
Al Stirpe represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
William Scarborough represented by Aaron M. Baldwin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert K. Sweeney represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Michelle Schimel represented by Aaron M. Baldwin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Tedisco represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Robin Schimminger represented by Aaron M. Baldwin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fred W. Thiele, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Mark J.F. Schroeder represented by Aaron M. Baldwin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Titone represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Dede Scozzafava represented by Aaron M. Baldwin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michele R. Titus represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Anthony S. Seminerio represented by Aaron M. Baldwin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lou Tobacco represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Sheldon Silver represented by Aaron M. Baldwin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAD ATTORNEY Defendant
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Darryl C. Towns represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
Mike Spano represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
David R. Townsend, Jr. represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Defendant

NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) DOE represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED (See above for address)
Defendant LEAD ATTORNEY
Rob Walker represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text
Defendant 10/15/2004 1 COMPLAINT against 149 John and Jane Doe NYS Assembly Members, 61
Helene E. Weinstein represented by Aaron M. Baldwin John and Jane Doe NYS Senators, John Ashcroft, Joseph L. Bruno, Randy
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) A. Daniels, Peter Kosinski, George E. Pataki, Leslie Reynolds, Sheldon
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Silver, Thomas J. Spargo, Eliot Spitzer, The National Association of
Secretaries of State ( Filing fee $ 150 receipt number ALB000131), filed by
Defendant William E. Bombard, Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, John-Joseph Forjone,
Harvey Weisenberg represented by Aaron M. Baldwin William A. Gage, Ronald G. Loeber, Edward M. Person Jr., Fairlene G.
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Rabenda, Gabriel Rassano, Ronald E. Sacoff, Christopher Earl Strunk, The
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
Redistricting, H. William Van Allen. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint cont'd.
Defendant (2)# 2 Complaint cont'd. (3)# 3 Complaint cont'd. (4)# 4 Complaint cont'd.
Mark Weprin represented by Aaron M. Baldwin (5)# 5 Complaint cont'd. (6))(wbl, ) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) 10/25/2004 2 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Lawrence E.
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Kahn for all further proceedings. Judge Gary L. Sharpe no longer assigned
to case. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on 10/25/04. (kcl, )
Defendant
(Entered: 10/25/2004)
Keith L.T. Wright represented by Aaron M. Baldwin
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) 10/26/2004 Summons Issued as to John Ashcroft, Joseph L. Bruno, Randy A. Daniels,
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Kosinski, George E. Pataki, Sheldon Silver, Thomas J. Spargo, Eliot
Spitzer. (ban) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
Defendant
10/26/2004 3 G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED Initial Conference set for 2/16/2005
Ellen Young represented by Aaron M. Baldwin 11:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece. Civil
NYS Assemblywoman (See above for address) Case Management Plan due by 2/7/2005. (ban) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
10/27/2004 4 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn : CRD:
Defendant John Law;Show Cause Hearing held on 10/27/2004; Appearances Made;
Kenneth Zebrowski represented by Aaron M. Baldwin William E. Bombard, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William Van Allen, Roy-
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Pierre Detiege, Cormier, Gabriel Rassano, Edward M. Person, Jr.
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher Earl Strunk, Michael McCartin, Esq., for the state defendants
and Todd Valentine for Peter Kosinski as employee of the BOEL; Judge
Defendant Kahn advises plaintiffs to state name for record and who will be speaking;
Michael N. Gianaris represented by Aaron M. Baldwin Plaintiffs state their positions and the defendants state their positions; Judge
NYS Assemblyman (See above for address) Kahn advises parties that a decision will be issued by Friday. (Court
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Reporter Theresa Casal) (jel, ) Time: 9:30-10:05 a.m. (Entered: 10/27/2004)

10/29/2004 5 DECISION AND ORDER, that the case is DISMISSED in its entirety. 11/30/2004 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of
Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 10/29/2004. (jel, ) (Entered: Appeals re 12 Amended Notice of Appeal (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
10/29/2004)
11/30/2004 14 NOTICE OF APPEAL/REQUEST FOR JOINDER IN APPEAL as to 2
10/29/2004 6 JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs (jel, ) (Entered: Order Reassigning Case, 5 Order Dismissing Case, 6 Judgment by Ronald
10/29/2004) G. Loeber. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
11/01/2004 7 AFFIDAVIT of Service for "legal papers" on 10/26/04. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/03/2004 15 ORDER of USCA deleting previously assigned USCA docket number of
11/01/2004) 04-5890-cv-Pro se and continuing appeal under docket number of 04-5720-
cv-Pro se (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
11/01/2004 8 AFFIDAVIT by Christopher Earl Strunk "in support of restraint and
injunction". (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/01/2004) 12/03/2004 USCA Case Number 04-5720cv-Pro se for 9 Notice of Appeal. (wjg, )
(Entered: 12/06/2004)
11/01/2004 Appeal Filing fee Paid: $ 255.00, receipt number 180 (ban) (Entered:
11/01/2004) 12/07/2004 16 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/27/04 (Order to Show Cause)
before Judge Kahn. Court Reporter: T. Casal. (wjg, ) Additional attachment
11/01/2004 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2 Order Reassigning Case, 5 Order Dismissing
(s) added on 1/4/2005 (wjg, ). (Entered: 12/08/2004)
Case, 6 Judgment by William E. Bombard, Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier,
John-Joseph Forjone, William A. Gage, Ronald G. Loeber, Edward M. 12/15/2004 17 Appeal Remark re 12 Notice of Appeal: Notice of Appeal Received by
Person Jr., Fairlene G. Rabenda, Gabriel Rassano, Ronald E. Sacoff, USCA. (ban) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
Christopher Earl Strunk, The AD HOC New York State Citizens for
12/15/2004 18 NOTICE OF APPEAL/JOINDER IN APPEAL as to 2 Order Reassigning
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, H. William Van Allen. Filing fee $
Case, 5 Order Dismissing Case, 6 Judgment by William E. Bombard.
255.00, receipt number ALB000180. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
(wjg, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
11/02/2004 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of
09/21/2005 19 MANDATE of USCA that appeal is DISMISSED in part, VACATED in
Appeals re 9 Notice of Appeal. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
part and REMANDED, and that the several motions of plaintiffs-appellants
11/02/2004 Certified and Transmitted Index to Record on Appeal and notification that are DENIED. (wjg, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
ROA is in electronic format to US Court of Appeals re 9 Notice of Appeal.
09/22/2005 20 ORDER. Amended Pleadings ddl (for filing of amended complaint) set to
(wjg, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
11/21/2005.Within 30 days of the filing of the amended cmp, all parties
11/12/2004 10 Appeal Remark re: 9 Notice of Appeal, : Return Receipt from USCA for shall submit briefing re: request for three-judge panel. Signed by Judge
transmittal of NOA. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/18/2004) Lawrence E. Kahn on 9/22/05. (wjg, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
11/22/2004 11 NOTICE of Docketing Index to Record on Appeal from USCA re 9 Notice 09/23/2005 21 Letter from pro se pltf Strunk to CJ Scullin requesting reassignment of case,
of Appeal, filed by Ronald G. Loeber, H. William Van Allen, Fairlene G. submitted to Judge Scullin. (wjg, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
Rabenda, William A. Gage, Christopher Earl Strunk, William E. Bombard,
10/04/2005 22 ORDER: Plaintiff's request for reassignment of this matter to a different
John-Joseph Forjone, Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E. Sacoff,
Judge is denied; Clerk shall serve a courtesy copy of this order upon the
Gabriel Rassano, Edward M. Person, The AD HOC New York State
attys. listed within according to the 2nd Circuit's Summary Order; Further,
Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting. USCA Case Number
either Ms. Miller of Mr. Smirlock or another atty from their office shall
04-5890. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
either file a notice of appeal on behalf of defts w/in 15 days if they intend to
11/26/2004 12 (AMENDED?) NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2 Order Reassigning Case, 5 continue to represent defts in this action or notify the Court whether defts
Order Dismissing Case, 6 Judgment by Christopher Earl Strunk. (wjg, ) will be proceeding pro se or whether they will be represented by other
(Entered: 11/30/2004) counsel. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on 10/4/05. (kcl, )
(Entered: 10/06/2005)
11/29/2004 13 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2 Order Reassigning Case, 5 Order Dismissing
Case, 6 Judgment by John-Joseph Forjone. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2004) 10/17/2005 23 AMENDED ORDER; The Court amends the 10/4/05 order at paragraph
referenced within; In light of the amended order, defts' counsel is hereby address the issue of the convening of a three-judge panel, on application
granted a 15 day extension of time in which to comply with the Court's filed by Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Rassano,
instructions w/ in the amended paragraph. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Edward M. Person, Jr, Christopher Earl Strunk, AD HOC New York State
Scullin Jr. on 10/17/05. (kcl, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005) Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, Ronald G. Loeber,
William E. Bombard, William A. Gage, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William
11/01/2005 24 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey M. Dvorin on behalf of Thomas J.
Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda.Hearing date is 12/16/05 @ 9:30am in
Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A.
Albany. Response ddl is set to 12/12/05 and reply ddl is set to 12/14/05.
Daniels, Eliot Spitzer (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
(wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
11/21/2005 25 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Plaintiffs.
11/29/2005 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 33 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for Preliminary
(Attachments: # 1 Cover letter advising of related cases)(wjg, ). (Entered:
Injunction. Response to Motion due by 12/12/2005 Reply to Response to
11/22/2005)
Motion due by 12/14/2005. Motion Hearing set for 12/16/2005 09:30 AM
11/23/2005 29 MEMORANDUM OF LAW filed by AD HOC New York State Citizens in Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting in support of application for
12/07/2005 34 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno,
Order to Show Cuase and TRO. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Van Allen
Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer, Peter
in support of application)(wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
Kosinski requesting permission to file 20 page brief regarding Plaintiff's
11/29/2005 Summons Issued as to The New York State Board of Elections, The City of motion for a preliminary injunction and request made pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
New York, United States Election Assistance Corporation, Thomas J. Section 2284 submitted to Judge Kahn. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered:
Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A. 12/07/2005)
Daniels, Eliot Spitzer, National Association of Secretaries of State, Peter
12/08/2005 35 ORDER granting 34 Letter Request . Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn
Kosinski. (wbl, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
on 12/8/05. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
11/29/2005 Summons Issued as to John Ashcroft as US Attorney General, who is now
12/08/2005 41 NOTICE OF APPEAL by H. William Van Allen of Order to Show Cause
Alberto Gonzalez. (wbl, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
(Document #33) Filing fee (not paid). (tab) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
11/29/2005 26 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd D. Valentine on behalf of Peter Kosinski
12/09/2005 44 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER rejecting papers submitted by pltfs.
(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/9/05. (wjg, ) (Entered:
11/29/2005 27 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd D. Valentine on behalf of The New York 12/13/2005)
State Board of Elections (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
12/12/2005 36 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
11/29/2005 28 NOTICE of corrected related cases by H. William Van Allen. Corrects Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by
incorrect listing of related cases, as submitted by pltfs as attachment to 25 Peter Kosinski. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
Amended Complaint (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
12/12/2005 37 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER as to Pltf. Christopher Strunk;
11/29/2005 30 DECLARATION by Christopher Earl Strunk in support of application for Returning LEtter addressed to Chief Judge Scullin dated 12/1/05; Signed by
Order to Show Cause. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005) Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on 2/7/05. (kcl, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
11/29/2005 31 EXHIBIT 1 w/verifications by Plaintiffs - to be added to original order to 12/12/2005 38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
show cause paper submitted in week prior to 11/29/05.(wjg, ) (Entered: Memorandum Of Law in Opposition to Preliminary Injunction filed by
11/30/2005) Peter Kosinski. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
11/29/2005 32 VERIFICATION AFFIDAVITS of Ronald E. Sacoff, William E. Bombard, 12/12/2005 39 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
William A. Gage, Fairlene G. Rabenda in support of the amended Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by The
complaint. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005) New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered:
12/12/2005)
11/29/2005 33 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for Preliminary Injunction and to further

12/12/2005 40 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction 12/28/2005 55 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by The New York State Board of
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Elections.(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
filed by The New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd)
12/29/2005 56 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno,
(Entered: 12/12/2005)
Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer.(Dvorin,
12/12/2005 42 NOTICE of Appearance by James E. Long on behalf of National Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
Association of Secretaries of State (Long, James) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
12/30/2005 57 NOTICE of Appearance by James E. Konstanty on behalf of Otsego County
12/12/2005 43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed Board of Elections (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of service)(Konstanty,
by John Ashcroft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) # 2 Declaration # 3 James) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
certificate of service)(Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
01/04/2006 58 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER returning papers. Signed by Judge
12/12/2005 45 Letter Motion from Leslie Reynolds for deft NASS requesting removal Lawrence E. Kahn on 1/3/06. (wjg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
from this case for National Association of Secretaries of State, submitted to
01/04/2006 59 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER returning papers. Signed by Judge
Judge Kahn. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
Lawrence E. Kahn on 1/3/06. (wjg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
12/16/2005 46 REPLY DECLARATION to Response to Motion re: 33 MOTION for
02/01/2006 60 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER rejecting New York City Defendants'
Preliminary Injunction, filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1
Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 2/1/06. (wjg, )
Proof of service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
(Entered: 02/01/2006)
12/16/2005 47 REQUEST & ORDER, Answer due date updated for The City of New
02/01/2006 61 MANDATE of USCA granting IFP Motion & denying mandamus petition.
York, answer due 1/30/2006. Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on
(wjg, ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
12/16/05. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
02/06/2006 62 REQUEST & ORDER granting New York City defendants' request for 30
12/16/2005 50 REPLY MEMORANDUM to Response to Motion re 33 MOTION for
day extension to file motion papers . Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on
Preliminary Injunction filed by AD HOC New York State Citizens for
2/6/06. (wjg, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
02/08/2006 63 ORDER of USCA granting motion to withdraw 41 Notice of Appeal filed
12/16/2005 51 Letter from Plaintiffs Strunk & VanAllen dd 12/15/05 in opposition to
by H. William Van Allen. (wjg, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
request for extension of time by NYC & its Mayor. (wjg, ) (Entered:
12/19/2005) 02/10/2006 64 MOTION to Dismiss Motion Hearing set for 3/17/2006 09:30 AM in
Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. Response to Motion due by
12/19/2005 48 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 41 Notice of
2/28/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/6/2006. by John Ashcroft.
Appeal; appeal packet issued to filing Plaintiff. (wjg, ) (Entered:
(Attachments: # 1 Motion to Dismiss# 2 Declaration # 3 Memorandum of
12/19/2005)
Law # 4 Attachment# 5 Certificate of Service)(Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered:
12/19/2005 49 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on 02/10/2006)
Appeal re 41 Notice of Appeal (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
02/17/2006 65 First MOTION to Dismiss Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2006 09:30 AM in
12/19/2005 52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by AD HOC New York State Citizens for Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. Response to Motion due by
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting re 50 Reply to Response to Motion 3/21/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/27/2006. by Michael
(wjg, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005) Bloomberg, The City of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of
Law # 2 Certificate of Service)(Giardina, Anthony) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
12/26/2005 53 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by National Association of Secretaries of
State.(Long, James) (Entered: 12/26/2005) 02/27/2006 66 CROSS-MOTION to Change Venue by Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier,
Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Rassano, Edward M. Person, Jr, Christopher Earl
12/28/2005 54 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Peter Kosinski.(Valentine, Todd)
Strunk, AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
(Entered: 12/28/2005)
Redistricting, Burr V. Deitz, Ronald G. Loeber, William E. Bombard,
William A. Gage, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William Van Allen, Fairlene G. Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki,
Rabenda. Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2006 09:30 AM in Albany before Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. Response to Motion due by 3/27/2006.
03/27/2006 75 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 66 MOTION to Change Venue filed by
(Attachments: # 1 Strunk declaration in support of cross-motion and in
Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki,
opposition to motions to dismiss# 2 Forjone declaration in support of cross-
Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B#
motion and in opposition to motions to dismiss# 3 Van Allen declaration in
3 Declaration of Service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) Modified on 3/28/2006 (wbl, ).
support of cross-motion and in opposition to motions to dismiss# 4 Proof of
Additional attachment(s) added on 4/10/2006 (amt, ). (Entered: 03/27/2006)
Service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
03/28/2006 76 Letter Motion from Jeffrey M. Dvorin for Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L.
02/28/2006 67 MEMORANDUM OF LAW r: opposition to 64 Motion to Dismiss,, 65
Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer
Motion to Dismiss, and in support of 66 Motion to Change Venue, filed by
requesting permission to file Defendants' Affirmation in Opposition to
AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue submitted to Judge Kahn.
Redistricting. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(wjg, ) (Entered:
(Attachments: # 1 Affirmation of Jeffrey M. Dvorin in Opposition to
03/02/2006)
Motion to Change Venue)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) Modified on 3/28/2006 (wbl, ).
03/06/2006 68 NOTICE of Appearance/Consent to Change Attorney filed by James E. (Entered: 03/28/2006)
Konstanty; Rodney Klafehn substituted in as counsel on behalf of Otsego
04/07/2006 77 ORDER granting 76 Letter Request and directing the affirmation be added
County Board of Elections (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Electronic Filing)
to the response papers previously filed. Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn
(Konstanty, James) Modified on 3/13/2006 (wjg, ). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
on 4/7/06. (amt, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
03/06/2006 69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 64 MOTION to Dismiss, 66 MOTION to
10/25/2006 78 MANDATE of USCA granting apellant's motion to withdraw appeal (wjg, )
Change Venue Opposition to Motion to Change Venue filed by John
(Entered: 10/27/2006)
Ashcroft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A# 2 certificate of service)
(Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered: 03/06/2006) 03/02/2007 79 NOTICE of Appearance by David W. Kloss on behalf of The City of New
York, Michael Bloomberg (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation to Substitution of
03/09/2006 70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 First MOTION to Dismiss the
Counsel# 2 Notice to Counsel# 3 Certificate of Service)(Kloss, David)
Complaint filed by The City of New York, Michael Bloomberg.
(Entered: 03/02/2007)
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Giardina, Anthony) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
01/04/2008 80 COPY of Pltf Van Allen's Petition to the Supreme Court for writ of
03/09/2006 71 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The City of New York, Michael
mandamus (amt, ) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
Bloomberg Defendants (Giardina, Anthony) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
01/08/2008 81 DECISION AND ORDER granting 45 Letter Request, ; granting 64 Motion
03/13/2006 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 68 Notice of
to Dismiss Amended Complaint; granting 65 Motion to Dismiss; denying
Appearance. Clerk modified text of entry to correctly reflect that document
66 Motion to Change Venue. ORDERED, that unless Plaintiffs name and
is a Consent to Change Attorney and that atty Klafehn is substituted
properly serve the John and Jane Doe Defendnats within 30 days of the date
counsel. Atty Klafehn not added to docket as of 3/10/06 (atty does not
of this Order, this action shall be dismissed as to them. Signed by Judge
appear as admitted on ECF). (wjg, ) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
Lawrence E. Kahn on 1/8/08. (ban) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
03/14/2006 72 Copy of Letter from Deputy Clerk W. Lindskoog to Atty. Rodney Klafehn
01/29/2008 Summons Issued as to Joseph L. Bruno, Eric Adams, James S. Alesi, Neil
dd 3/14/06 re: admission requirements of the NDNY [served]. (wjg, )
D. Breslin, Martin Connor, John A. DeFrancisco, Ruben Diaz, Sr, Martin
(Entered: 03/16/2006)
Malave Dilan, Thomas K. Duane, Hugh T. Farley, John J. Flanagan,
03/21/2006 73 STRUNK'S RESPONSE in Opposition re 65 First MOTION to Dismiss Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr, Martin J. Golden, Efrain Gonzalez, Jr, Joseph A.
filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) Griffo, Kemp Hannon, Ruth Hassell-Thompson, Shirley L. Huntley, Craig
(ban) (Entered: 03/22/2006) M. Johnson, Owen H. Johnson, Jeffrey D. Klein, Liz Krueger, Carl Kruger,
Andrew J. Lanza, William J. Larkin, Jr, Kenneth P. LaValle, Vincent L.
03/27/2006 74 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 66 Motion to Change Venue,,, filed by
Leibell, III, Thomas W. Libous, Elizabeth O'C. Little, Serphin R. Maltese,

Carl L. Marcellino, George D. Maziarz, Velmanette Montgomery, Thomas Kenneth Zebrowski. (wbl, ) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
P. Morahan, Michael F. Nozzolio, George Onorato, Suzi Oppenheimer,
02/06/2008 82 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E.
Frank Padavan, Kevin S. Parker, Bill Perkins, Mary Lou Rath, Joseph E.
Sacoff, Gabriel Rassano, Edward M. Person, Jr, Christopher Earl Strunk,
Robach, John D. Sabini, Stephen M. Saland, John L. Sampson, Diane J.
Savino, Eric T. Schneiderman, Jose M. Serrano, James L. Seward, Dean G.
Skelos, Malcolm A. Smith, William T. Stachowski, Toby Ann Stavisky,
William A. Gage, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William Van Allen, Fairlene G.
Andrea Steawrt-Cousins, Antoine M. Thompson, Ceasar Trunzo, David J.
Rabenda. Joseph L. Bruno served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Eric
Velesky, Dale M. Volker, George H. Winner, Jr, Catharine M. Young, Peter
Adams served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; James S. Alesi served on
J. Abbate, Jr, Marc S. Alessi, Tom Alfano, George Amedore, Carmen E.
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; John J. Bonacic served on 2/6/2008,
Arroyo, Darrel J. Aubertine, Jeffrion L. Aubry, Jim Bacalles, Greg Ball,
answer due 2/26/2008; Martin Connor served on 2/6/2008, answer due
William A. Barclay, Bob Barra, Michael Benedetto, Michael Benjamin,
2/26/2008; John A. DeFrancisco served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
Jonathan L. Bing, William F. Boyland, Jr, Philip Boyle, Adam Bradley,
Martin Malave Dilan served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Thomas
James F. Brennan, Richard L. Brodsky, Alec Brook-Krasny, Daniel J.
K. Duane served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Hugh T. Farley
Burling, Marc W. Butler, Kevin A. Cahill, Nancy Calhoun, Karim Camara,
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; John J. Flanagan served on
Ron Canestrari, Ann Margaret Carrozza, Joan K. Christensen, Barbara M.
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr served on
Clark, Mike Cole, William Colton, James D. Conte, Vivian E. Cook,
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Martin J. Golden served on 2/6/2008,
Clifford W. Crouch, Michael Cusick, Steven Cymbrowitz, Francine
answer due 2/26/2008; Joseph A. Griffo served on 2/6/2008, answer due
DelMonte, RoAnn M. Destito, Luis M. Diaz, Ruben Diaz, Jr, Jeffrey
2/26/2008; Ruth Hassell-Thompson served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Dinowitz, Janet L. Duprey, Patricia A. Eddington, Steve Englebright,
2/26/2008; Shirley L. Huntley served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
Joseph A. Errigo, Adriano Espaillat, Herman D. Farrell, Jr, Ginny Fields,
Craig M. Johnson served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Owen H.
Gary D. Finch, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, George S. Latimer, Charles D.
Johnson served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Jeffrey D. Klein served
Lavine, Joseph R. Lentol, Barbara Lifton, Peter D. Lopez, Vito J. Lopez,
on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Carl Kruger served on 2/6/2008,
Donna A. Lupardo, William Magee, William B. Magnarelli, Alan Maisel,
answer due 2/26/2008; William J. Larkin, Jr served on 2/6/2008, answer
Margaret M. Markey, Nettie Mayersohn, Roy McDonald, David G.
due 2/26/2008; Kenneth P. LaValle served on 2/6/2008, answer due
McDonough, John J. McEneny, Tom McKevitt, Joel M. Miller, Joan L.
2/26/2008; Vincent L. Leibell, III served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Millman, Marcus Molinaro, Joseph D. Morelle, Catherine Nolan, Daniel J.
2/26/2008; Thomas W. Libous served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
O'Donnell, Thomas F. O'Mara, Bob Oaks, Felix Ortiz, William L. Parment,
Elizabeth O'C. Little served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Carl L.
Amy Paulin, Crystal D. Peoples, Jose R. Peralta, N. Nick Perry, Audrey I.
Marcellino served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; George D. Maziarz
Pheffer, Adam Clayton Powell, IV, Jack Quinn, Annie Rabbitt, Andrew P.
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Velmanette Montgomery served
Raia, Phil Ramos, Bill Reilich, Bob Reilly, Jose Rivera, Dennis H.
on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Thomas P. Morahan served on
Gabryszak, Sandy Galef, David F. Gantt, Joe Giglio, Deborah J. Glick,
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Michael F. Nozzolio served on 2/6/2008,
Diane Gordon, Tim Gordon, Richard N. Gottfried, Aurelia Greene, Aileen
answer due 2/26/2008; George Onorato served on 2/6/2008, answer due
M. Gunther, Stephen Hawley, Jim Hayes, Carl E. Heastie, Andrew Hevesi,
2/26/2008; Suzi Oppenheimer served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
Dov Hikind, Earlene Hooper, Sam Hoyt, Janele Hyer-Spencer, Rhonda
Kevin S. Parker served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Bill Perkins
Jacobs, Ellen Jaffee, Hakeem Jeffries, Susan V. John, Brian P. Kavanagh,
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Mary Lou Rath served on
Micah Z. Kellner, Tom Kirwan, Brian M. Kolb, David Koon, Ivan C.
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Joseph E. Robach served on 2/6/2008,
Lafayette, Rory I. Lancman, Naomi Rivera, Peter M. Rivera, Annette
answer due 2/26/2008; John D. Sabini served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Robinson, Linda B. Rosenthal, Joseph S. Saladino, Teresa R. Sayward,
2/26/2008; Stephen M. Saland served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
William Scarborough, Michelle Schimel, Robin Schimminger, Mark J.F.
John L. Sampson served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Diane J.
Schroeder, Dede Scozzafava, Anthony S. Seminerio, Sheldon Silver(NYS
Savino served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Eric T. Schneiderman
Assemblyman), Mike Spano, Al Stirpe, Robert K. Sweeney, James Tedisco,
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Jose M. Serrano served on
Fred W. Thiele, Jr, Matthew Titone, Michele R. Titus, Lou Tobacco, Darryl
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; James L. Seward served on 2/6/2008,
C. Towns, David R. Townsend, Jr, Rob Walker, Helene E. Weinstein,
answer due 2/26/2008; Malcolm A. Smith served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Harvey Weisenberg, Mark Weprin, Keith L.T. Wright, Ellen Young,
2/26/2008; William T. Stachowski served on 2/6/2008, answer due answer due 2/26/2008; Diane Gordon served on 2/6/2008, answer due
2/26/2008; Toby Ann Stavisky served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; 2/26/2008. (ban) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
Andrea Steawrt-Cousins served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
02/06/2008 83 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E.
Antoine M. Thompson served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Ceasar
Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr, Christopher Earl Strunk,
Trunzo served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; David J. Velesky served
on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; George H. Winner, Jr served on
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Catharine M. Young served on 2/6/2008,
William A. Gage, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William Van Allen, Fairlene G.
answer due 2/26/2008; Marc S. Alessi served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Rabenda. Steven Cymbrowitz served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
2/26/2008; Tom Alfano served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; George
Francine DelMonte served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; RoAnn M.
Amedore served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Carmen E. Arroyo
Destito served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Luis M. Diaz served on
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Darrel J. Aubertine served on
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Ruben Diaz, Jr served on 2/6/2008,
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Jeffrion L. Aubry served on 2/6/2008,
answer due 2/26/2008; Jeffrey Dinowitz served on 2/6/2008, answer due
answer due 2/26/2008; Jim Bacalles served on 2/6/2008, answer due
2/26/2008; Janet L. Duprey served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
2/26/2008; Greg Ball served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; William
Patricia A. Eddington served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Steve
A. Barclay served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Bob Barra served on
Englebright served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; George S. Latimer
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Michael Benedetto served on 2/6/2008,
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Charles D. Lavine served on
answer due 2/26/2008; Michael Benjamin served on 2/6/2008, answer due
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Joseph R. Lentol served on 2/6/2008,
2/26/2008; Jonathan L. Bing served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
answer due 2/26/2008; Barbara Lifton served on 2/6/2008, answer due
William F. Boyland, Jr served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Adam
2/26/2008; Peter D. Lopez served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Vito
Bradley served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; James F. Brennan
J. Lopez served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Donna A. Lupardo
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Richard L. Brodsky served on
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; William Magee served on
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Alec Brook-Krasny served on 2/6/2008,
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; William B. Magnarelli served on
answer due 2/26/2008; Daniel J. Burling served on 2/6/2008, answer due
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Alan Maisel served on 2/6/2008, answer
2/26/2008; Marc W. Butler served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
due 2/26/2008; Margaret M. Markey served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Kevin A. Cahill served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Nancy Calhoun
2/26/2008; Nettie Mayersohn served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Karim Camara served on
Roy McDonald served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; David G.
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Ron Canestrari served on 2/6/2008,
McDonough served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; John J. McEneny
answer due 2/26/2008; Ann Margaret Carrozza served on 2/6/2008, answer
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Tom McKevitt served on
due 2/26/2008; Joan K. Christensen served on 2/6/2008, answer due
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Joel M. Miller served on 2/6/2008, answer
2/26/2008; Barbara M. Clark served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
due 2/26/2008; Marcus Molinaro served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Mike Cole served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; William Colton
2/26/2008; Joseph D. Morelle served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; James D. Conte served on
Catherine Nolan served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Daniel J.
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Vivian E. Cook served on 2/6/2008,
O'Donnell served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Thomas F. O'Mara
answer due 2/26/2008; Clifford W. Crouch served on 2/6/2008, answer due
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Bob Oaks served on 2/6/2008,
2/26/2008; Michael Cusick served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
answer due 2/26/2008; Felix Ortiz served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Joseph A. Errigo served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Adriano
2/26/2008; William L. Parment served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
Espaillat served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Herman D. Farrell, Jr
Amy Paulin served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Crystal D. Peoples
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Ginny Fields served on
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Jose R. Peralta served on
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Gary D. Finch served on 2/6/2008, answer
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; N. Nick Perry served on 2/6/2008, answer
due 2/26/2008; Michael J. Fitzpatrick served on 2/6/2008, answer due
due 2/26/2008; Audrey I. Pheffer served on 2/6/2008, answer due
2/26/2008; Dennis H. Gabryszak served on 2/6/2008, answer due
2/26/2008; Adam Clayton Powell, IV served on 2/6/2008, answer due
2/26/2008; Sandy Galef served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; David
2/26/2008; J. Gary Pretlow served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Jack
F. Gantt served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Joe Giglio served on
Quinn served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Annie Rabbitt served on
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Deborah J. Glick served on 2/6/2008,

2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Andrew P. Raia served on 2/6/2008, served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Keith L.T. Wright served on
answer due 2/26/2008; Phil Ramos served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Ellen Young served on 2/6/2008, answer
2/26/2008; Bill Reilich served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Bob due 2/26/2008; Kenneth Zebrowski served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Reilly served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Jose Rivera served on 2/26/2008. (ban) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Tim Gordon served on 2/6/2008, answer
02/06/2008 84 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 81 Order on Letter Request, Order on Motion
due 2/26/2008; Richard N. Gottfried served on 2/6/2008, answer due
to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Change Venue, by Roy-Pierre Detiege-
2/26/2008; Aurelia Greene served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
Cormier, Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr,
Aileen M. Gunther served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Stephen
Christopher Earl Strunk, AD HOC New York State Citizens for
Hawley served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Carl E. Heastie served
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, Burr V. Deitz, Ronald G. Loeber,
on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Andrew Hevesi served on 2/6/2008,
William E. Bombard, William A. Gage, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William
answer due 2/26/2008; Dov Hikind served on 2/6/2008, answer due
Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number
2/26/2008; Earlene Hooper served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Sam
ALB004084. Appeals packet handed to Plaintiff Van Allen at time Notice
Hoyt served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Janele Hyer-Spencer
of Appeal was filed. (ban) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Rhonda Jacobs served on
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Ellen Jaffee served on 2/6/2008, answer 02/06/2008 85 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E.
due 2/26/2008; Hakeem Jeffries served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr, Christopher Earl Strunk,
Susan V. John served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Brian P. AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
Kavanagh served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Tom Kirwan served Redistricting, Burr V. Deitz, Ronald G. Loeber, William E. Bombard,
on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Brian M. Kolb served on 2/6/2008, William A. Gage, John-Joseph Forjone, H. William Van Allen, Fairlene G.
answer due 2/26/2008; David Koon served on 2/6/2008, answer due Rabenda. Michael N. Gianaris served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008.
2/26/2008; Ivan C. Lafayette served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; (ban) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
Rory I. Lancman served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Naomi Rivera
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Peter M. Rivera served on 02/13/2008 86 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 84 Notice of
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Annette Robinson served on 2/6/2008, Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
answer due 2/26/2008; Linda B. Rosenthal served on 2/6/2008, answer due 02/13/2008 87 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on
2/26/2008; Joseph S. Saladino served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Appeal re 84 Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
Teresa R. Sayward served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; William
Scarborough served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Michelle Schimel 02/20/2008 88 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron M. Baldwin on behalf of Thomas J.
served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Robin Schimminger served on Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Mark J.F. Schroeder served on 2/6/2008, Spitzer, Sheldon Silver (Baldwin, Aaron) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
answer due 2/26/2008; Dede Scozzafava served on 2/6/2008, answer due
02/20/2008 89 Letter Motion from AAG Aaron M. Baldwin requesting Extension of time
2/26/2008; Anthony S. Seminerio served on 2/6/2008, answer due
to answer for legislators submitted to Judge Kahn. (Baldwin, Aaron)
2/26/2008; Sheldon Silver served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Mike
(Entered: 02/20/2008)
Spano served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Al Stirpe served on
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Robert K. Sweeney served on 2/6/2008, 02/20/2008 91 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. re: 86 Electronic Notice to USCA of
answer due 2/26/2008; James Tedisco served on 2/6/2008, answer due Appeal, 87 Electronic Certification to USCA of Record on Appeal sent to
2/26/2008; Fred W. Thiele, Jr served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; John-Joseph Forjone Address sent to PO Box 28, 5367 Upper Holley Rd.,
Matthew Titone served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Michele R. Clarendon, NY 14429 (ban) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
Titus served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Lou Tobacco served on
02/21/2008 90 TEXT ORDER granting 89 , Defendants' Letter Request to extend the time
2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Darryl C. Towns served on 2/6/2008,
to serve and file either an answer or motion until April 9, 2008. IT IS SO
answer due 2/26/2008; David R. Townsend, Jr served on 2/6/2008, answer
ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece on 2/21/08.
due 2/26/2008; Rob Walker served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008;
(Treece, Randolph) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
Helene E. Weinstein served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Harvey
Weisenberg served on 2/6/2008, answer due 2/26/2008; Mark Weprin
02/25/2008 92 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Thompson, Ceasar Trunzo, David J. Velesky, Dale M. Volker, George H.
Christopher Earl Strunk re 90 Order on Letter Request. (ban) (Entered: Winner, Jr, Catharine M. Young, Peter J. Abbate, Jr, Marc S. Alessi, Tom
02/27/2008) Alfano, George Amedore, Carmen E. Arroyo, Darrel J. Aubertine, Jeffrion
L. Aubry, Jim Bacalles, Greg Ball, William A. Barclay, Bob Barra, Michael
02/27/2008 TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 92 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE
Benedetto, Michael Benjamin, Jonathan L. Bing, William F. Boyland, Jr,
JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Christopher Earl Strunk re 90
Philip Boyle, Adam Bradley, James F. Brennan, Richard L. Brodsky, Alec
Order on Letter Request : Response to Motion due by 3/18/2008 Motion
Brook-Krasny, Daniel J. Burling, Marc W. Butler, Kevin A. Cahill, Nancy
Hearing set for 4/4/2008 09:30 AM in Albany before Senior Judge
Calhoun, Karim Camara, Ron Canestrari, Ann Margaret Carrozza, Joan K.
Lawrence E. Kahn. (MOTION ON SUBMIT) (ban) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
Christensen, Barbara M. Clark, Mike Cole, William Colton, James D.
02/27/2008 93 NOTICE of Objections to NYS AAG Motion for Extension of time to Conte, Vivian E. Cook, Clifford W. Crouch, Michael Cusick, Steven
Answer by Christopher Earl Strunk. (ban) (Entered: 02/27/2008) Cymbrowitz, Francine DelMonte, RoAnn M. Destito, Luis M. Diaz, Ruben
Diaz, Jr, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Janet L. Duprey, Patricia A. Eddington, Steve
03/10/2008 94 RESPONSE to Motion re 92 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Englebright, Joseph A. Errigo, Adriano Espaillat, Herman D. Farrell, Jr,
DECISION to District Court by Christopher Earl Strunk re 90 Order on Ginny Fields, Gary D. Finch, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, George S. Latimer,
Letter Request filed by Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, George E. Charles D. Lavine, Joseph R. Lentol, Barbara Lifton, Peter D. Lopez, Vito
Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer, Sheldon Silver, DOE. (Baldwin, J. Lopez, Donna A. Lupardo, William Magee, William B. Magnarelli, Alan
Aaron) (Entered: 03/10/2008) Maisel, Margaret M. Markey, Nettie Mayersohn, Roy McDonald, David G.
03/18/2008 USCA Case Number is 08-0739-cv for 84 Notice of Appeal. (cbm ) McDonough, John J. McEneny, Tom McKevitt, Joel M. Miller, Joan L.
(Entered: 03/18/2008) Millman, Marcus Molinaro, Joseph D. Morelle, Catherine Nolan, Daniel J.
O'Donnell, Thomas F. O'Mara, Bob Oaks, Felix Ortiz, William L. Parment,
03/28/2008 95 **STRICKEN Pursuant to Judge Kahn's 3/31/08 Strike Order** Amy Paulin, Crystal D. Peoples, Jose R. Peralta, N. Nick Perry, Audrey I.
REPLY/Letter Motion from Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se, requesting Pheffer, Adam Clayton Powell, IV, J. Gary Pretlow, Jack Quinn, Annie
Transfer submitted to Judge Kahn. (ban) Modified on 4/1/2008 (ban). Rabbitt, Andrew P. Raia, Phil Ramos, Bill Reilich, Bob Reilly, Jose Rivera,
(Entered: 03/28/2008) Dennis H. Gabryszak, Sandy Galef, David F. Gantt, Joe Giglio, Deborah J.
Glick, Diane Gordon, Tim Gordon, Richard N. Gottfried, Aurelia Greene,
03/31/2008 96 ORDER TO STRIKE 95 Letter Motion from Christopher Earl Strunk
Aileen M. Gunther, Stephen Hawley, Jim Hayes, Carl E. Heastie, Andrew
requesting Transfer . Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/31/08.
Hevesi, Dov Hikind, Earlene Hooper, Sam Hoyt, Janele Hyer-Spencer,
(ban) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
Rhonda Jacobs, Ellen Jaffee, Hakeem Jeffries, Susan V. John, Brian P.
04/08/2008 97 Letter Motion from AAG AARON M. BALDWIN for Thomas J. Spargo, Kavanagh, Micah Z. Kellner, Tom Kirwan, Brian M. Kolb, David Koon,
Joseph L. Bruno, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer, Eric Ivan C. Lafayette, Rory I. Lancman, Naomi Rivera, Peter M. Rivera,
Adams, James S. Alesi, John J. Bonacic, Neil D. Breslin, Martin Connor, Annette Robinson, Linda B. Rosenthal, Joseph S. Saladino, Teresa R.
John A. DeFrancisco, Ruben Diaz, Sr, Martin Malave Dilan, Thomas K. Sayward, William Scarborough, Michelle Schimel, Robin Schimminger,
Duane, Hugh T. Farley, John J. Flanagan, Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr, Martin J. Mark J.F. Schroeder, Dede Scozzafava, Anthony S. Seminerio, Sheldon
Golden, Efrain Gonzalez, Jr, Joseph A. Griffo, Kemp Hannon, Ruth Silver, Mike Spano, Al Stirpe, Robert K. Sweeney, James Tedisco, Fred W.
Hassell-Thompson, Shirley L. Huntley, Craig M. Johnson, Owen H. Thiele, Jr, Matthew Titone, Michele R. Titus, Lou Tobacco, Darryl C.
Johnson, Jeffrey D. Klein, Liz Krueger, Carl Kruger, Andrew J. Lanza, Towns, David R. Townsend, Jr, Rob Walker, Helene E. Weinstein, Harvey
Kenneth P. LaValle, Vincent L. Leibell, III, Thomas W. Libous, Elizabeth Weisenberg, Mark Weprin, Keith L.T. Wright, Ellen Young, Kenneth
O'C. Little, Serphin R. Maltese, Carl L. Marcellino, George D. Maziarz, Zebrowski, Michael N. Gianaris, DOE, requesting leave to submit
Velmanette Montgomery, Thomas P. Morahan, Michael F. Nozzolio, Memorandum of Law in excess of 25 pages submitted to Judge Kahn.
George Onorato, Suzi Oppenheimer, Frank Padavan, Kevin S. Parker, Bill (Baldwin, Aaron) Modified on 4/8/2008 (ban). (Entered: 04/08/2008)
Perkins, Mary Lou Rath, Joseph E. Robach, John D. Sabini, Stephen M.
04/08/2008 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 97 Letter
Saland, John L. Sampson, Diane J. Savino, Eric T. Schneiderman, Jose M.
Request/Motion: AAG Aaron Baldwin mistakenly linked himself to 3
Serrano, James L. Seward, Dean G. Skelos, Malcolm A. Smith, William T.
plaintiff's. The Clerk's Office corrected the docket and docket entry #97 to
Stachowski, Toby Ann Stavisky, Andrea Steawrt-Cousins, Antoine M.

reflect that AAG Aaron Baldwin does not represent Plaintiff's Loeber, Amy Paulin, Crystal D. Peoples, Jose R. Peralta, N. Nick Perry, Audrey I.
Bombard, and Forjone. (ban) (Entered: 04/08/2008) Pheffer, Adam Clayton Powell, IV, J. Gary Pretlow, Jack Quinn, Annie
Rabbitt, Andrew P. Raia, Phil Ramos, Bill Reilich, Bob Reilly, Jose Rivera,
04/09/2008 98 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and
Dennis H. Gabryszak, Sandy Galef, David F. Gantt, Joe Giglio, Deborah J.
for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28
U.S.C. §2284; Response to Motion due by 4/29/2008 Reply to Response to
Motion due by 5/5/2008. Motion Hearing set for 5/16/2008 09:30 AM
Hevesi, Dov Hikind, Earlene Hooper, Sam Hoyt, Janele Hyer-Spencer,
before Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn by Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L.
Rhonda Jacobs, Ellen Jaffee, Hakeem Jeffries, Susan V. John, Brian P.
Bruno, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer, Eric Adams,
Kavanagh, Micah Z. Kellner, Tom Kirwan, Brian M. Kolb, David Koon,
James S. Alesi, John J. Bonacic, Neil D. Breslin, Martin Connor, John A.
Ivan C. Lafayette, Rory I. Lancman, Naomi Rivera, Peter M. Rivera,
DeFrancisco, Ruben Diaz, Sr, Martin Malave Dilan, Thomas K. Duane,
Annette Robinson, Linda B. Rosenthal, Joseph S. Saladino, Teresa R.
Hugh T. Farley, John J. Flanagan, Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr, Martin J. Golden,
Sayward, William Scarborough, Michelle Schimel, Robin Schimminger,
Efrain Gonzalez, Jr, Joseph A. Griffo, Kemp Hannon, Ruth Hassell-
Mark J.F. Schroeder, Dede Scozzafava, Anthony S. Seminerio, Sheldon
Thompson, Shirley L. Huntley, Craig M. Johnson, Owen H. Johnson,
Silver, Mike Spano, Al Stirpe, Robert K. Sweeney, James Tedisco, Fred W.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Liz Krueger, Carl Kruger, Andrew J. Lanza, William J.
Thiele, Jr, Matthew Titone, Michele R. Titus, Lou Tobacco, Darryl C.
Larkin, Jr, Kenneth P. LaValle, Vincent L. Leibell, III, Thomas W. Libous,
Towns, David R. Townsend, Jr, Rob Walker, Helene E. Weinstein, Harvey
Elizabeth O'C. Little, Serphin R. Maltese, Carl L. Marcellino, George D.
Weisenberg, Mark Weprin, Keith L.T. Wright, Ellen Young, Kenneth
Maziarz, Velmanette Montgomery, Thomas P. Morahan, Michael F.
Zebrowski, Michael N. Gianaris, DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of
Nozzolio, George Onorato, Suzi Oppenheimer, Frank Padavan, Kevin S.
Law, # 2 Declaration of Service) (Baldwin, Aaron) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
Parker, Bill Perkins, Mary Lou Rath, Joseph E. Robach, John D. Sabini,
Stephen M. Saland, John L. Sampson, Diane J. Savino, Eric T. 04/09/2008 99 ORDER granting 97 Letter Request. The State Defendant's are granted
Schneiderman, Jose M. Serrano, James L. Seward, Dean G. Skelos, leave to submit a Memorandum of Law not exceeding 40 pages. Signed by
Malcolm A. Smith, William T. Stachowski, Toby Ann Stavisky, Andrea Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 4/8/08. (ban) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
Steawrt-Cousins, Antoine M. Thompson, Ceasar Trunzo, David J. Velesky,
04/10/2008 100 LETTER REQUEST AND ORDER re 96 Order to Strike. Request for
Dale M. Volker, George H. Winner, Jr, Catharine M. Young, Peter J.
reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on
Abbate, Jr, Marc S. Alessi, Tom Alfano, George Amedore, Carmen E.
4/10/08. (ban) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
Arroyo, Darrel J. Aubertine, Jeffrion L. Aubry, Jim Bacalles, Greg Ball,
William A. Barclay, Bob Barra, Michael Benedetto, Michael Benjamin, 04/29/2008 101 Strunk's RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to
Jonathan L. Bing, William F. Boyland, Jr, Philip Boyle, Adam Bradley, FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the
James F. Brennan, Richard L. Brodsky, Alec Brook-Krasny, Daniel J. plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284 filed by
Burling, Marc W. Butler, Kevin A. Cahill, Nancy Calhoun, Karim Camara, Christopher Earl Strunk. (ban) Modified on 4/30/2008 (ban). (Entered:
Ron Canestrari, Ann Margaret Carrozza, Joan K. Christensen, Barbara M. 04/30/2008)
Clark, Mike Cole, William Colton, James D. Conte, Vivian E. Cook,
Clifford W. Crouch, Michael Cusick, Steven Cymbrowitz, Francine 05/01/2008 102 REPLY to Response to Motion re 98 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to
DelMonte, RoAnn M. Destito, Luis M. Diaz, Ruben Diaz, Jr, Jeffrey FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs'
Dinowitz, Janet L. Duprey, Patricia A. Eddington, Steve Englebright, request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to
Joseph A. Errigo, Adriano Espaillat, Herman D. Farrell, Jr, Ginny Fields, Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order
Gary D. Finch, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, George S. Latimer, Charles D. denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C.
Lavine, Joseph R. Lentol, Barbara Lifton, Peter D. Lopez, Vito J. Lopez, §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8
Donna A. Lupardo, William Magee, William B. Magnarelli, Alan Maisel, (a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel
Margaret M. Markey, Nettie Mayersohn, Roy McDonald, David G. under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12
McDonough, John J. McEneny, Tom McKevitt, Joel M. Miller, Joan L. (b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a
Millman, Marcus Molinaro, Joseph D. Morelle, Catherine Nolan, Daniel J. three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to
O'Donnell, Thomas F. O'Mara, Bob Oaks, Felix Ortiz, William L. Parment, FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs'
request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Velesky, Dale M. Volker, George H. Winner, Jr, Catharine M. Young, Peter
Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order J. Abbate, Jr, Marc S. Alessi, Tom Alfano, George Amedore, Carmen E.
denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. Arroyo, Darrel J. Aubertine, Jeffrion L. Aubry, Jim Bacalles, Greg Ball,
§2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8 William A. Barclay, Bob Barra, Michael Benedetto, Michael Benjamin,
(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel Jonathan L. Bing, William F. Boyland, Jr, Philip Boyle, Adam Bradley,
under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12 James F. Brennan, Richard L. Brodsky, Alec Brook-Krasny, Daniel J.
(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a Burling, Marc W. Butler, Kevin A. Cahill, Nancy Calhoun, Karim Camara,
three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Ron Canestrari, Ann Margaret Carrozza, Joan K. Christensen, Barbara M.
FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' Clark, Mike Cole, William Colton, James D. Conte, Vivian E. Cook,
request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Clifford W. Crouch, Michael Cusick, Steven Cymbrowitz, Francine
Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order DelMonte, RoAnn M. Destito, Luis M. Diaz, Ruben Diaz, Jr, Jeffrey
denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. Dinowitz, Janet L. Duprey, Patricia A. Eddington, Steve Englebright,
§2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8 Joseph A. Errigo, Adriano Espaillat, Herman D. Farrell, Jr, Ginny Fields,
(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel Gary D. Finch, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, George S. Latimer, Charles D.
under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12 Lavine, Joseph R. Lentol, Barbara Lifton, Peter D. Lopez, Vito J. Lopez,
(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a Donna A. Lupardo, William Magee, William B. Magnarelli, Alan Maisel,
three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Margaret M. Markey, Nettie Mayersohn, Roy McDonald, David G.
FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' McDonough, John J. McEneny, Tom McKevitt, Joel M. Miller, Joan L.
request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Millman, Marcus Molinaro, Joseph D. Morelle, Catherine Nolan, Daniel J.
Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order O'Donnell, Thomas F. O'Mara, Bob Oaks, Felix Ortiz, William L. Parment,
denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. Amy Paulin, Crystal D. Peoples, Jose R. Peralta, N. Nick Perry, Audrey I.
§2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8 Pheffer, Adam Clayton Powell, IV, J. Gary Pretlow, Jack Quinn, Annie
(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel Rabbitt, Andrew P. Raia, Phil Ramos, Bill Reilich, Bob Reilly, Jose Rivera,
under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12 Dennis H. Gabryszak, Sandy Galef, David F. Gantt, Joe Giglio, Deborah J.
(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' request for a Glick, Diane Gordon, Tim Gordon, Richard N. Gottfried, Aurelia Greene,
three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Aileen M. Gunther, Stephen Hawley, Jim Hayes, Carl E. Heastie, Andrew
FRCP Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) and for an order denying the plaintiffs' Hevesi, Dov Hikind, Earlene Hooper, Sam Hoyt, Janele Hyer-Spencer,
request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284; filed by Thomas J. Rhonda Jacobs, Ellen Jaffee, Hakeem Jeffries, Susan V. John, Brian P.
Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer, Kavanagh, Micah Z. Kellner, Tom Kirwan, Brian M. Kolb, David Koon,
Leslie Reynolds, Eric Adams, James S. Alesi, John J. Bonacic, Neil D. Ivan C. Lafayette, Rory I. Lancman, Naomi Rivera, Peter M. Rivera,
Breslin, Martin Connor, John A. DeFrancisco, Ruben Diaz, Sr, Martin Annette Robinson, Linda B. Rosenthal, Joseph S. Saladino, Teresa R.
Malave Dilan, Thomas K. Duane, Hugh T. Farley, John J. Flanagan, Charles Sayward, William Scarborough, Michelle Schimel, Robin Schimminger,
J. Fuschillo, Jr, Martin J. Golden, Efrain Gonzalez, Jr, Joseph A. Griffo, Mark J.F. Schroeder, Dede Scozzafava, Anthony S. Seminerio, Sheldon
Kemp Hannon, Ruth Hassell-Thompson, Shirley L. Huntley, Craig M. Silver, Mike Spano, Al Stirpe, Robert K. Sweeney, James Tedisco, Fred W.
Johnson, Owen H. Johnson, Jeffrey D. Klein, Liz Krueger, Carl Kruger, Thiele, Jr, Matthew Titone, Michele R. Titus, Lou Tobacco, Darryl C.
Andrew J. Lanza, William J. Larkin, Jr, Kenneth P. LaValle, Vincent L. Towns, David R. Townsend, Jr, Rob Walker, Helene E. Weinstein, Harvey
Leibell, III, Thomas W. Libous, Elizabeth O'C. Little, Serphin R. Maltese, Weisenberg, Mark Weprin, Keith L.T. Wright, Ellen Young, Kenneth
Carl L. Marcellino, George D. Maziarz, Velmanette Montgomery, Thomas Zebrowski, Michael N. Gianaris, DOE. (Baldwin, Aaron) (Entered:
P. Morahan, Michael F. Nozzolio, George Onorato, Suzi Oppenheimer, 05/01/2008)
Frank Padavan, Kevin S. Parker, Bill Perkins, Mary Lou Rath, Joseph E.
05/29/2008 103 ORDER of USCA DISMISSING THE 84 Notice of Appeal because a final
Robach, John D. Sabini, Stephen M. Saland, John L. Sampson, Diane J.
order has not been issued by the District Court. (amt) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
Savino, Eric T. Schneiderman, Jose M. Serrano, James L. Seward, Dean G.
Skelos, Malcolm A. Smith, William T. Stachowski, Toby Ann Stavisky, 06/30/2008 104 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen for H. William Van Allen
Andrea Steawrt-Cousins, Antoine M. Thompson, Ceasar Trunzo, David J.

requesting an immediate special three-judge panel decision and granting Francine DelMonte, Frank Padavan, Fred W. Thiele, Jr, Gary D. Finch,
injunctive relief of ongoing unconstitutional districted NYS judicial George Amedore, George Onorato, George D. Maziarz, George E. Pataki,
nominating convention delegate selection submitted to Judge Kahn. (ban) George H. Winner, Jr, George S. Latimer, Ginny Fields, Greg Ball, Hakeem
(Entered: 06/30/2008) Jeffries, Harvey Weisenberg, Helene E. Weinstein, Herman D. Farrell, Jr,
Hugh T. Farley, Ivan C. Lafayette, J. Gary Pretlow, Jack Quinn, James
07/02/2008 105 DECISION AND ORDER denying 92 Appeal of District Judge Decision to
Tedisco, James D. Conte, James F. Brennan, James L. Seward, James S.
District Court. The Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Decision
Alesi, Janele Hyer-Spencer, Janet L. Duprey, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Jeffrey D.
are DENIED. ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Order dated 2/21/08
Klein, Jeffrion L. Aubry, Jim Bacalles, Jim Hayes, Joan K. Christensen,
(Dkt#90) is UPHELD. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on
Joan L. Millman, Joe Giglio, Joel M. Miller, John Ashcroft, John A.
7/2/08. (ban) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
DeFrancisco, John D. Sabini, John J. Bonacic, John J. Flanagan, John J.
07/14/2008 106 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen for H. William Van Allen McEneny, John L. Sampson, Jonathan L. Bing, Jose Rivera, Jose M.
requesting Extension of time to file submitted to Judge Kahn. (ban) Serrano, Jose R. Peralta, Joseph A. Errigo, Joseph A. Griffo, Joseph D.
(Entered: 07/16/2008) Morelle, Joseph E. Robach, Joseph L. Bruno, Joseph R. Lentol, Joseph S.
Saladino, Karim Camara, Keith L.T. Wright, Kemp Hannon, Kenneth
07/22/2008 107 ORDER granting 106 Letter Request. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Zebrowski, Kenneth P. LaValle, Kevin A. Cahill, Kevin S. Parker, Leslie
Kahn on 7/22/08. (ban) (Entered: 07/22/2008) Reynolds, Linda B. Rosenthal, Liz Krueger, Lou Tobacco, Luis M. Diaz,
07/24/2008 108 MANDATE of USCA dismissing the # 84 Notice of Appeal because a final Malcolm A. Smith, Marc S. Alessi, Marc W. Butler, Marcus Molinaro,
order has not been issued by the District Court. (Copies sent to non-ecf Margaret M. Markey, Mark Weprin, Mark J.F. Schroeder, Martin Connor,
participants via regular mail) (lmw) (Entered: 07/24/2008) Martin J. Golden, Martin Malave Dilan, Mary Lou Rath, Matthew Titone,
Micah Z. Kellner, Michael Benedetto, Michael Benjamin, Michael Cusick,
07/31/2008 109 ORDER granting Defendant's 98 Motion to Dismiss. ORDERED that Michael F. Nozzolio, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Michael N. Gianaris, Michele
Plaintiff's request 104 Letter Request for a three-judge panel is DENIED. R. Titus, Michelle Schimel, Mike Cole, Mike Spano, N. Nick Perry, Nancy
ORDERED that the Amended Complaint 25 is DISMISSED in its entirety. Calhoun, Naomi Rivera, Neil D. Breslin, Nettie Mayersohn, Owen H.
Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 7/31/08. (ban) (Entered: Johnson, Patricia A. Eddington, Peter D. Lopez, Peter J. Abbate, Jr, Peter
08/01/2008) M. Rivera, Phil Ramos, Philip Boyle, Randy A. Daniels, Rhonda Jacobs,
Richard L. Brodsky, Richard N. Gottfried, RoAnn M. Destito, Rob Walker,
08/01/2008 110 JUDGMENT in favor of DOE, Otsego County Board of Elections, The
Robert K. Sweeney, Robin Schimminger, Ron Canestrari, Rory I. Lancman,
New York State Board of Elections, Adam Bradley, Adam Clayton Powell,
Roy McDonald, Ruben Diaz, Jr, Ruben Diaz, Sr, Ruth Hassell-Thompson,
IV, Adriano Espaillat, Aileen M. Gunther, Al Stirpe, Alan Maisel, Alec
Sam Hoyt, Sandy Galef, Serphin R. Maltese, Sheldon Silver, Shirley L.
Brook-Krasny, Amy Paulin, Andrea Steawrt-Cousins, Andrew Hevesi,
Huntley, Stephen Hawley, Stephen M. Saland, Steve Englebright, Steven
Andrew J. Lanza, Andrew P. Raia, Ann Margaret Carrozza, Annette
Cymbrowitz, Susan V. John, Suzi Oppenheimer, Teresa R. Sayward,
Robinson, Annie Rabbitt, Anthony S. Seminerio, Antoine M. Thompson,
Thomas F. O'Mara, Thomas J. Spargo, Thomas K. Duane, Thomas P.
Audrey I. Pheffer, Aurelia Greene, Barbara Lifton, Barbara M. Clark, Bill
Morahan, Thomas W. Libous, Tim Gordon, Toby Ann Stavisky, Tom
Perkins, Bill Reilich, Bob Barra, Bob Oaks, Bob Reilly, Brian M. Kolb,
Alfano, Tom Kirwan, Tom McKevitt, Velmanette Montgomery, Vincent L.
Brian P. Kavanagh, Carl Kruger, Carl E. Heastie, Carl L. Marcellino,
Leibell, III, Vito J. Lopez, Vivian E. Cook, William Colton, William
Carmen E. Arroyo, Catharine M. Young, Catherine Nolan, Ceasar Trunzo,
Magee, William Scarborough, William A. Barclay, William B. Magnarelli,
Charles D. Lavine, Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr, Clifford W. Crouch, Craig M.
William F. Boyland, Jr, William J. Larkin, Jr, William L. Parment, William
Johnson, Crystal D. Peoples, Dale M. Volker, Daniel J. Burling, Daniel J.
T. Stachowski against AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional
O'Donnell, Darrel J. Aubertine, Darryl C. Towns, David Koon, David F.
Legislative Redistricting, Burr V. Deitz, Christopher Earl Strunk, Edward
Gantt, David G. McDonough, David J. Velesky, David R. Townsend, Jr,
M. Person, Jr, Fairlene G. Rabenda, Gabriel Razzano, H. William Van
Dean G. Skelos, Deborah J. Glick, Dede Scozzafava, Dennis H. Gabryszak,
Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Ronald E. Sacoff, Ronald G. Loeber, Roy-
Diane Gordon, Diane J. Savino, Donna A. Lupardo, Dov Hikind, Earlene
Pierre Detiege-Cormier, William A. Gage, William E. Bombard. (ban)
Hooper, Efrain Gonzalez, Jr, Eliot Spitzer, Elizabeth O'C. Little, Ellen
(Entered: 08/01/2008)
Jaffee, Ellen Young, Eric Adams, Eric T. Schneiderman, Felix Ortiz,
08/01/2008
111 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen for H. William Van Allen Serphin R. Maltese, Carl L. Marcellino, George D. Maziarz, Velmanette
requesting Limited supplemental injunctive relief submitted to Judge Kahn. Montgomery, Thomas P. Morahan, Michael F. Nozzolio, George Onorato,
(ban) (Entered: 08/01/2008) Suzi Oppenheimer, Frank Padavan, Kevin S. Parker, Bill Perkins, Mary Lou
Rath, Joseph E. Robach, John D. Sabini, Stephen M. Saland, John L.
08/04/2008 112 ORDER denying 111 Letter Request for limited injunctive relief. This letter
Sampson, Diane J. Savino, Eric T. Schneiderman, Jose M. Serrano, James
motion/request is DENIED as moot. This Court's final order dismissed this
L. Seward, Dean G. Skelos, Malcolm A. Smith, William T. Stachowski,
action 7/31/08. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 8/4/08. (ban)
Toby Ann Stavisky, Andrea Steawrt-Cousins, Antoine M. Thompson,
(Entered: 08/04/2008)
Ceasar Trunzo, David J. Velesky, Dale M. Volker, George H. Winner, Jr,
08/04/2008 113 **STRICKEN Pursuant to Judge Kahn's 8/05/08 Strike Order** Letter Catharine M. Young, Peter J. Abbate, Jr, Marc S. Alessi, Tom Alfano,
Motion/Notice from H. William Van Allen for H. William Van Allen George Amedore, Carmen E. Arroyo, Darrel J. Aubertine, Jeffrion L.
requesting to reopen Schulz v. Berman (94-cv-1201) and Motion to Aubry, Jim Bacalles, Greg Ball, William A. Barclay, Bob Barra, Michael
Intervene submitted to Judge Kahn. (ban) Modified on 8/5/2008 (ban). Benedetto, Michael Benjamin, Jonathan L. Bing, William F. Boyland, Jr,
(Entered: 08/05/2008) Philip Boyle, Adam Bradley, James F. Brennan, Richard L. Brodsky, Alec
Brook-Krasny, Daniel J. Burling, Marc W. Butler, Kevin A. Cahill, Nancy
08/05/2008 114 ORDER TO STRIKE re 113 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen for Calhoun, Karim Camara, Ron Canestrari, Ann Margaret Carrozza, Joan K.
H. William Van Allen requesting to reopen Schulz v. Berman (94-cv-1201) Christensen, Barbara M. Clark, Mike Cole, William Colton, James D.
and Motion to Intervene submitted to Judge Kahn filed by H. William Van Conte, Vivian E. Cook, Clifford W. Crouch, Michael Cusick, Steven
Allen. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 8/5/08. (ban) (Entered: Cymbrowitz, Francine DelMonte, RoAnn M. Destito, Luis M. Diaz, Ruben
08/05/2008) Diaz, Jr, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Janet L. Duprey, Patricia A. Eddington, Steve
08/11/2008 115 MOTION for Reconsideration re 110 Judgment 109 Order on Motion to Englebright, Joseph A. Errigo, Adriano Espaillat, Herman D. Farrell, Jr,
Dismiss, Order on Letter Request. filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (ban) Ginny Fields, Gary D. Finch, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, George S. Latimer,
(Entered: 08/11/2008) Charles D. Lavine, Joseph R. Lentol, Barbara Lifton, Peter D. Lopez, Vito
J. Lopez, Donna A. Lupardo, William Magee, William B. Magnarelli, Alan
08/11/2008 TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 115 MOTION for Reconsideration Maisel, Margaret M. Markey, Nettie Mayersohn, Roy McDonald, David G.
re 110 Judgment, 109 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Letter McDonough, John J. McEneny, Tom McKevitt, Joel M. Miller, Joan L.
Request: Response to Motion due by 9/3/2008 Motion Hearing set for Millman, Marcus Molinaro, Joseph D. Morelle, Catherine Nolan, Daniel J.
9/19/2008 09:30 AM in Albany before Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. O'Donnell, Thomas F. O'Mara, Bob Oaks, Felix Ortiz, William L. Parment,
MOTION ON SUBMIT, NO Personal Appearances. (ban) (Entered: Amy Paulin, Crystal D. Peoples, Jose R. Peralta, N. Nick Perry, Audrey I.
08/11/2008) Pheffer, Adam Clayton Powell, IV, J. Gary Pretlow, Jack Quinn, Annie
Rabbitt, Andrew P. Raia, Phil Ramos, Bill Reilich, Bob Reilly, Jose Rivera,
08/14/2008 116 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. re: 114 Order to Strike, sent to John-
Dennis H. Gabryszak, Sandy Galef, David F. Gantt, Joe Giglio, Deborah J.
Joseph Forjone Address sent to 5367 Upper Holley Rd., Holley, NY 14470.
(ban) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
08/18/2008 117 RESPONSE in Opposition re 115 MOTION for Reconsideration re 110 Hevesi, Dov Hikind, Earlene Hooper, Sam Hoyt, Janele Hyer-Spencer,
Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 109 Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Letter Rhonda Jacobs, Ellen Jaffee, Hakeem Jeffries, Susan V. John, Brian P.
Request, filed by Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, George E. Pataki, Kavanagh, Micah Z. Kellner, Tom Kirwan, Brian M. Kolb, David Koon,
Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer, Eric Adams, James S. Alesi, John J. Ivan C. Lafayette, Rory I. Lancman, Naomi Rivera, Peter M. Rivera,
Bonacic, Neil D. Breslin, Martin Connor, John A. DeFrancisco, Ruben Annette Robinson, Linda B. Rosenthal, Joseph S. Saladino, Teresa R.
Diaz, Sr, Martin Malave Dilan, Thomas K. Duane, Hugh T. Farley, John J. Sayward, William Scarborough, Michelle Schimel, Robin Schimminger,
Flanagan, Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr, Martin J. Golden, Efrain Gonzalez, Jr, Mark J.F. Schroeder, Dede Scozzafava, Anthony S. Seminerio, Sheldon
Joseph A. Griffo, Kemp Hannon, Ruth Hassell-Thompson, Shirley L. Silver, Mike Spano, Al Stirpe, Robert K. Sweeney, James Tedisco, Fred W.
Huntley, Craig M. Johnson, Owen H. Johnson, Jeffrey D. Klein, Liz Thiele, Jr, Matthew Titone, Michele R. Titus, Lou Tobacco, Darryl C.
Krueger, Carl Kruger, Andrew J. Lanza, William J. Larkin, Jr, Kenneth P. Towns, David R. Townsend, Jr, Rob Walker, Helene E. Weinstein, Harvey
LaValle, Vincent L. Leibell, III, Thomas W. Libous, Elizabeth O'C. Little, Weisenberg, Mark Weprin, Keith L.T. Wright, Ellen Young, Kenneth

Zebrowski, Michael N. Gianaris, DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of

Service)(Baldwin, Aaron) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
09/02/2008 118 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 110 Judgment, 109 Order on Motion to
Dismiss, Order on Letter Request, by H. William Van Allen. (ban)
(Entered: 09/02/2008)
09/02/2008 119 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 118 Notice of
Appeal. Appeals packet sent to plaintiff. (ban) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
09/02/2008 120 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on
Appeal re 118 Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
09/08/2008 USCA Appeal Fees received $455 receipt number ALB4585 re 118 Notice
of Appeal filed by H. William Van Allen. (dpk) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
09/10/2008 121 ORDER denying 115 Motion for Reconsideration re 109 Order on Motion
to Dismiss. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration is
DENIED. ORDERED that the Court's 7/31/08 Order, dismissing the
Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiff's request for a three-judge panel
is AFFIRMED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 9/10/08.
(ban) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
09/11/2008 122 AMENDED ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of
Record on Appeal re 118 Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
09/18/2008 USCA Case Number is 08-4323-cv for 118 Notice of Appeal filed by H.
William Van Allen. (cbm ) (Entered: 09/18/2008)
09/19/2008 123 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 110 Judgment, 109 Order on
Motion to Dismiss, Order on Letter Request by Christopher Earl Strunk, H.
William Van Allen. (ban) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
09/19/2008 124 SECOND AMENDED ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of
Appeals of Record on Appeal re 123 Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered:
09/19/2008)
09/29/2008 125 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 110 Judgment, 109 Order on
Motion to Dismiss, Order on Letter Request, by Christopher Earl Strunk,
John-Joseph Forjone, H. William Van Allen. (ban) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
10/02/2008 126 SECOND AMENDED ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of
Appeals of Record on Appeal re 125 Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered:
10/02/2008)
09/25/2009 127 NOTICE to US Court of Appeals by H. William Van Allen. (ban) (Entered:
09/29/2009)

Defendants, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (“NASS”) and LESLIE REYNOLDS, by and through their attorney, JAMES E. LONG,
__________________________________________________________
ESQ., as and for an Answer to plaintiffs’ Complaint, submits the following:
RONALD G. LOEBER, BURR V. DEITZ, WILLIAM E.
BOMBARD, WILLIAM A. GAGE, JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, 1. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph number 26 of the plaintiffs’
H. WILLIAM VanALLEN, FAIRLENE G. RABENDA, ROY-
PIERRE DETIEGE-CORMIER, RONALD E. SACOFF, GABRIEL Complaint insofar as Leslie Reynolds is the Executive Director of The National
RASSANO, EDWARD M. PERSON, JR., CHRISTOPHER EARL
STRUNK, and THE AD HOC NEW YORK STATE CITIZENS Association of Secretaries of State, but deny that the National Associations of Secretaries
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING,
of State; is a “congressional sanctioned alliance”.
-Petitioners/Plaintiffs
2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
-against- ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 and 27 through 108 of the plaintiffs’
Index No. 04-cv-1193
LEK/RFT Complaint
THOMAS J. SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the New AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

York Supreme Court; JOSEPH L. BRUNO, 61 JOHN and JANE
DOE SENATORS, all individually and as state senators past and As and for affirmative defenses to plaintiffs’ complaint, defendants, NASS and Leslie
present; SHELDON SILVER, 149 JOHN and JANE DOE NYS
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, individually and as past and present ; Reynolds state as follows:
GEORGE E. PATAKI, individually and as NYS Governor, RANDY
A. DANIELS, NYS Secretary of State with authority and repository 1. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter;
for corporations and unincorporated associations service; per CPLR
1012, NY State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER; THE NEW 2. The court lacks jurisdiction over the person of Leslie Reynolds and the
YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, and every Municipal
Board of Elections, along with every Corporation Counsel of every National Associations of Secretaries of State;
Municipality with a Board of Elections; THE CITY OF NEW YORK
(“NYC”), Michael Bloomberg NYC’s Mayor; UNITED STATES 3. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
ELECTION ASSISTANCE CORPORATION (“EAC”), THOMAS R.
WILKEY, EAC Executive Director; THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION the defendants of Leslie Reynolds and the National Associations of Secretaries of State;
OF SECRETARIES OF STATE (“NASS”) with LESLIE REYNOLDS
Executive Director for the Executive Committee and PETER KOSINSKI, .DATED: Albany, New York
Individually and in his official capacity at the NASS; and per 28 USC December 26, 2005
2403 the United States Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ, s/electronically
____________________________
-Respondents/Defendants JAMES E. LONG, ESQ.
___________________________________________________________ Bar Roll No. 506898
668 Central Avenue
Albany, New York 12206
(518) 458-2444
TO: RONALD G. LOEBER GABRIEL RASSANO

DECLARATION OF SERVICE Petitioner/Plaintiff Petitioner/Plaintiff
2130 Berne Altamont Road 135 Gordon Place
Altamont , NY 12009 Freeport, NY 11520
I, LAURIE M. VROMAN, declare pursuant to 28 USC Section 1746, that on
BURR V. DEITZ EDWARD M. PERSON, JR.
December 26, 2005, I served the annexed ANSWER upon the following individuals by Petitioner/Plaintiff Petitioner/Plaintiff
444 Whitehall Street 392 Seldane Avenue
depositing true copies thereof, properly enclosed in sealed, postpaid wrappers, in a post Albany, NY 12208 North Babylon, NY 11703
office box in the City of Albany, a depository under the exclusive care and custody of the WILLIAM E. BOMBARD CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Petitioner/Plaintiff Petitioner/Plaintiff
United States Postal Service, directed to the individuals at the addresses designated for P.O. Box 882 351 North Road
Glens Falls, NY 12801 Hurley, NY 12443
that purpose as follows:
WILLIAM A. GAGE AD HOC NYS CITIZENS FOR
Petitioner/Plaintiff CONSTITUITONAL LEGISTATIVE
10 Greenfield Lane REDISTRICTING
DATED: December 26, 2005 Hampton, NY 12837 Petitioner/Plaintiff
Albany, New York 315 North Road, Hurley, NY 12443
JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE
___s/_____________________ Petitioner/Plaintiff JEFFREY M. DVORIN, AAG
LAURIE M. VROMAN P.O. Box 28 Attorney for Respondent/Defendants
Clarendon, NY 14428 SPARGO, BRUNO, SILVER, PATAKI
DANIELS, SPITZER
H. WILLIAM VanALLEN Office of the Attorney General
Petitioner/Plaintiff The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224-0341
315 North Road
Hurley, NY 12443 CORPORATION COUNSEL’S OFFICE
Attorney for Respondent/Defendants NYC
FAIRLENE G. RABENDA and MICHAEL BLOOMBERG
Petitioner/Plaintiff City of New York, Department of Law
8 Claudia Lane 100 Church Street
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 New York, NY 10007
RONALD E. SACOFF DAVID N. KELLY

Petitioner/Plaintiff Attorney for Respondent/Defendants EAC,
84 Boylan Street WILKEY,
Staten Island, NY 10312 GONZALEZ
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, NY 10007
ROY-PIERRE DETIEGE-CORMIER TODD VALENTINE, ESQ.
Petitioner/Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants
25 Hattie Jones Circle NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS and
Brooklyn, NY 11213 PETER S. KOSINSKI
40 Steuben Street
Albany, NY 12207
JAMES E. KONSTANTY
OTSEGO COUNTY ATTORNEY
197 Main Street
Cooperstown N.Y. 13326-1129
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Defendants Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy
A. Daniels and Eliot Spitzer, by their attorney, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of
RONALD G. LOEBER, BURR V. DEITZ, WILLIAM E. New York, Jeffrey M. Dvorin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, answer the complaint as
BOMBARD, WILLIAM A. GAGE, JOHN JOSEPH
FORJONE, H. WILLIAM VAN ALLEN, FAIRLENE G. ANSWER follows:
RABENDA, ROY-PIERRE DETIEGE-CORMIER, TO AMENDED
RONALD E. SACOFF, GABRIEL RASSANO, EDWARD COMPLAINT 1. Respectfully submit that the statements contained in the section of the complaint
M. PERSON JR., CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, and
THE AD HOC NEW YORK STATE CITIZENS FOR 04-CV-1193 entitled “Jurisdiction and Venue” consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of this lawsuit and do not
CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING,
(LEK/RFT) require a responsive pleading, except deny any wrongdoing on the part of Defendants as may be
Plaintiffs,
alleged.
-against-
2. Submit that the statements contained paragraphs 1 and 14 of the complaint consist
THOMAS J. SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the
NYS Supreme Court; JOSEPH L. BRUNO, Senator; NYS of Plaintiffs’ characterization of this lawsuit and do not require a responsive pleading, except
SENATE, 61 John and Jane Doe NYS Senators, all
individually and as state senators past and present; deny any wrongdoing on the part of Defendants as may be alleged.
SHELDON SILVER, 149 John and Jane Doe NYS
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, individually and as past and 3. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
present; GEORGE E. PATAKI, individually and as NYS
Governor; RANDY A. DANIELS, NYS Secretary of state contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 88, 92 and 93 of the complaint.
with authority and repository for corporations and
unincorporated associations service; per CPLR 1012, NY 4. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the complaint, except admit
State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER; THE NEW YORK
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, and every Municipal that Defendant Spargo is a duly elected Justice of the New York State Supreme Court within the
Board of Elections, along with every Corporation Counsel of
every Municipality with a Board of Elections, THE CITY OF Third Department and refer to Chapter 30, Article 5 of the Judiciary Law with respect to his
NEW YORK ("NYC"), Michael Bloomberg NYC's Mayor;
UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE authority and duties.
CORPORATION ("EAC"), THOMAS R. WILKEY, EAC
Executive Director; THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 5. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the complaint, except admit
SECRETARIES OF STATE ("NASS") with LESLIE
REYNOLDS Executive Director for the Executive that Defendant Bruno is President Pro Tem of the State Senate, that he represents the 43rd Senate
Committee and PETER KOSINSKI, individually and in his
official capacity at the NASS' and per 28 USC 2403 the District, that he was duly elected as a member of the Republican Party, and that he has an office
United States Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ,
in Albany, NY.
Defendants.
6. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the complaint, except admit evidence of its contents and meaning, and deny the allegations to the extent that they are
that Defendant Silver is speaker of the New York State Assembly, that he represents the 64th inconsistent with that provision.
Assembly District, that he was duly elected as a member of the Democratic Party, and that he has 12. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
an office in Albany, NY. contained in paragraph 23 of the complaint, except admit that Michael Bloomberg is the duly
7. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the complaint, except admit elected Mayor of the City of New York.
that Defendant Pataki is the duly elected Governor of the State of New York, that he was elected 13. Submit that paragraphs 24 and 25 of the complaint simply identify certain
as a member of the Republican Party, that he appoints the Secretary of State – subject to State defendants and thus do not require a responsive pleading.
Senate confirmation – and that he has offices located in Albany, NY. 14. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
8. Deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 48, contained in paragraph 26 of the complaint.
55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87, 89, 91, 15. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the complaint, except admit
94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107 and 108 of the complaint. that Peter Kosinski is a Co-Executive Director of the New York State Board of Elections with
9. With respect to paragraph 20 of the complaint, admit that Eliot Spitzer is the duly offices in Albany, NY.
elected New York State Attorney General; that he has offices in Albany, New York; and refer to 16. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
CPLR 1012 as constituting the best evidence of its contents and meaning and deny the contained in paragraph 28 of the complaint, except admit that Alberto Gonzalez is the Attorney
allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that provision. General of the United States and that he is appointed by the President with the advice and
10. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the complaint and refer to the consent of the Senate.
New York election Law with respect to the powers and duties of the New York state Board of 17. Respectfully submit that the allegations/statements contained in paragraphs 29,
Election. 42, 48, 53, 71, 72, 73, 78, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, and 104 are unintelligible and therefore deny
11. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to those allegations, except deny any
contained in paragraph 22 of the complaint, except admit that the City of New York is a wrongdoing on the part of Defendants as may be alleged.
municipal entity, refer to Article 1X of the New York State Constitution as constituting the best 18. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the complaint, except refer to
the cited court decisions as constituting the best evidence of their contents and meaning.
3 4
19. With respect to paragraphs 39, 41, 44, 45 and 46 of the compliant. refer to the 26. Deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the complaint, except
Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”; 42 U.S.C. Sections 15301-15545) as constituting the best admit that Senator Bruno and Speaker Silver each appoints two members (one legislator and one
evidence of its contents and meaning, and deny the allegations to the extent that they are non-legislator) of the New York State Legislative Task Force for Democratic Research and
inconsistent with that Act. Reapportionment, which assists the legislature in reapportionment.
20. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations 27. With respect to paragraph 70 of the petition, refer to the cited case as constituting
contained in paragraph 39 and 40 of the complaint, admit that the generally accepted definition the best evidence of its contents and meaning and deny the allegations to the extent that they are
of VAP includes the population of voting age individuals. inconsistent with that case.
21. With respect to paragraph 43 of the complaint, refer to Chapter 181 of the Law of 28. With respect to paragraph 79 of the complaint, refer to the cited statute as
New York for 2005 and deny the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with those constituting the best evidence of its contents and meaning and deny the allegations to the extent
provisions. that they are inconsistent with that provision
22. With respect to paragraph 47 of the complaint, refer to Chapters 62 and 181 of the 29. Respectfully submit that the allegations/statements contained in paragraph 83 of
Law of New York for 2005 and deny the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with the complaint are unintelligible, except admit that Section 101 of HAVA provides for the use of
that provision. Voting Age population in determining the amount of payments to states made pursuant to the
23. With respect to paragraphs 49 and 50, deny that there is a single, legally binding Act.
definition of CVAP, but admit that the generally accepted definition of CVAP includes the 30. Respectfully submit that the allegations/statements contained in paragraph 106 of
population of voting age citizens. the complaint are unintelligible and therefore deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
24. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the complaint, except admit belief as to those allegations, except deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the federal
that total population is used in the New York State redistricting process.. False Claims Act.
25. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the complaint, except admit 31. Deny any allegation of the complaint not specifically responded to above.
that Defendant Spargo was present in Florida during the recount process for the 2000 Defenses
Presidential elections and that, in his capacity as a private attorney, he participated as a watcher 32. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
during that process. 33. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action.
5 6
34. At all relevant times Defendants Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon TO: Christopher Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #281
Silver, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels and Eliot Spitzer acted under the reasonable belief Brooklyn, NY 11238
that their conduct was in accordance with clearly established law. They are, therefore, protected Ronald G. Loeber
2130 Berne Altamont Road
under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Altamont, NY 12009
35. The complaint is barred, in whole or in part, under the Eleventh Amendment. William E. Bombard
P.O. Box 882
WHEREFORE, Defendants Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George Glens Falls, NY 12801
E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels and Eliot Spitzer respectfully ask that this Court deny the relief William A. Gage
10 Greenfield Lane
requested, dismiss the complaint, and grant such other relief as to the Court shall seem is just and Hampton, NY 12837
equitable. John Forjone

P.O. Box 28
Dated: Albany, New York Clarendon, NY 14429
December 29, 2005
ELIOT SPITZER Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier
Attorney General of the State of New York 25 Hattie Jones Circle
Attorney for Defendants Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph Brooklyn, NY 11213
L. Bruno, Sheldon Silver, George E. Pataki,
Randy A. Daniels and Eliot Spitzer Chlarens Orsland
The Capitol Office of the Corporation Counsel
Albany, New York 12224-0341 City of New York, Department of Law
100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007
Barbara D. Cottrell
By: Jeffrey M. Dvorin U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District
James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, Room 218
Jeffrey M. Dvorin 445 Broadway
Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel Albany, NY 12207-2924
Bar Roll No. 101559
Telephone: (518) 473-7614 James E. Konstanty
Fax:(518) 473-1572 (not for service of papers) County Attorney
Email: Jeffrey.Dvorin@oag.state.ny.us Otsego County
County Office Building
197 Main Street
Cooperstown, NY 13326-1129
7
Edward M. Person, Jr.
392 Saldane Avenue
North Babylon, NY 11703
The Ad Hoc NYS Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting

351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12443
Burr V. Deitz
444 Whitehall Street
Albany, NY 12208
H. William Van Allen

351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12443
Fairlene G. Rabenda
8 Claudia Lane
Ronald E. Sacoff
84 Boylan Street
Staten Island, NY 10312
Gabriel Rassano
135 Gordon Place
Freeport, NY 11520
James E. Long, Esq.

668 Central Avenue
Albany, NY 12206
Todd Valentine
Special Counsel
New York State Board of Elections
40 Steuben Street
Albany, 12207
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
RONALD G. LOEBER, et al., )
) A. Procedural Posture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Plaintiffs, )
) B. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:04cv1193 (LEK/RFT)
) C. Relief Requested By Plaintiffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
THOMAS J. SPARGO, et al., )
) D. Standards on a Motion to Dismiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Defendants. )
____________________________________ ) II. Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. The Amended Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be
MEMORANDUM OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Granted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
1. HAVA Is a Constitutional Exercise of Congress’ Broad Powers under the
Elections Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. The Amended Complaint Fails to State a Claim Under the United States
Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. The Amended Complaint Fails to State Any Other Kind of Claim Against
the Federal Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Plaintiffs Do Not Have Standing to Bring Any Claim Asserted in the Amended
Complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged That They Have Been Injured by HAVA . 17
2. Plaintiffs Are Asserting Only a Generalized Grievance That Does Not

Confer Standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1997 .............................................................. 6
CASES: Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) ............................................................................... 8
Amalfitano v. United States, 2001 WL 103437, (S.D.N.Y. 2001) .................................. 16 Thompson v. County of Franklin, 15 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 1994) ......................................... 7
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Edgar, United States v. Vazquez, 145 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1998) .................................................... 12
56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 9, 12
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
Association of Community Organization for Reform Now v. Miller, Inc., 454U.S. 464 (1982) .................................................................................... 19, 20
129 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................... 8, 9, 11, 12
Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534 (1986) .............................. 17 516 U.S. 1093 (1996) ...................................................................................... 9, 10, 12
Biller v. United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ............................................................................... 7
863 F.2d 1079 (2d Cir. 1988) ..................................................................................... 7
Cohn v. New Paltz Central School District, 363 F. Supp. 2d 421 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) ....... 6 CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS:
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) .............................................................................. 6 United States Const., Art. I, Sec. 4 (Elections Clause) ................................................. 7, 8
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) .......................... 16, 19 Art. VI (Supremacy Clause) ..................................................................................... 14
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) ....................................................... 7 False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 ............................................................................... 14
Giles v. Ashcroft, 193 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D.D.C. 2002) ................................................... 16 Help America Vote Act, Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666, 42 U.S.C. 15301-15545
(2002) .................................................................................................................. passim
Gosnell v. F.D.I.C., 938 F.2d 372 (2d Cir. 1991) ..................................................... 19, 20
National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq ................................. 8
Kalsson v. United States Federal Election Commission,
356 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ....................................................................... 16 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg-2 ............................................................................................... 8
Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1996) .................................................................... 6, 7 Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c ................................................................. 15
Levisohn, Lerner, Berger & Langsam v. Medical Taping Systems, Inc., 42 U.S.C. 1973l(b) .................................................................................................... 16
10 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ......................................................................... 12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(3)(A) ............................................................................................... 1
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ............................................... 17, 18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) .................................................................................................... 1
Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977) ...................................................................... 16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .................................................................................................... 1
Ragin v. New York Times Co., 923 F.2d 995 (2d Cir. 1991) ............................................ 7
28 C.F.R. Part 51 ............................................................................................................. 15
Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1983) ............................................................... 6
i ii
2005 N.Y. Sess. Laws, c. 179 (McKinney's) .............................................................. 5, 18 The United States respectfully submits this memorandum on behalf of defendants Alberto
2005 N.Y. Sess. Laws, c. 181 (McKinney's) .............................................................. 5, 18 Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”), the United States
MISCELLANEOUS: Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), and Thomas R. Wilkey, as Executive Director of the
H.R. Rep. No. 107-329, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., Pt. 1 (2001) .................. 2, 10 EAC (collectively, “federal defendants”), in support of the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The federal defendants seek dismissal of the complaint in so far as it seeks to bring claims
against them and insofar as it seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the Help America Vote
Act, Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666, 42 U.S.C. 15301-15545 (2002) (“HAVA”). The
federal defendants’ motion to dismiss is brought: 1) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim against the federal defendants and HAVA upon which relief
can be granted, and 2) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter based on plaintiffs’ failure to allege sufficient standing to bring claims against the
federal defendants and HAVA.
I. Background
A. Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed the Verified Amended Complaint in this action (the
“Amended Complaint”) on November 21, 2005 (Docket #25), and served it on the U.S.
Attorney’s Office on December 12, 2005. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(3)(A). The Amended
Complaint, among other things, challenges the constitutionality of HAVA, and seeks a
nationwide injunction against certain January 1, 2006 deadlines in HAVA, primarily on the
asserted ground that Congress used what Plaintiffs deem to be the wrong formula in determining
how to apportion federal funding to the states to update their election administration and voting
technology. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint also makes various allegations regarding
iii -1-
apportionment and redistricting of electoral districts in New York.1 Title II of HAVA establishes a new independent federal agency, the EAC, which is
B. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 designed to be a “national clearinghouse and resource” for information regarding the
After the 2000 presidential election, a bipartisan majority in Congress enacted, and the administration of federal elections. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15321-15472. The EAC consists of four
President signed into law on October 29, 2002, the Help America Vote Act. HAVA was members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, with a
designed to improve the administration of elections for federal office in the United States. professional staff, and advisory boards set up under HAVA. Among other things, HAVA makes
HAVA applies to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the EAC responsible for developing voluntary guidance for the states on the minimum standards
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See 42 U.S.C. § 15541. HAVA was enacted pursuant to Congress’ requirements of Title III, conducting studies on a number of specific election issues, receiving
power to regulate elections for federal office pursuant to Article I, Section 4 (the “Elections and assessing “state plans” for HAVA compliance, and disbursing “requirements payments” to
Clause”) of the United States Constitution. See H.R. Rep. No. 107-329, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., states to meet the minimum requirements in Title III. Id. Title II sets forth a specific formula for
Pt. 1, at 57 (2001). distribution of “requirement payments” funds to the states and other specific conditions for
Title I of HAVA authorizes financial assistance to states. Section 101 provides funds to receipt of funds. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15401-15408. The Title II requirements payments formula is
states to use for improving the administration of federal elections, improving election systems, based in part on a state’s voting age population as reported by the U.S. Census. See 42 U.S.C. §
educating voters, training election officials, improving accessibility to disabled voters and 15402. HAVA also sets up a smaller program of payments to states for improving access to the
language minority voters, creating election hotlines, and other purposes. 42 U.S.C. § 15301. election process by persons with disabilities, to be administered by the Department of Health and
Section 102 provides funds to states for voluntary replacement of punch card and lever voting Human Services. Altogether, Congress authorized 3.79 billion dollars to be appropriated as
machines. 42 U.S.C. § 15302. Sections 101 and 102 set forth specific formulas for distribution payments to the states under HAVA. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15304, 15407, 15424, 15462.
of Title I money to the states, and other specific conditions which states must follow in order to Title III of HAVA contains uniform and nondiscriminatory minimum election technology
receive federal funds. The formula for Section 101 payments includes voting age population as and administration requirements for federal elections. Title III includes three requirements for
reported by the U.S. Census. 42 U.S.C. § 15301. Each state’s decision whether to seek federal states which went into effect on January 1, 2004: 1) allowing voters who assert that they are
funds under HAVA is wholly voluntary. 42 U.S.C. § 15301(a). registered and eligible to vote, but whose names do not appear on the rolls at a polling place, or
who are challenged as ineligible by a poll official, to vote provisional ballots, 42 U.S.C. §
1 15482(a); 2) requiring the posting of specific voter information in polling places on election day,
On or about November 29, 2005 Plaintiffs filed, by order to show cause (Docket #33),
a motion for a preliminary injunction, which has been briefed and is presently under submission.
-2- -3-
42 U.S.C. § 15482(b), and 3) specifying voter identification requirements for new voters who are required to be covered by HAVA. See, e.g, 2005 N.Y. Laws, Chapters 179 & 181.
registering to vote by mail, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(b). Title IV of HAVA authorizes the Attorney General of the United States to bring a civil
Title III of HAVA includes two additional complex requirements which went into effect action in an appropriate United States District Court against any state or jurisdiction for such
in most states on January 1, 2006: 1) ensuring each voting system “used in an election for declaratory or injunctive relief “as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and
Federal office” meets several requirements concerning verification, audit capacity, error rates, nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 301, 302,
accessibility to voters with disabilities, and accessibility to voters who speak languages other and 303.” See 42 U.S.C. § 15511. By its terms, HAVA does not create any private right of
than English (where required), 42 U.S.C. § 15481, and 2) creating a single, uniform, centralized action for private individuals. Instead, Section 402 of HAVA requires states which receive
and computerized statewide voter registration list, defined and maintained at the state level, funding under HAVA to establish and maintain administrative complaint procedures to deal with
which is to serve as “the official voter registration list for the conduct of all elections for Federal any complaints by persons regarding alleged violations of Title III. See 42 U.S.C. § 15512.
office in the State,” 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a) (which a few states implemented in 2004, but for C. Relief Requested By Plaintiffs
which most states sought a waiver of implementation until 2006). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Docket #25), as it relates to the federal defendants, is at
States were required to comply with the requirements of Title III of HAVA whether or best, difficult to comprehend. The Amended Complaint purports to allege at least fourteen
not they sought federal funding to cover the costs of compliance. 42 U.S.C. § 15481(a) (“Each causes of action (along with twelve “injuries”). The causes of action allege, in vague and often
voting system used in an election for Federal office shall meet the following requirements: . . .”); indecipherable terms, wrongdoing by various defendants regarding the implementation of
42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A) (“each State . . . shall implement” the computerized statewide list various election laws. Throughout the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs repeat certain slogans –
requirements contained therein). e.g., “bottom up suffrage,” “Home-rule autonomy,” “rotten boroughs suffrage,”
Section 304 of HAVA provides that the requirements of Title III are simply minimum “Disproportionate Diminished Dilution” – but Plaintiffs never define these terms. See, e.g.,
requirements and that states are free to establish requirements which are “more strict” so long as Amended Complaint, at 1-2; at 20, ¶ 71.
they are not otherwise inconsistent with federal law, and Section 305 of HAVA provides that the As a legal matter, Plaintiffs’ grievances seem to fall into two basic categories: 1)
“specific choices” on the methods of complying with Title III are “left to the discretion of the allegations regarding HAVA, and 2) allegations regarding apportionment and redistricting of
State.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 15484-15485. As is its right, New York has chosen, by legislation, to electoral districts in the State of New York. Although these two issues are wholly distinct and
apply the requirements of Title III of HAVA to state elections, in addition to the federal elections unrelated, Plaintiffs repeatedly conflate them in a very confused manner.
-4- -5-
The Amended Complaint contends that HAVA is unconstitutional because Congress and viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs.” Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.
distributed funds to the states based in part on “VAP” (voting age population) instead of 1996) (citations omitted). “While the pleading standard is a liberal one, bald assertions and
“CVAP” (citizen voting age population), Amended Complaint at 12, ¶ 30, and because Congress conclusions of law will not suffice.” Id. (citations omitted). Similarly, on a motion to dismiss
“unreasonably set a deadline for January 1, 2006 under HAVA for New York and the several under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, a Court must “accept as true all material allegations of
states to implement regulations and a plan for acquisition of new voting machines for the US the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” Thompson v.
House Election in November of 2006.” Id., at 15, ¶ 41; see also id., at 14-16, ¶¶ 39-47; at 22- County of Franklin, 15 F.3d 245, 249 (2d Cir. 1994), quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501
23, ¶¶ 81-88; at 24, ¶¶ 91, 92, 95; and at 27-28, ¶¶ 1-4. (1975). “Standing, moreover, like other jurisdictional inquiries, cannot be inferred
Plaintiffs request, among other things, that the “HAVA January 1, 2006 compliance argumentatively from averments in the pleadings, . . . but rather must affirmatively appear in the
deadline for each state of the several states be stayed nationwide until such time that the court record.” Thompson, 15 F.3d at 249, quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231
determines the constitutionality of the use of VAP funding rather than CVAP without those (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted)
adjudged civilly dead, and determines equity for reimbursement using CVAP nationwide On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the moving party bears the burden of proof,
accordingly.” Id., at 28, ¶ 2. Ragin v. New York Times Co., 923 F.2d 995, 999 (2d Cir. 1991), whereas on a motion to
D. Standards on a Motion to Dismiss dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court bears the
“In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, it is now axiomatic that a court burden of proof. Thompson, 15 F.3d at 249.
must construe it liberally, applying less stringent standards than when a plaintiff is represented II. Argument
by counsel.” Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1983). However, even under the A. The Amended Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be
Granted
“less stringent standards” which apply to a pro se plaintiff,“dismissal is nevertheless appropriate
1. HAVA Is a Constitutional Exercise of Congress’ Broad Powers under
where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim the Elections Clause
which would entitle him to relief.’” Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 65 (2d Cir. 1997), As a general rule, “all Acts of Congress . . . bear[] a heavy presumption of
quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Cf. Cohn v. New Paltz Central School constitutionality.” Biller v. United States Merit Systems Protection Bd., 863 F.2d 1079 (2d Cir.
Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 421, 426 (N.D.N.Y. 2005). On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a 1988). When Congress adopted HAVA, it was acting well within the broad powers vested in it
Court “take[s] all well-plead factual allegations as true, and all reasonable inferences are drawn by the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution to regulate federal elections. The
-6- -7-
Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4 provides: Reform Now v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833, 836 (6th Cir. 1997). In this way, it granted even more
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators extensive powers to Congress than those conferred under the Commerce Clause, because
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law “Article I section 4 specifically grants Congress the authority to force states to alter their
make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing
Senators. regulations regarding federal elections.” Id. The Court further noted that Congress had the
In Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), the United States Supreme Court characterized authority to enact the challenged legislation even if it imposed unfunded mandates on the states.
Congress’ power under the Elections Clause in the most expansive possible terms: Id., at 837.
It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace In Assoc. of Comm. Org. for Reform Now v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1995), the
authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,
not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, Seventh Circuit rejected a similar challenge to the NVRA. The Court noted that, while “the
registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention
of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of provisions of the Constitution that relate to the states mostly tell them not what they must do but
inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election
returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to what they can or cannot do,” the Elections Clause “is an exception. The first sentence tells the
procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in
order to enforce the fundamental right involved. states that they, not Congress, must regulate the times, places, and manner of holding federal
Id., at 366. elections, implicitly at their own expense.” Id., at 794. Thus, “Congress can, as in the law fixing
More recently, the broad nature of the authority granted to Congress by the Elections a uniform date for federal elections, regulate federal elections and force the state to bear the
Clause has been thoroughly analyzed by a trio of circuit courts of appeals which rejected expense of the regulation.” Id. (emphasis in original).
constitutional challenges to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et The Ninth Circuit similarly upheld the NVRA in Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson, 60
seq.(“NVRA”), also known as the “Motor Voter” law. 2

F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1093 (1996). Observing that the Elections
In rejecting a challenge to the NVRA, the Sixth Circuit noted that the Elections Clause Clause grants powers to Congress that are “quite broad” (id., at 1413), the Court clearly held that
explicitly granted Congress the extraordinary power “either to ‘make’ laws regarding federal Congress could use this power to impose costs on the states, even if those costs were
elections . . . or to ‘alter’ the laws initially promulgated by the states.” Assoc. of Comm. Org. for considerable:
Congress may conscript state agencies to carry out voter

registration for the election of Representatives and Senators. The
2 exercise of that power by Congress is by its terms intended to be
NVRA requires, among other things, that states, in elections for federal office, offer
borne by the states without compensation. None of the authorities
voter registration by mail, in driver licensing offices, and in offices which administer public
recognizing the exercise of the Times, Places and Manner power
assistance and disability programs, and that states undertake certain measures regarding
vested in Congress have suggested, even remotely, the necessity of
maintaining their voter registration lists. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg-2 to 1973gg-6.
-8- -9-
the United States bearing the burden of any alteration it imposed. explanation whatsoever as to how they might have been violated either by the federal defendants
True, usually the actual cost to the states was relatively small,
while in this instance, it may be significant. That does not change or by the provisions of HAVA. Some constitutional references are, frankly, entirely fanciful, as
the principle which is embodied in Article I, section 4 . . .
when the Amended Complaint mentions Article I, Section 9 (regarding bills of attainder and ex
Id., at 1415.
post facto laws); the Fourth Amendment (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
HAVA was enacted pursuant to the same exceptionally broad and explicit grant of power
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . .
to Congress by the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate elections for federal
.); the Eighth Amendment (“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
office on which these courts sustained the NVRA. See H.R. Rep. No. 107-329, 107th Cong., 1st
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”); and the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery
Sess., Pt. 1, at 57 (2001). Congress’ determination in HAVA of (1) the funding reimbursement
and involuntary servitude). See Amended Complaint, at 2 (Jurisdiction and Venue). There is
formula for states for election reform measures, and (2) the January 2006 deadline for states to
not the slightest indication anywhere in the Amended Complaint as to how these provisions
comply with HAVA’s voting system standards (which deadline occurred more than three years
might be implicated here. Further, contrary to what the Plaintiffs appear to assert, there is no
after HAVA’s passage), were well within Congress’ powers to enact under the Elections Clause
“protection against an unreasonable statute by Congress” under the Ninth or Tenth Amendments.
for federal elections.
See Amended Complaint, at 2.
2. The Amended Complaint Fails to State a Claim Under the United
States Constitution When the Amended Complaint does refer to constitutional provisions that could, in a
At the most fundamental level, the Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action proper context, have something to do with the right to vote, there is no explanation as to how
because it fails to describe how, exactly, Plaintiffs were harmed, as voters, on account of the such provisions apply in this case. Thus, for example, the Amended Complaint refers to the Due
funding or other provisions of HAVA, either under a specific constitutional provision or Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, but fails to state how these provisions were
otherwise. Thus, although the Amended Complaint refers in scattershot fashion to a number of violated by the federal funding formula (or any other provision) contained in HAVA. See, e.g.,
constitutional provisions, and although it appears to allege many different kinds of official Amended Complaint, at 2 (referring to Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). Plaintiffs’
wrongdoing, it never does succeed at its most basic purpose – that of actually alleging a specific constitutional challenge to the formula in HAVA to dispense federal funds to the states is
constitutional injury. especially weak, given that Congress had the constitutional authority under the Elections Clause
The Amended Complaint makes frequent reference to clauses contained in the United to refuse to provide any compensatory funding whatsoever, and to compel the states to pay the
States Constitution, but evinces little understanding of those clauses, and provides no full cost of implementing any federal regulations. See Miller, supra, 129 F.3d at 836-37
-10- -11-
(discussing Congress’ power under the Elections Clause to direct state expenditures on plaintiffs’ claims against HAVA and the plaintiffs’ claims against the federal defendants, should
elections); Edgar, supra, 56 F.3d at 794 (same); Wilson, supra, 60 F.3d at 1415 (same). The be dismissed.
Amended Complaint’s invocation of the Fifteenth Amendment is inapposite because no one has 3. The Amended Complaint Fails to State Any Other Kind of Claim
Against the Federal Defendants
been denied the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. See
Apart from its irregular references to various clauses of the United States Constitution,
Amended Complaint, at 2. The unsupported suggestion in the Amended Complaint, at 2-3, at
the Amended Complaint states no other kind of claim against the federal defendants.
25, ¶ 102, that the State of New York no longer has a republican form of government, and that
The Amended Complaint includes very few specific references whatsoever to the federal
federal intervention is thereby warranted under the guarantee clause of Article IV, Section 4, is
defendants. While the Amended Complaint makes passing references to the EAC, it does not
frivolous, particularly in light of the general lack of justiciability of such claims. See United
specifically allege anything that the EAC is doing harms the plaintiffs, nor does it seek any relief
States v. Vazquez,145 F.3d 74, 83-84 (2d Cir. 1998).
from the EAC. See Amended Complaint, at 22, ¶ 83, at 26, ¶ 106, at 27, ¶ 108, and at 28, ¶ 4.
As the foregoing makes clear, the Amended Complaint, as written, improperly compels
Moreover, the Amended Complaint has little specific to say about the United States Attorney
the federal defendants to try to guess the nature or character of whatever constitutional violations
General. The complaint first seems to suggest that the Attorney General is being sued only in his
Plaintiffs might have intended to allege. This is not a defendant’s responsibility. The federal
role to defend federal law. Id. at 11, ¶ 28. The complaint then seems to suggest that the
defendants are aware of the difficulties involved in proceeding pro se, but Plaintiffs chose to
Attorney General has some unspecified role in the distribution of federal funds, or certification
proceed in that manner. The federal defendants should not be forced to try to interpret or dignify
of state compliance plans, under HAVA. Id. at 15, ¶ 42; at 27, ¶ 108, at 28, ¶ 4. However,
or render coherent the allegations in the Amended Complaint. See Levisohn, Lerner, Berger &
under HAVA, the Attorney General has no role in federal funding or certification of compliance
Langsam v. Medical Taping Systems, Inc., 10 F. Supp. 2d 334, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“[T]he
plans.3 Plaintiffs thus can state no specific claim against the Attorney General related to the
principal function of pleadings under the Federal Rules is to give the adverse party fair notice of
administration of HAVA.
the claim asserted so as to enable [that party] to answer and prepare for trial.”) (citation and
The Amended Complaint does not allege that the federal defendants have misinterpreted,
internal quotations omitted).
Because the Amended Complaint fails to allege how any provision of HAVA, or the 3
There is no HAVA provision which gives the Attorney General any role in federal
funding. The only HAVA provision which might have given the Attorney General some role in
federal defendants’ implementation of HAVA, violates any specific provision of the United
reviewing compliance plans is 42 U.S.C. § 15512, but since that provision only relates to states
which did not receive federal funds, and plaintiffs allege that New York did receive federal
States Constitution, and because HAVA is clearly constitutional under the Elections Clause, the
funds, it has no applicability here (nor in any other state for that matter, since all accepted federal
funds). See Amended Complaint, at 15, ¶ 42; at 16, ¶ 47.
-12- -13-
or misapplied, or improperly implemented, HAVA. Rather, Plaintiffs seek to bring a Finally, Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding reapportionment and redistricting in New York
constitutional challenge to the specific terms of HAVA itself, specifically, the funding formula, fail to state a claim against the federal defendants, because these federal defendants played no
as it was passed by Congress. See, e.g., Amended Complaint, at 12, ¶ 30; at 14-15, ¶¶ 39-41; at role in crafting such plans. Plaintiffs allege that New York redistricted its state legislative
22-23, ¶¶ 83-87; at 28, ¶ 2. However, HAVA’s statutory funding formula provides no discretion districts on April 22, 2002. See Amended Complaint, at 7-8, ¶¶ 16-17; at 12, ¶ 29; at 14, ¶ 37.
to federal defendants. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301, 15402. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not state a Plaintiffs allege that HAVA was enacted on October 29, 2002, after the enactment of state
claim against the federal defendants under HAVA, because they do not allege that the federal legislative districts. See Id. at 12, ¶ 29; at 17, ¶ 55. By its plain terms, HAVA authorized the
defendants violated that law (nor could they, in any event, since HAVA contains no private right creation of the EAC as a brand new federal agency upon appointment of the new commissioners.
of action). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15321-15330. HAVA itself has no provisions which relate to reapportionment
The bulk of the Amended Complaint – even those parts purporting to challenge HAVA – and redistricting of electoral districts, nor does HAVA give the EAC any authority over such
is devoted to alleging violations of New York’s Constitution and Election Law. See, e.g., subjects. Id. Thus, HAVA and the EAC, which came into being after redistricting occurred in
Amended Complaint, at 13, ¶ 34; at 18; ¶ 61; at 19, ¶¶ 65, 69. As long as HAVA is New York, could have played no part in redistricting in New York since they did not exist when
constitutional, however, Plaintiffs’ citations to New York law are not sufficient to state a claim redistricting occurred, and they have no statutory role in such matters.
against the federal defendants, because the federal statute supersedes any contrary state The only specific allegation which the plaintiffs make regarding the Attorney General of
constitutional or legal provisions. U.S. Const., Art. VI (Supremacy Clause). the United States and New York’s redistricting are that he undertook a review of state
Plaintiffs also have no cognizable claim under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § redistricting plans after their enactment by the legislature, as required by federal law. See
3729. Plaintiffs suggest a frivolous theory under which they claim some of the federal funds Amended Complaint, at 12, ¶ 29; at 14, ¶ 37. This review is, by law, a very limited one,
distributed to the states under HAVA for election reforms should be diverted to them. See conducted under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, aimed at ensuring
Amended Complaint, at 26, ¶ 106; at 27, ¶ 108; and, at 29, ¶ 13. Because HAVA is no retrogression in minority voting strength in several counties in New York City. See 28
constitutional, applications filed by states for federal funding under HAVA’s statutory funding C.F.R. Part 51. As plaintiffs allege, the Attorney General “precleared” or approved New York’s
formula, are not “false claims” in the manner which plaintiffs’ suggest. Moreover, plaintiffs’ redistricting plans in 2002. See Amended Complaint, at 14, ¶ 37. Plaintiffs do not explain how
effort to claim HAVA funds for themselves is precluded by HAVA’s own terms, which flatly bar the Attorney General’s review and approval of redistricting plans for the State could possibly
use of federal HAVA funds to pay any judgments. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301(b)(2), 15401(f). have harmed them. In any event, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Attorney General’s
-14- -15-
decision to preclear voting changes under Section 5 is not subject to judicial review. See Morris 1. Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged That They Have Been Injured by HAVA
v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977). Moreover, the Voting Rights Act itself provides that any To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must plead three elements: (1) “injury in
challenges to the Act or to the Attorney General’s administration of it must be brought in the fact,” (2) a “causal connection” between the injury and the challenged act, and (3) that the injury
federal court in the District of Columbia. See 42 U.S.C. 1973l(b). Hence, plaintiffs have no “likely” would be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
claim against the Attorney General related to New York’s redistricting matters. 555, 560-61 (1992) (citations and internal quotations omitted). “The party invoking federal
Plaintiffs’ claims regarding federal defendants are frivolous. jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements.” Id. at 561.
B. Plaintiffs Do Not Have Standing to Bring Any Claim Asserted in the “Injury in fact” means “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
Amended Complaint
and particularized and . . . (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (internal
In order for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a case, the party seeking to
quotations and citations omitted). That injury “must affect the plaintiff in a personal and
invoke the jurisdiction of the court must have standing to sue. Standing is analyzed in two ways
individual way.” Id. at 560 n.1. In cases where “a constitutional question is presented,” the
under the applicable case law. “Article III standing,” embodies “judicially self-imposed limits
Supreme Court has “strictly adhered to the standing requirements to ensure that our deliberations
on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,” and requires that a plaintiff “show that the conduct of
will have the benefit of adversary presentation and a full development of the relevant facts.”
which he complains has caused him to suffer an ‘injury in fact’ that a favorable judgment will
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541-42 (1986). The Supreme Court has
redress.” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11-12 (2004) (citations and
observed:
internal quotations omitted). By contrast, “prudential standing” refers to “the rule barring
The requirement of actual injury redressable by the court . . . tends
adjudication of generalized grievances . . .” Id., at 12 (citations and internal quotations omitted). to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be
resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but
Under both doctrines, it is clear that Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring whatever in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation
of the consequences of judicial action.
claims are, in fact, asserted against the federal defendants by the Amended Complaint.4
Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). In the instant case, the Amended Complaint fails,
for several reasons, to plead an injury in fact affecting Plaintiffs.

4
In appropriate cases, courts have granted the federal government’s motions to dismiss
First, Plaintiffs have not alleged that they have suffered any injury as voters, because
constitutional challenges against federal voting rights statutes based on failure to allege
sufficient standing on the face of the complaint. See Giles v. Ashcroft, 193 F. Supp. 2d 258
New York is required to implement HAVA whether or not additional federal funding is
(D.D.C. 2002) (challenge to Voting Rights Act dismissed); Amalfitano v. United States, 2001
WL 103437 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 07, 2001) (copy attached) (challenge to NVRA dismissed); Kalsson
forthcoming. See 42 U.S.C. § 15481(a) (“Each voting system used in an election for Federal
v. United States Federal Election Commission, 356 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (challenge
to NVRA dismissed).
-16- -17-
office shall meet the following requirements: . . .”); 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A) (“each State . . . Fifth, because Congress has virtually plenary authority under the Elections Clause to alter
shall implement” the computerized statewide list requirements contained therein) (emphasis electoral regulations, and to compel the State to pay for implementing those regulations,
added); see also 2005 N.Y. Laws, Chap. 179 and 181 (applying requirements of HAVA to New Plaintiffs can never claim that New York had any kind of a “right” to any funds the federal
York state elections). government chose to disburse. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot base an injury on the absence of
Second, and just as basically, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a causal nexus between any such funds.
provision of HAVA and any supposed injury to their right to vote. See Lujan, supra, 504 U.S. at Sixth, Plaintiffs, all of whom allege that they are from the State of New York, see
560 (“there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the Amended Complaint, at 4-5, ¶¶ 1-13, have not demonstrated standing to raise claims nationwide
injury has to be ‘fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant . . .’”) (citation on behalf of voters from other states. Likewise, Plaintiffs cannot obtain the remedy they request
omitted). Stated differently, Plaintiffs have failed to allege what, exactly, they suffered on because they have not sued any defendant election officials from other states which would be
account of New York’s supposedly receiving less federal money, or on account of any deadline sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court to enjoin nationwide HAVA implementation by
contained in HAVA. Plaintiffs could, and can, vote, and have their vote counted. states.
Third, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts which, if proven, would show that New York For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of articulating a ground for
actually will, or should, receive more federal funds if the Court applies what Plaintiffs view as Article III standing to assert any claims against the federal defendants.
the “correct” formula (based on citizen voting age population). Plaintiffs’ cursory and purely 2. Plaintiffs Are Asserting Only a Generalized Grievance That Does Not
Confer Standing
speculative allegations in this regard are plainly insufficient. See Amended Complaint, at 15, ¶
“[P]rudential standing” refers to “the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances
42; at 23, ¶ 87.
more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a
Fourth, Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury because Plaintiffs have not alleged that the
plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Elk Grove,
federal HAVA funds which New York will receive or already has received are insufficient to
supra, 542 U.S. at 12. Prudential standing is a particular obstacle to any claim that is based on a
cover all of the State’s expenses in implementing HAVA. In other words, Plaintiffs have not
litigant’s status as a taxpayer. “[T]o establish standing as a taxpayer, an individual must
alleged a shortfall of funds in New York for HAVA-related compliance that caused any specific
demonstrate that the challenged agency action is based on the Government's taxing and spending
injury to them as voters – nor, for that matter, have they alleged that any incremental increase in
power, and, in addition, that the action is contrary to a specific constitutional limitation on the
funding under the disbursement formula they favor would remedy any such injury.
exercise of that power.” Gosnell v. F.D.I.C., 938 F.2d 372, 375 (2d Cir. 1991), citing Valley
-18- -19-
Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. Date: February 10, 2006
464, 478-9 (1982).
The allegations in the Amended Complaint, to the effect that New York has not received Respectfully submitted,
HAVA funds that it would have received if the allegedly “correct” formula had been applied
GLENN T. SUDDABY WAN J. KIM
(Amended Complaint, at 15, ¶ 42; at 23, ¶ 87), can only be understood as a claim based on United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Plaintiffs’ status as taxpayers. Under the cited precedent, this claim fails to state anything other
JOHN K. TANNER
than a generalized grievance. First, HAVA was passed pursuant to the broad constitutional Chief, Voting Section
authority conveyed by the Elections Clause, and not pursuant to “the Government's taxing and /s/ /s/
_____________________________ _____________________________
spending power.” Second, Plaintiffs do not even try to identify a “specific constitutional BARBARA D. COTTRELL T. CHRISTIAN HERREN JR
Assistant United States Attorney chris.herren@usdoj.gov
limitation on the exercise of that power” that HAVA contravenes. See Gosnell, supra, 938 F.2d James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse ROBERT POPPER
445 Broadway, Room 218 robert.popper@usdoj.gov
at 375. Albany, NY 12207-2924 Attorneys, Voting Section
(518) 431-0247 (telephone) Civil Rights Division
Because the Amended Complaint merely states a generalized grievance common to all (518) 431-0429 (facsimile) U.S. Department of Justice
Bar Roll No. 101411 Room 7254--NWB
taxpayers, Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this action against the federal defendants. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
III. Conclusion (800) 253-3931 (telephone)
(202) 307-3961 (facsimile)
For the foregoing reasons, the federal defendants respectfully request that the Amended
Complaint be dismissed as against them, and that the claims challenging HAVA be dismissed.
-20-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Civil Action 04 Civ. 1193 (LEK/RFT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... 2
In the 42 USC 1983 suffrage and autonomy discrimination Matter of: Ronald G. Loeber, Burr V. Deitz, William PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 4
E. Bombard, William A. Gage, John Joseph Forjone, H. William Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda, Roy-Pierre
Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr., Christopher Earl Strunk and The STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 5
AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting
ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 6
Petitioners / Plaintiffs:
-against- THE RAMBLING AND LARGELY
INCOHERENT COMPLAINT DOES NOT
THOMAS J. SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS Supreme Court and all Justices of the State
Supreme Court, et al.
ALLEGE ANY FACTS SUPPORTING A CLAIM
OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE
Respondents / Defendants. CITY OF NEW YORK OR ITS MAYOR;
CONSEQUENTLY, THE COMPLAINT MUST
BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION. ................................................................................ 6
CITY DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
THE COMPLAINT The Standards for a Motion to Dismiss .......................................................................................... 6
42 U.S.C. § 1983............................................................................................................................. 7
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 8

Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Anthony Giardina (Bar Number: 513630)
Assistant Corporation Counsel
P.O. Box 1277
Kingston, N.Y. 12402
Telephone: (845) 340-7559
Fax: (845) 340-7564
E-mail: agiardin@law.nyc.gov
C. Orsland, Of Counsel
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

Sykes v. James,
Cases Pages 13 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................7
Weisman v. LeLandais,
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 532 F.2d 308 (2d Cir. 1976) .....................................................................................................7
398 U.S. 144, 90 S. Ct. 1598 (1970).........................................................................................7
Statutes
Albright v. Oliver,
510 U.S. 266, 114 S. Ct. 807 (1994).........................................................................................7 42 U.S.C. 1983 .......................................................................................................................5,6,7,8
Baker v. McCollan, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................6

443 U.S. 137, 99 S. Ct. 2689 (1979).........................................................................................7
Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-15545 ("HAVA") ................................5,6,8
Burgos v. Hopkins,
14 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................................7
Colon v. Coughlin,
58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................8
Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)...............................................................................................7
EEOC v. Staten Island Sav. Bank,

207 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................6
Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ.,

69 F.3d 669 (2d Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................7
Gomez v. Toledo,
446 U.S. 635, 100 S. Ct. 1920 (1980).......................................................................................8
Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972)...........................................................................................7
Harris v. City of New York,

186 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................................6
Leeds v. Meltz,
85 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1996) .........................................................................................................7
Soto v. Walker,
44 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................7
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,

534 U.S. 506, 122 S. Ct. 992 (2002).........................................................................................7
2
3
Page Page
amended complaint repeatedly rails against the purported unfairness of the current districting, the
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK main thrust of their complaint is directed to the manner in which the United States Congress has
------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the 42 USC 1983 suffrage and autonomy discrimination CITY DEFENDANTS’ apportioned funds to the states to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. §§
Matter of: Ronald G. Loeber, Burr V. Deitz, William E. MEMORANDUM OF
Bombard, William A. Gage, John Joseph Forjone, H. LAW IN SUPPORT OF 15301-15545 (“HAVA”), as well as the manner in which the federal government is overseeing
William Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda, Roy-Pierre MOTION TO DISMISS
Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, THE COMPLAINT the process.
Edward M. Person, Jr., Christopher Earl Strunk and The AD
HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative 04 Civ. 1193 (LEK) Whichever theory plaintiffs are propounding, the amended complaint is devoid of
Redistricting
Petitioners / Plaintiffs: any semblance of a coherent cause of action against the City of New York or its mayor
-against-
(hereinafter, “the City defendants.”) Accordingly, the City defendants move to dismiss the
NYS Supreme Court and all Justices of the State Supreme
Court, JOSEPH L. BRUNO, 61 JOHN and JANE DOE NYS
complaint for failure to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SENATORS all individually and as state Senators past and
present; SHELDON SILVER, 149 JOHN and JANE DOE STATEMENT OF FACTS
NYS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS all individually and as past
and present; GEORGE E. PATAKI individually and as NYS Solely for purpose of this motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in the complaint are
Governor; RANDY A. DANIELS, NYS Secretary of State
with authority per CRL and Repository for corporations and deemed to be true.
unincorporated associations service; per CPLR 1012 New
York State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER; THE NEW The plaintiffs appear to be members or supporters of an entity called ‘the AD
YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, and every
Municipal Board of Elections, along with every Corporation HOC [sic] New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting,’ whose apparent
Counsel of every Municipality with a Board of Elections,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK (“NYC”), Michael Bloomberg
goal is to change the manner in which the State of New York establishes voting districts. As best
NYC’s Mayor, UNITED STATES ELECTION
ASSISTANCE CORPORATION (“EAC”), THOMAS R.
WILKEY EAC Executive Director, THE NATIONAL as can be discerned from the amended complaint, plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the manner in
ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE (“NASS”)
by LESLIE REYNOLDS Executive Director for the which the State of New York has divided the state into election districts, and the manner in
Executive Committee and PETER KOSINSKI, individually
and his official capacity at the NASS; and per 28 USC 2403 which the State Board of Elections is administering the implementation of the Help America
The United States Attorney General ALBERTO
GONZALEZ (“USDOJ”). Vote Act (“HAVA”). Plaintiffs also allege that the United States Congress has purportedly not
Respondents / Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------x allocated sufficient funding to the State of New York. Finally, they allege that a federal body
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT that oversees the distribution of federal funds, the United States Election Assistance Corporation
The Pro Se plaintiffs are individuals opposed to the manner in which the (“EAC”), is improperly carrying out its duties under HAVA. See generally, amended complaint.
legislature of the State of New York has divided the state into election districts. While the
4 5
Page Page
There appear to be no coherent allegations about the role of the City of New York Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534
or its Mayor. U.S. 506, 514, 122 S.Ct. 992 (2002). “The issue is not whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail
ARGUMENT ultimately, “but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” Gant v.
THE RAMBLING AND LARGELY Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 69 F.3d 669, 673 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Weisman v. LeLandais, 532
INCOHERENT COMPLAINT DOES NOT
ALLEGE ANY FACTS SUPPORTING A F.2d 308, 311 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam)). “While the pleading standard is a liberal one, bald
CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CONDUCT BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK assertions and conclusions of law will not suffice.” Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.
OR ITS MAYOR; CONSEQUENTLY, THE
COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED FOR 1996).
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.
Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, a court must construe the complaint liberally
Plaintiffs, a group of citizens and voters, are opposed to the manner in which the
and “interpret [it] to raise the strongest arguments that [it] suggest[s].” Soto v. Walker, 44 F.3d
State of New York has been divided into election districts. They bring this action pursuant to 42
169, 173 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)). See also
U.S.C. § 1983, primarily objecting to the manner in which the United States Congress has
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595 (1972) (holding that pro se complaints
allocated federal funds to the states to comply with the various mandates of the Help America
should be “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”).
Vote Act (“HAVA”). Plaintiffs also take issue with the oversight of HAVA funds and
42 U.S.C. § 1983
implementation measures of the federal EAC. However, the complaint is devoid of allegations
Section 1983 provides a civil claim for damages against any person who, acting
of illegal or unconstitutional conduct by the City of New York or its mayor.
under color of state law, deprives another of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the
The Standards for a Motion to Dismiss
Constitution of laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. 1598 (1970); Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993).
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper only where “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
Because “section 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Harris v. City of
method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred[,]’ [t]he first step in any such claim is
New York, 186 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir. 1999). The factual allegations in the complaint are
to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S.
presumed to be true, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiff’s favor. EEOC v.
266, 271, 114 S.Ct. 807 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n.3, 99 S.Ct.
Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d 144, 148 (2d Cir. 2000).
2689 (1979)).
Dismissal of the complaint is proper when “it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
6 7
Page Page
To prevail on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that a person acting under Conclusion
color of state law deprived him or her of a federal right. See 42 U.S. § 1983; Gomez v. Toledo, For the foregoing reasons, the City defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint
446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920 (1980). “[P]ersonal involvement of defendants in alleged should be granted.
constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.” Colon v. Dated: Kingston, New York
February 17, 2006
Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
Analysis MICHAEL A. CARDOZO

In this case, plaintiffs have not articulated a coherent cause of action describing Attorney for City Defendants City of New York and
Michael Bloomberg
any illegal or unconstitutional conduct of the City defendants. The complaint primarily appears
to criticize the manner in which the Congress has apportioned funds to the states pursuant to /s/
By: ____________________________________
HAVA, and the manner in which the EAC has administered the program. However, it is Anthony Giardina (Bar Number: 513630)
apparent from the language of the statute that the City of New York has no role in the P.O. Box 1277
apportionment of HAVA funds, or the manner in which the overall program is administered. Telephone: (845) 340-7559
Fax: (845) 340-7564
Similarly, the manner in which the State of New York apportions the state into election E-mail: agiardin@law.nyc.gov
districts—another recurring grievance of the plaintiffs—does not implicate municipal conduct.
Each of the 14 “causes of action” purport to state an allegation of wrongdoing
against “Defendants both State and Federal their agents and those yet to be named …” [sic],
rather than against the City of New York or its Mayor. See amended complaint seriatim.
Indeed, under plaintiffs’ theory, the City is essentially presented as a victim of unfair
redistricting at the hands of malevolent state and federal entities and individuals. See e.g.
amended complaint ¶¶ 74, 76. Consequently, in the absence of a violation of a cognizable
federal right by a municipal officer, the complaint does not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action
against the City defendants.
8 9
WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division JOHN K. TANNER Chief, Voting Section by T.
CHRISTIAN HERREN JR Email; chris.herren@usdoj.gov, ROBERT POPPER Email: robert.popper@usdoj.gov,
Attorneys, Voting Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Room 7254²NWB 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (800) 253-3931 (telephone) (202) 307-3961 (fax)
BARBARA D. COTTRELL Assistant United States Attorney James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse 445 Broadway,
Room 218 Albany, NY 12207-2924 (518) 431-0247 (phone) 431-0429 (fax) Email: Barbara.Cottrell@usdoj.gov
Anthony Giardina New York City Law Department - Kingston P.O. Box 1277 Kingston, NY 12402
US 845-340-7559 Fax: 845-340-7564 Email: agiardin@law.nyc.gov
Jeffrey M. Dvorin Office of Attorney General - Albany The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 518-474-4441
Fax: Fax 518-473-1572 Email: jeffrey.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us
Todd D. Valentine New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street Albany, NY 12207-1650
518-474-6367 Fax: 518-486-4546 Email: tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us
James E. Long Office of James E. Long 668 Central Avenue Albany, NY 12206 518-458-2444
Fax: 518-458-2448 Email: JLong001@nycap.rr.com
James E. Konstanty Konstanty Law Office 252 Main Street Oneonta, NY 13820 607-432-2245
Fax: 607-432-4337 Email: jek@konstantylaw.com
Attachments for service by email electronic service upon:
Loeber v. Spargo, NDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs: "Burr Deitz (E-mail)" <Bvdeitz@aol.com>, "Christopher Strunk
(E-mail)" <uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>, "Edward M. Persons (E-mail)" <raptorprimo2002ad@yahoo.com>,
"Fairlene G. Rabenda (E-mail)" <frabenda@optonline.net>, "Gabriel Razzano (E-mail)"
<captgabe1@yahoo.com>, "H. William Van Allen (E-mail)" <HVanAllen@hvc.rr.com>, "John-Joseph Forjone (E-
mail)" <lynneforjone1835@msn.com>, "Ronald E. Sacoff (E-mail)" <rsaxpress@aol.com>, "Ronald G. Loeber (E-
mail)" <valortoo@capital.net>, "Roy-Pierre Detiege (E-mail)" <rpdetiegecormier@yahoo.com>, "William A.
Gage (E-mail)" <gageserve@hotmail.com>, "William E. Bombard (E-mail)" <Bbglensfalls@aol.com>
Forjone v. California WDNY 06-cv-0080 Plaintiffs: <nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com>,

"captgabe1@yahoo.com"<captgabe1@yahoo.com>, ³medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com´<medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com
>, "raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com" <raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com>, "uncasvotes2@yahoo.com"
<uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>, "valortoo" <valortoo@capital.net>, <dandelplatojr@yahoo.com>, "Wayne
Mack"waynealanmack@yahoo.com
Attached:
x Pro Se Plaintiffs¶ Law Memorandum in Response in Opposition to the U.S. DOJ, Mayor Michael
Bloomberg and the city of New York, Defendants¶ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
x Van Allen Affidavit In Response and Support of Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of
Venue to Jurisdiction of WDNY 06-Cv-00080 Case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. in Response in
Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice and
Defendants Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city of New York absent Essential Municipal Parties
x Strunk Declaration in Response and Support of Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of
Venue to Jurisdiction of WDNY 06-Cv-00080 Case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. in Response in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice and
Defendants Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city of New York absent Essential Municipal Parties with
Strunk Motion to Intervene in EDNY 04-cv-1129 Torres et.al. v. NYS BOE et.al. with Exhibit 1 thru 8
x Forjone Declaration in Response and Support of Plaintiffs¶ Notice Of Cross Motion for Change of
Venue to Jurisdiction of WDNY 06-Cv-00080 Case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. In Response in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice and
Defendants Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city of New York absent Essential Municipal Parties
x EXHIBITS A thru O.
herein, with Plaintiffs response due February 28, 2006 and return date of March 17, 2006 and DOJ
reply date March 6th 2006
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 04-cv-1193
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 2. That I am not a party in the referenced case WDNY 06-CV-00080 FORJONE
(LEK/RFT)
LOEBER et.al. et.al. V. CALIFORNIA et.al., however believe I am an essential party therein entitled to
Plaintiffs}
v. intervene as of right.
SPARGO et.al.. 3. That I am a pro se Plaintiff member of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber et.al. v. Spargo et.al.
H. WILLIAM VAN ALLEN AFFIDAVIT PRO SE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS¶ 4. That two pro se plaintiffs John Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk in case
NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE TO JURISDICTION OF
WDNY 06-CV-00080 CASE FORJONE et.al. V. CALIFORNIA et.al. in RESPONSE IN WDNY 06-CV-00080 FORJONE et.al. v. CALIFORNIA et.al, are the co-chairmen members of
OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT BY
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and DEFENDANTS The AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide
MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK
ABSENT ESSENTIAL MUNICIPAL PARTIES redistricting case Loeber et.al. v. Spargo et.al. and herewith annexed provide declarations in
STATE OF NEW YORK ) support of this notice of cross motion for change of venue to WDNY.
} ss.
COUNTY OF ULSTER ) 5. That in the context of this supporting affidavit I have given due notice to all pro se
I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, deposes and says under penalty for perjury: Plaintiffs who are members of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional
1. I am a Plaintiff pro se without being an attorney in the above referenced case, and Legislative Redistricting of my intent to cross motion for change of venue and as such believe all
affirm this affidavit in support of PLAINTIFFS¶ NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION FOR are in unanimous agreement and give consent accordingly.
CHANGE OF VENUE TO JURISDICTION OF WDNY 06-CV-00080 CASE FORJONE et.al. 6. That I am the Plaintiff who provided the supporting affidavit for the Order to
V. CALIFORNIA et.al. pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), in response to the Show Cause duly served on December 1, 2005, and in which the Court has wrongly marked the
Motion to Dismiss by separate notice of the U.S. Department of Justice filed February 10, 2006 hearing for a 28 USC 2284 panel off the calendar, a copy of the signed ordered herewith marked
shown as Docket #64 (a copy of the notice herewith marked EXHIBIT A) and Defendant the EXHIBIT C.
city of New York filed February 17, 2005 shown as Docket #65 (a copy of the Notice herewith 7. That in the matter of denial of summonses for the municipalities referenced in the
marked EXHIBIT B) the First MOTION to Dismiss Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2006 09:30 AM amended complaint caption, with a motion for reconsideration of procedural matter with
in Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn with Response to Motion due by 3/21/2006 Reply to clarification en banc per the dismissal of the Writ of Mandamus at 2nd Circuit case 05-6536-op,
Response to Motion due by 3/27/2006, and both motions are without essential parties to this case wherein Mr. Strunk and I challenge the wrongful denial of due process by the clerk of the court
Van Allen Affidavit in Support of Venue Change Page 1 Van Allen Affidavit in Support of Venue Change Page 2
and Judge Lawrence E. Kahn in the matter of the outrageous mishandling of my application for April 22, 2002 reapportionment have attended nearly all convened in Albany including every
³Notice of Appeal´ as a nullity without fee tendered, and as such has been cynically used by meeting since October 2004.
both Judge Lawrence E. Kahn and the Clerks office to sidestep the OSC hearing scheduled for 13. That the DOJ, State Board of Elections since the threat of penalties shown by
December 16, 2005 for a 28 USC 2284 panel, and with time being of the essence the January 1, EXHIBIT F have initiated a preliminary negotiation of compliance for HAVA by a Bottom-up
2006 HAVA deadline injuring Plaintiffs and those municipalities yet to be summoned to appear. municipality by municipality agreement however were not mentioned by the State Board
8. That starting no later than December 1, 2005 and no later than December 11, 2005 proposed minutes of either January 10, or January 31, both herewith marked EXHIBIT G.
having been denied issuance of the necessary summons for the municipalities who are essential 14. According to the Declarations of Forjone and Strunk herewith annexed, on
parties in interest I faxed a notice to all municipalities of the pending deadline, a copy of the Fax February 6, 2006 subsequent to the injury caused by the failure to stay the January 1, 2006
log herewith marked EXHIBIT D, including notice to Otsego County. HAVA Deadline, denial of substantive due process in NDNY and outrageous delay at the
9. That I received phone calls from the corporation counsel of Jefferson County and Second Circuit in the petition for Writ of Mandamus, threatening posture of the DOJ shown by
Columbia County refusing a y service other than that required by the NYS CPLR also requiring EXHIBIT F, and failure of the NYS BOE to mention the threat posed to the municipalities and
that a summons be issued to accompany the complaint for such service. people¶s Bottom±up suffrage and Homerule autonomy in any of the meetings minutes shown as
10. That on or December 23, 2005 James Konstanty Corporation Counsel for Otsego EXHIBIT G , Mr. Forjone and Mr. Strunk and others realizing the urgent need for the
County and the Board of Elections within filed a notice appearance and demand for service of a municipalities to be provided with due process in order to initiate local government right of the
summons and complaint entered by the clerk into docket as item# 57 December 30, 2005, a copy people resident therein under the New York State Constitution Article III to initiate compliance
of the Notice and Demand herewith marked EXHIBIT E. with districting and Homerule autonomy under Federal jurisdiction before the March 1, 2006
11. That subsequent to the failure to stay the HAVA January 1, 2006 deadline as compliance deadline, therefore filed the complaint Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. in Western
impacts the various municipalities state sub-divisions and plaintiffs with real property affected District of New York case 06-cv-0080 with service of the summonses and complaint upon
by loss of Federal Funds and or penalties have been threatened by the U.S. Department of Justice defendants by February 21, 2006 accordingly, a copy of the complaint marked as EXHIBIT 3 as
on January 10, 2006, a copy of the DOJ Letter herewith marked EXHIBIT F. part of a submission annexed by Mr. Strunk in his Declaration.
12. That I have personally been a witness to nearly all public meetings of the New 15. That on February 9, 2006, State Commissioner Douglas Kellner briefed various
York State Board of Election for many years and in the context of the span of time since the citizen coalitions on the status of HAVA compliance in regards to the implementation of the
statewide database and the selection of new voting systems, the ³Notes from HAVA Coalition
Meeting´ as a public meeting outlined the ³Bottom-up´ basis for compliance, a copy herewith 18. That the city of New York with full knowledge and acquiescence of the US DOJ
marked EXHIBIT I. voting rights section in a ³bi-partisan´ effort has maliciously prevented the voided expenditure of
16. In the ³Bottom-up´ basis for compliance by municipalities shown as EXHIBIT I, available funds to maintain existing machines in an effort to sabotage the electoral process that
requires the municipalities to participate in the Federal due process because the People resident had been ongoing before 1991 and despite the allotment of municipal funds conspired to obtain
within each such municipality are directly impacted by the levy under EL §4-138 will have upon Federal Funds instead, as first initiated under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act with
real property being effected differently on a municipal by municipal basis, quote: intent to create the basis for what in October 2002 became the Help America to Vote Act.
³Statewide Database 19. That subsequent to the contrived so-called half-measure recount during the 2000
³New York State will institute the µbottom up¶ approach in creating a statewide national election devised in Florida in which Defendant Spargo was a material participant
database that will be modeled after Washington State (a system developed in
consultation with Microsoft). Counties will retain control over their local list and devised to create the conditions for HAVA enactment, referenced in the Complaint.
determine eligibility accordingly. Local jurisdictions will also be responsible for upload into
the statewide system (which will be either in real time or within half an hour). The technical
20. That based upon information and belief before 2000 and following the HAVA
issue that remains is the compatibility of the roughly eight different registration systems in
enactment in coordination with bi-partisan intent to implement HAVA the Brennan Center
use throughout the state since each interface needs to be tailored. The State Board of
Elections is considering incurring the cost for statewide compatibility of the database.
represented the Working Families Party, ACORN, and individual voters in the Federal case
The database is not expected to be in use by the November elections, although counties are
sought to compel the New York City Board of Elections to repair the sensor latches on the City's
encouraged to upload local voter databases to the statewide system. The statewide voter
registration database is expected to be in place by the spring of 2007. voting machines and were successful at trial.
³A minor legal issue that is worth noting is the inconsistent determination of who is 21. The lawsuit, filed in July 2003, claimed that as many as 60,000 New Yorkers
registered to vote. No county in New York State has a fixed and completely accurate list due
to the provisional ballot rules that allows for challenges on Election Day. have lost their votes in the 2000 general election through accidental undervoting that the sensors
³Another issue that was mentioned relating to the statewide databases was the verification latches are designed to prevent. The Board of Elections had voted to repair the latches, but later
and identification requirements. Although Kellner recognized that these are still active issues,
he also emphasized the minimal impact of the statewide database system because the reversed its decision. In October 2003, the Board of Elections settled the lawsuit, agreeing to
identifications are largely done by inspectors on Election Day. Additionally, Affidavit ballots
that were cast due to limitations by the identification requirements were not a significant repair the voting machines in time for the March 2004 elections. Therein the litigation provided
proportion of the total A ballots cast.
evidence that Press Release: Lawsuit Charges City Board of Elections Knowingly Failed to
17. That the City of New York has had a more than $27 million of funds available for Repair Voting Machines, http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/dem_vr_lit_sensor_latch.html, a copy of
machine improvement and maintenance since no later than 1991 as the Associated Press report the Press Release herewith marked EXHIBIT K.
dated November 8 2004 indicates, a copy of the Article is herewith marked EXHIBIT J.
22. That subsequent to what appears as a contrived half-measure to recount votes only 24. That as a result of my notification by facsimile of the requirements of EL §4-100
in certain Florida counties during the 2000 national election in which Defendant Spargo was a as to Election District size avail for local government cost cutting measures, on Tuesday,
material participant, such a serious error appears devised to create the propaganda and chaos for February 21, 2006 a Poughkeepsie Journal Article entitled ³Plan would reduce local election
HAVA enactment in October 2002 as continuous unfolding process that had started in 1993 with costs -Democratic chief cites city, town savings´ reported by Michael Valky, indicates that the
the NVRA to centralize a national data base and impose electronic voting machines in every number of election districts, inspectors and voting machines in the town and city of
state using the questionable fig leaf of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that in New York Poughkeepsie would decrease under what is being labeled a cost-saving plan by Dutchess
especially since Congressman John F. Kenney in the fifties divided upon the Social Security County Democratic Elections Commissioner Fran Knapp, which further indicates ³IF´ NOT
Fund separating Mental Health from Mental Disability physical conditions, New York State has done per the letter of EL §4-100 / EL §5-213 requirements, cries for Federal due process to give
been at the forefront in matters of promoting the ADA, and in Election Law has for decades municipalities necessary due process to comply with HAVA, e.g. compliance with state laws in
provided special assistance provisions for the disabled effective suffrage; therefore the entire the process of complying with Federal Law, an Article copy herewith marked EXHIBIT M.
HAVA ADA provisions appears as a strawman issue to push questionable equipment upon 25. That on February 23, 2006 I reviewed Exhibit 8 of the Strunk Motion to
municipalities and hapless tax payers resident therein without actual Homerule, by dark political Intervene as of Right in the Eastern District of New York case Torres et.al. v. NYS BOE et.al.
forces that appear as an industry that overlaps the gambling machine manufacturing industry 04-cv-1129 with an application per FRCvP 5 to intervene as a Plaintiff in the above referenced
anxious for a piece of the annual election cash flow available nationally as a result of HAVA. case with the Memorandum and Order including Preliminary Injunction (³Order´) so ordered
23. That on February 24, 2006 a New York Times Articles entitled ³City¶s Lawyer by the Honorable Judge John Gleeson on January 27, 2006 in the matter of the constitutionality
Criticizes State on Rules for Voting Machines´, a copy herewith marked as EXHIBIT L, of the New York State Election Law § 6-106 and §6-124 for state party nominations of the office
emphasis the shift of that the DOJ / NYS BOE efforts to focus HAVA compliance upon Bottom- of State Supreme Court Justice under provisions of the State Constitution Article 6 Section 6(c),
up efforts, indicates the state's plan to modernize its voting system came under attack again on herewith marked EXHIBIT H, in the matter of then State Justice Kahn¶s October 17, 1990 so
when New York City's chief lawyer called the proposal for regulations on voting machines ordered dismissal of the complaint in the case Castracan V Colavita in Albany County Supreme
"gravely defective" and urged the State Board of Elections to overhaul the plan- thereby Court with index 6056-90, and
emphasizes the needs for every municipality to have Federal venue for dealing with both the 26. As such the questionable dismissal order of October 17, 1990 is a matter now in
State and the DOJ in this matter. conflict with both the Seventh Cause of Action in Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint as a
basis for recusal from any further hearing especially when viewed in the light of the arbitrary
30. That as early as September of 2004 the State Comptroller had been issuing
treatment with which we have had to endure since November 21, 2005.
alarming reports in the matter of the imminent collapse of local governments and the extreme
27. That the Castracan v Colavita case was no run-of-the-mill matter. Rather, it t was
burden unequal taxation has upon real property tax payers, now in 2006 goes to the matter
an extraordinary and historic constitutional challenge to the political manipulations of the complained of here in Loeber v. Spargo, in Forjone v. Leavitt and in Forjone v. California
judicial nomination in New York by the practice of major party cross-endorsements and referenced by both Mr. Strunk and Mr. Forjone in there Declarations, and of course
illegally- conducted judicial nominating conventions, and as a review 15 years later of the files ³sidestepped´ even by Judge Gleeson in Torres v. NYS BOE as had been done by Chief Judge
demonstrates, what then state Justice Kahn did in light of the January 27, 2006 Federal Court Korman in Molinari v. Powers,- no venue of Second Circuit is free from the status quo effects on
Decision by the Honorable John Gleeson in Torres v NYS BOE. justice, a copy of the Hevesi Comptroller Report dated September 29, 2004 already previously
28. In light of Mr. Strunk's motion to intervene in EDNY 04-cv-1129 Torres v. NYS in exhibit is herewith marked EXHIBIT ³O´.
BOE and Mr. Forjone¶s State Judicial Districting equity challenge in WDNY 05-cv-395 Forjone WHEREFORE, Movant prays of the Court for relief herein per FRCvP Rule 19(a)
requesting as of right that the entire jus tertii class of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for
v. Leavitt, the Castracan case bias and extraordinary partisan perception of impropriety that
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber et.al. v. Spargo et.al.
certainly goes to operation of 28 USC 455 now here in Loeber v. Spargo, again done repeatedly
NDNY 04-cv-1193, be granted a change of Venue to the Western District of New York under
from October 25, 2004 through until this day shows judicial action was to pervert elementary
the discretion of the Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara WDNY for further adjudication by
legal standards and falsify the factual record so as to ³dump´ the case as 15 years ago with
that Court for plain speedy with efficient remedy for actual justice under FRCvP accordingly,
reference to the October 17, 1990 decision shown here as EXHIBIT H along with the records
and that Defendants Motion be deemed pre-mature without the necessary parties joined, and for
listed in the October 31, 1995 letter to Patricia Hynes of the ABA Standing Committee on
differently and further relief that this court deems necessary including but not limited to
Federal Judiciary, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT N.
severance of necessary parties and or issues to WDNY and or EDNY, and minimally Your
29. That on as a result of reviewing the collected report of the New York State
Honor¶s recusal per 28 USC 455.
Commission on Government Integrity, it held in ³Becoming a Judge´ on page 293 that quote:
--/s/--
".political parties are geared to reward loyalty, not merit: to discourage, not encourage, independence and _____________________________
diversity; and to obtain power rather than promote justice. Such - goals, however valuable to the H. WILLIAM VAN ALLEN
operation of the party system in general, have no place in the election of our judges.´ Sworn to before me this
27th day of February 2006
here in the Second Circuit, it appears as a lack of uniformity and that there is no difference
--/s/--
between the condition of the Federal or State Judiciary in the matter of expectation of
___________________________
impartiality ESPECIALLY in the Northern District of New York or 3rd Department. NOTARY PUBLIC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
RONALD G. LOEBER, et al., )

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:04cv1193 (LEK/RFT)
)
THOMAS J. SPARGO, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Come now defendants Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, the
United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and Thomas R. Wilkey, as Executive
Director of the EAC (collectively, the “federal defendants”), and move this Court for entry of an
Order, dismissing the Amended Complaint filed by plaintiffs in this action in so far as it seeks to
bring claims against the federal defendants and insofar as it seeks to challenge the
constitutionality of the Help America Vote Act, Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666, 42 U.S.C.
15301-15545 (2002) (“HAVA”). This motion is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter based on plaintiffs’ lack of standing.
Accordingly, the federal defendants pray that this Court grant this motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to the local rules, a notice of motion, memorandum of law, affidavit of counsel,
attachment of an unpublished case, and certificate of service are attached.
EXHIBIT A
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY i
Date: February 10, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
GLENN T. SUDDABY WAN J. KIM

United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
JOHN K. TANNER
Chief, Voting Section
/s/ /s/
_____________________________ _____________________________
BARBARA D. COTTRELL T. CHRISTIAN HERREN JR
Assistant United States Attorney chris.herren@usdoj.gov
James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse ROBERT POPPER
445 Broadway, Room 218 robert.popper@usdoj.gov
Albany, NY 12207-2924 Attorneys, Voting Section
(518) 431-0247 (telephone) Civil Rights Division
(518) 431-0429 (facsimile) U.S. Department of Justice
Bar Roll No. 101411 Room 7254--NWB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(800) 253-3931 (telephone)
(202) 307-3961 (facsimile)
EXHIBIT B
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY ii
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Court of New York, located at the James T. Foley Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, New
------------------------------------------------------------------------x York, at 9:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard for an order pursuant to Rule
In the 42 USC 1983 suffrage and autonomy discrimination 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the complaint on the ground that it
Matter of: Ronald G. Loeber, Burr V. Deitz, William E.
Bombard, William A. Gage, John Joseph Forjone, H. William NEW YORK CITY
Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda, Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, DEFENDANTS’ fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and granting such other relief as to this
Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr., NOTICE OF MOTION
Christopher Earl Strunk and The AD HOC New York State Court seems proper.
Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting Civil Action No.1:04 Civ.
1193 (LEK/RFT) PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that answering papers, if any, must be
-against- served on the undersigned at least seventeen (17) days before the return date of this motion,
THOMAS J. SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS
Supreme Court and all Justices of the State Supreme Court, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(1).
JOSEPH L. BRUNO, 61 JOHN and JANE DOE NYS
SENATORS all individually and as state Senators past and Dated: Kingston, New York
present; SHELDON SILVER, 149 JOHN and JANE DOE NYS February 17, 2006
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS all individually and as past and
present; GEORGE E. PATAKI individually and as NYS
Governor; RANDY A. DANIELS, NYS Secretary of State with MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
authority per CRL and Repository for corporations and Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
unincorporated associations service; per CPLR 1012 New York Attorney for City Defendants City of New York and
State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER; THE NEW YORK Michael Bloomberg
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, and every Municipal Board
of Elections, along with every Corporation Counsel of every
Municipality with a Board of Elections, THE CITY OF NEW
YORK (“NYC”), Michael Bloomberg NYC’s Mayor, UNITED /s/
STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE CORPORATION By: ____________________________________
(“EAC”), THOMAS R. WILKEY EAC Executive Director, Anthony Giardina (Bar Number: 513630)
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF Assistant Corporation Counsel
STATE (“NASS”) by LESLIE REYNOLDS Executive Director P.O. Box 1277
for the Executive Committee and PETER KOSINSKI, Kingston, N.Y. 12402
individually and his official capacity at the NASS; and per 28 Telephone: (845) 340-7559
USC 2403 The United States Attorney General ALBERTO Fax: (845) 340-7564
GONZALEZ (“USDOJ”). E-mail: agiardin@law.nyc.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon defendants’ New York City and Michael
Bloomberg (“City defendants”) memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss, dated
February 17, 2006, and all other pleadings and proceedings herein, the City defendants will
move this Court on April 7, 2006, at the United States Courthouse, for the Northern District
-2-
04 Civ. 1193 (LEK)

In the 42 USC 1983 suffrage and autonomy discrimination

Bombard, William A. Gage, John Joseph Forjone, H. William
Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda, Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier,
Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr.,
Christopher Earl Strunk and The AD HOC New York State
Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting
-against-
Court, et al.
Respondents / Defendants
NEW YORK CITY DEFENDANTS’

NOTICE OF MOTION
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Attorney for City Defendants
Box 1277
918 Ulster Avenue
Of Counsel: Anthony Giardina

Tel: (845) 340-7559
NYCLIS No.
Due and timely service is hereby admitted.
New York, N.Y. .........................................................................................., 200 ..
...................................................................................................................... Esq.
Attorney for ..........................................................................................................
EXHIBIT C
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY iii
EXHIBIT D
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY iv
Send Log Send Log
StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages
Comp Fax S Flaherty, Rich Sun 12/11/2005 8:14 PM WBNR-AM 1260 7 Comp Fax S WGY Radio Sun 12/11/2005 6:11 PM WGY Radio 7
Comp Fax S Poughkeepsie Journal Sun 12/11/2005 8:07 PM Poughkeepsie Journal 7 Comp Fax S Zahn, Benita Sun 12/11/2005 6:07 PM WNYT TV 7
Comp Fax S Brooks, Paul Sun 12/11/2005 8:03 PM Times Herald Record (Highland Bure... 7 Comp Fax S WRGB TV Sun 12/11/2005 6:04 PM WRGB TV 7
Comp Fax S Office, Middletown Sun 12/11/2005 7:57 PM Times Herald Record 7 Comp Fax S Yates County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:58 PM Yates County Board of Elections 6
Failed Fax S Hendrix, Cameron Sun 12/11/2005 7:56 PM Clear Channel 7 Comp Fax S Westchester County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:55 PM Westchester County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Hollander, Brian Sun 12/11/2005 7:51 PM Ulster Publishing 7 Comp Fax S Wayne County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:50 PM Wayne County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Benjamin, Elizabeth Sun 12/11/2005 7:45 PM Albany Times Union 7 Comp Fax S Washington County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:44 PM Washington County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S GORMLEY, MICHAEL Sun 12/11/2005 7:42 PM Associated Press 7 Comp Fax S Ulster County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:38 PM Ulster County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Humbert, Marc Sun 12/11/2005 7:38 PM Associated Press 7 Comp Fax S Tompkins County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:34 PM Tompkins County Board of Elections 6
Failed Fax S Hammond, Bill Sun 12/11/2005 7:37 PM Daily Gazette 7 Comp Fax S Tioga County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:30 PM Tioga County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Flood, Betty Sun 12/11/2005 7:31 PM Cuyler New Service 7 Comp Fax S Sullivan County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:23 PM Sullivan County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Lynch, Dan Sun 12/11/2005 7:26 PM WROW 7 Comp Fax S Suffolk County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:20 PM Suffolk County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Editor Sun 12/11/2005 7:20 PM New York Daily News 7 Failed Fax S Steuben County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:19 PM Steuben County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Empire Information Services Sun 12/11/2005 7:15 PM Empire Information Services 7 Comp Fax S St. Lawrence County Board of E Sun 12/11/2005 5:14 PM St. Lawrence County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Roy, Yancy Sun 12/11/2005 7:10 PM Gannett News Service 7 Comp Fax S Seneca County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 5:07 PM Seneca County Board of Elections 6
Failed Fax S Gazette Newspapers Sun 12/11/2005 7:09 PM Gazette Newspapers 7 Comp Fax S Schuyler County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:59 PM Schuyler County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Inside Albany Sun 12/11/2005 7:02 PM Inside Albany 7 Comp Fax S Schoharie County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:53 PM Schoharie County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Jochnowitz, Jay Sun 12/11/2005 6:57 PM Albany Times Union 7 Comp Fax S Schenectady County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:48 PM Schenectady County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Bechtel, John Sun 12/11/2005 6:53 PM Legislative Gazette, The 7 Comp Fax S Saratoga County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:43 PM Saratoga County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S DeWitt, Karen Sun 12/11/2005 6:49 PM NYS Public Radio Network 7 Comp Fax S Rockland County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:38 PM Rockland County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Caher, John Sun 12/11/2005 6:43 PM New York Law Journal 7 Comp Fax S Rensselaer County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:31 PM Rensselaer County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Bureau, Capitol Sun 12/11/2005 6:38 PM Newsday 7 Comp Fax S Putnam County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:28 PM Putnam County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Ottaway News Service Sun 12/11/2005 6:34 PM Ottaway News Service 7 Comp Fax S Otsego County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:23 PM Otsego County Board of Elections 6
Failed Fax S Perez-Pena, Richard Sun 12/11/2005 6:33 PM New York Times 7 Comp Fax S Oswego County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:18 PM Oswego County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Gavin, Robert Sun 12/11/2005 6:27 PM Staten Island Advance 7 Comp Fax S Orleans County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:06 PM Orleans County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Kriss, Erik Sun 12/11/2005 6:22 PM Syracuse Herald-Journal/ Post-Stand... 7 Failed Fax S Orange County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 4:02 PM Orange County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Precious, Tom Sun 12/11/2005 6:17 PM Buffalo News 7 Comp Fax S Ontario County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:58 PM Ontario County Board of Elections 6
Page 1 Page 2
Send Log Send Log
StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages
Comp Fax S Onondaga County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:53 PM Onondaga County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Cattaraugus County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 1:52 PM Cattaraugus County Board of Elections 6
Failed Fax S Oneida County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:50 PM Oneida County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Broome County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 1:47 PM Broome County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Niagara County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:45 PM Niagara County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Allegany County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 1:41 PM Allegany County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S New York City Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:42 PM New York City Board of Elections 6 Failed Fax S Albany County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 1:40 PM Albany County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Nassau County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:37 PM Nassau County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Indelicato, Charlene Sun 12/11/2005 1:37 PM Westchester County (County Attorney... 6
Comp Fax S Montgomery County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:33 PM Montgomery County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Warren County) Sun 12/11/2005 1:32 PM Warren County 6
Comp Fax S Monroe County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:28 PM Monroe County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Ulster County) Sun 12/11/2005 1:27 PM Ulster County 6
Failed Fax S Madison County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:28 PM Madison County Board of Elections 6 Failed Fax S Attorney, (Sullivan County) Sun 12/11/2005 1:26 PM Sullivan County 6
Comp Fax S Livingston County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:25 PM Livingston County Board of Elections 6 Failed Fax S Malafi, Christine Sun 12/11/2005 1:25 PM Suffolk County (County Attorney) 6
Comp Fax S Jefferson County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:20 PM Jefferson County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Zugibe, Patricia Sun 12/11/2005 1:21 PM Rockland County (County Attorney) 6
Comp Fax S Herkimer County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:13 PM Herkimer County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Count-Attorney Sun 12/11/2005 1:16 PM Orange County (County Attorney) 6
Comp Fax S Hamilton County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:09 PM Hamilton County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Onondaga County) Sun 12/11/2005 1:11 PM Onondaga County 6
Comp Fax S Greene County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:05 PM Greene County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Goodman, Lorna Sun 12/11/2005 1:08 PM Nassau County (County Attorney) 6
Comp Fax S Genesee County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 3:00 PM Genesee County Board of Elections 6 Failed Fax S Attorney, (Monroe County) Sun 12/11/2005 1:07 PM Monroe County 6
Comp Fax S Fulton County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:54 PM Fulton County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Hartzell, John Sun 12/11/2005 1:02 PM Jefferson County 6
Failed Fax S Franklin County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:40 PM Franklin County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Erie County) Sun 12/11/2005 12:57 PM Erie County 6
Failed Fax S Essex County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:40 PM Essex County Board of Elections 6 Failed Fax S Wozniak, Ronald Sun 12/11/2005 12:56 PM Dutchess County (County Attorney) 6
Failed Fax S Erie County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:39 PM Erie County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Broome County) Sun 12/11/2005 12:51 PM Broome County 6
Comp Fax S Dutchess County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:34 PM Dutchess County Board of Elections 6 Comp Fax S Joyce, Amy Sun 12/11/2005 12:47 PM Albany County Department of Law 6
Comp Fax S Delaware County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:28 PM Delaware County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Cortland County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:23 PM Cortland County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Columbia County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:16 PM Columbia County Board of Elections 6
Failed Fax S Clinton County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:16 PM Clinton County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Chenango County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:11 PM Chenango County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Chemung County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:06 PM Chemung County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Chautauqua County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 2:01 PM Chautauqua County Board of Elections 6
Comp Fax S Cayuga County Board of Elections Sun 12/11/2005 1:58 PM Cayuga County Board of Elections 6
Page 3 Page 4
EXHIBIT E
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY v
EXHIBIT F
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY vi
EXHIBIT G
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY vii
EXHIBIT H
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY viii
Notes from HAVA Coalition Meeting
February 9, 2006
In today¶s meeting, State Commissioner Doug Kellner brief the coalition on the status of HAVA in
regards to the implementation of the statewide database and the selection of new voting systems.
Voting Machine Systems

There is bi-partisan consensus that the State Board of Elections should ³do it once and get it right the
first time´ regardless of the deadlines relating to HAVA compliance. The Department of Justice,
burdened with the enforcement of HAVA provisions and deadlines is ³vigorously monitoring´ New York
and is seriously considering litigation. Conversely, the State Board and AG office are resistant to the
idea of agreeing to a consent decree since they fear the imposition of impractical deadlines and
timelines. New York State is also working to adhere to the federal 2005 Voluntary Voting Systems
Guidelines.
Impediments to implementation of HAVA in NYS:

x Lack of a definitive and explicit plan for implementation
x Insufficient SBOE staff
x Lack of expertise in the composition of regulations and execution of HAVA
Commissioner Kellner also highlighted four main steps that are necessary to implement HAVA.
Originally the State plan was to complete the four steps in seriatim (in series), but the DOJ have found
this plan to be objectionable and will expect the SBOE to expedite the process.
1. Drafting and approval of voting system regulations

2. Certification
3. Contracting/ Procurement process
4. Acceptance testing and training
Drafting and approval of voting system regulations

There is currently a working draft completed by the SBOE staff that has been circulated to the
Commissioners and have incorporated some comments from the public comments period. The draft
will be presented formally in the SBOE Commissioners meeting on Tuesday (2/14) and hopefully will
be posted for public review on the SBOE website for a minimum of six days prior to its adoption.
Certification
Certification will largely be governed by the SBOE regulations and statues of the State Law. The State
Board of Elections have started to ask vendors for potential submissions and so far 4 vendors will
submit 7 systems: ES&S (opt-scan with Automark, DRE), Sequoia (Push button and touch screen DRE,
opt-scan), Liberty and Advanti (both DRE).
Additionally, the SBOE has retained Cyber (consulting firm) to propose regiments for testing and to
EXHIBIT ³I´ advise on the hiring of testing companies. The State Board of Elections staff believes that they have
the capacity to only test and certify two voting machine systems at any given time. This process may
then inadvertently create an unfair advantage to the voting systems tested first.
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY x
Since compliance with HAVA is DOJ¶s primary objective and under HAVA accessibility issues are of responsible for upload into the statewide system (which will be either in real time or within half an
primary concern, and lever machines are currently not compliant to ADA requirements, there are hour). The technical issue that remains is the compatibility of the roughly eight different registration
some potential alternatives being considered to achieve compliance: systems in use throughout the state since each interface needs to be tailored. The State Board of
1. Purchase of Automarks for every polling site in New York State to be tabulated at the central Elections is considering incurring the cost for statewide compatibility of the database.
office (count as Emergency ballots) and to be used with lever machines (this may potentially
create a disadvantage for NYC which has multiple EDs per polling site) The database is not expected to be in use by the November elections, although counties are
2. Institute the Vermont telephone-in system where voters must be physically present at the encouraged to upload local voter databases to the statewide system. The statewide voter registration
poll site and call in on special Board of Election phones to cast their ballot. database is expected to be in place by the spring of 2007.
Contracting/ Procurement process A minor legal issue that is worth noting is the inconsistent determination of who is registered to vote.
Commissioner Kellner is currently suggesting a 21 day period for public hearings at a county level post No county in New York State has a fixed and completely accurate list due to the provisional ballot
certification and prior to procurement decisions. This will hopefully allow the public to provide rules that allows for challenges on Election Day.
feedback while also prevent County officials from contracting without public input.
Another issue that was mentioned relating to the statewide databases was the verification and
Some considerations for procurement by counties: identification requirements. Although Kellner recognized that these are still active issues, he also
x Cost of voting system emphasized the minimal impact of the statewide database system because the identifications are
x Ease of use by voters largely done by inspectors on Election Day. Additionally, Affidavit ballots that were cast due to
x Ease of operations limitations by the identification requirements were not a significant proportion of the total A ballots
cast.
Acceptance testing and training
This is an area that have not been fully addressed and remains a serious concern since each machine
purchased is suppose to be tested by a board employee. The SBOE currently does not have enough
staff to perform the acceptance test since each machine takes about a half day and there is discussion
about potentially contracting out this task to the county Boards of Elections. The fear is that these
individuals may not have the adequate training or expertise for this task. Additionally, there was no
budget requested by the SBOE to pay for acceptance testing. The SBOE is considering transferring the
possible excess funds in the implementation of the statewide database to subsidize the acceptance
testing or to fund a statewide training program.
Some general recommendations suggested at meeting by Commissioner Kellner:

x Advocates should address specific aspects of the regulations and provide language that
maybe incorporated into the machine regs. (since mostly lawyers are working on the current
regulations who may not have specific security/accessibility/etc expertise)
x Coalition members should review the federal 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and
note areas that are already incorporated or provisions that New York should be exempt from.
x Advocates should contact the editorial boards of their newspapers to stress the need to
implement a quality voting system instead of one that is done haphazardly
Other information of interest in today¶s meeting:

x It is speculated that New York will most likely return HAVA Section 102 money
Statewide Database
New York State will institute the µbottom up¶ approach in creating a statewide database that will be
modeled after Washington State (a system developed in consultation with Microsoft). Counties will
retain control over their local list and determine eligibility accordingly. Local jurisdictions will also be
EXHIBIT J
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY xi
For Immediate Release
July 30, 2003
Contact:
Scott Schell, Brennan Center for Justice, (212) 998-6318
Robin Epstein, Working Families Party, (718) 222-3796
LAWSUIT CHARGES CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS KNOWINGLY

FAILED TO REPAIR VOTING MACHINES
60,000 New York City voters thwarted in 2000 election; Similar numbers of lost votes in other recent
elections; Minorities disproportionately harmed
A lawsuit filed today in federal court claims that some 60,000 residents of New York City failed to have
their votes counted in the 2000 elections because the City Board of Elections left disabled a voting
machine device designed to prevent such ³undervoting.´ The device, known as a ³sensor latch,´ had
been disabled in all 7,000 New York City lever voting machines. The suit filed in the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of the Working Families Party, ACORN and individual voters by the Brennan
Center for Justice at NYU School of Law seeks to compel the Board of Elections to repair the sensor
latches in the City¶s voting machines.
In April 2003, just one month after voting to reactivate the sensor latches, the City Board of Elections
reversed its decision, leaving the latches disabled. ³No one needs to be reminded that elections can
turn on just a handful of votes,´ said Jeremy Creelan, associate counsel at the Brennan Center. ³Sixty
thousand votes is a significant number and that is just one election. Hundreds of thousands of New
Yorkers have lost their votes and will continue to do so, unless the City Board of Elections repairs the
machines.´
EXHIBIT K According to statistics from the boards of elections for the City and State, the ³lost vote´ rate is much
higher in minority communities than in predominantly white areas of New York City; in some cases,
communities of color suffer twice the rate of undervoting. In addition, New York City¶s lost vote rate is
significantly higher than the rate for counties upstate and on Long Island.
³The decision of the Board of Elections earlier this year not to repair New York¶s voting machines is
inexcusable,´ said Creelan. ³The Board knew full well the numbers of votes at issue and that the lost
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY xii
votes are concentrated mainly in low-income communities and communities of color. The
Commissioners chose to preserve a discriminatory voting barrier.´
³Sensor Latches´: How They Work
Many New Yorkers using the lever voting machines mistakenly pull the hand lever back to its starting
position before voting for any candidate, inadvertently causing a lost vote or ³undervote.´ New York
City¶s voting machines were manufactured with built-in ³sensor latches´ designed to avoid this
problem, preventing voters from leaving the booth until either casting a vote for at least one candidate
or affirmatively indicating their intention not to vote for anyone on the ballot. If the sensor latch is in
working order, it stops the lever from being pulled back to its original position until at least one
candidate has been selected. Beginning in 1964, however, the City Board of Elections disabled the
sensor latches on all of the City¶s lever voting machines.
Plaintiffs in the case charge the City and State Boards of Elections with violations of the Equal
Protection Clause, the Voting Rights Act, and the First Amendment, as well as violations of New York
State¶s Constitution.
³New York should have voting machines that function properly and count every vote,´ said Bob Master
of the Working Families Party. ³It's easy and cheap to fix the machines, so it's just common sense to
go ahead and do it.´
³New York City welcomes immigrants to take care of kids in our homes and to wash dishes in our
restaurants. We should also welcome them to vote when they become citizens,´ said Bertha Lewis of
ACORN. ³Some of our Spanish-speaking members were shocked ± and terribly upset ± when they
had to leave the polls at the last election without knowing whether their votes had counted.´
Neal Rosenstein, Election Specialist with New York Public Interest Research Group, said: ³Countless
thousands of New Yorkers are losing their votes every year because of the inaction of the Board of
Elections. It¶s unfortunate that a lawsuit is needed to stop the Board from disenfranchising those it is
intended to serve.´
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law develops and implements a nonpartisan
agenda of scholarship, public education, and legal action that promotes equality and human dignity,
while safeguarding fundamental freedoms. For more information, please contact Scott Schell at (212)
998-6318, or Jeremy Creelan at (212) 992-8642.
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW

161 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, 12TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10013
212 998 6730 FAX 212 995 4550
e-mail: brennan.center@nyu.edu
EXHIBIT ³L´
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY xiii
February 24, 2006
City's Lawyer Criticizes State on Rules

for Voting Machines
By JENNIFER MEDINA
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/nyregion/24vote.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
ALBANY, Feb. 23 - The state's plan to modernize its voting system came under attack again on
Thursday, as New York City's chief lawyer called the proposal for regulations on voting machines "gravely
defective" and urged the State Board of Elections to overhaul the plan.
The board is scheduled to discuss the proposed regulations on Monday. The rules will govern which
voting machines the state certifies for this fall's elections.
In a letter to the four elections commissioners, Michael A. Cardozo, who as corporation counsel heads
the city's Law Department, said the latest state proposals ignored major concerns of the city, including
recommendations for more security tests and more training procedures.
If the state does not ensure a smooth transition to the new machines, there could be a "waste of millions
of state and local dollars and, worst of all, the catastrophic breakdown of an election may ensue," he
wrote.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appointed Mr. Cardozo as chairman of a nine-member task force formed to
recommend ways to improve the city's election system, which was criticized in the 2004 election.
New York State has long lagged behind the rest of the country in efforts to comply with new requirements
under the Help America Vote Act. Last month, the federal Department of Justice threatened a lawsuit if
the state did not comply.
But Mr. Cardozo said that railroading the proposed regulations through would only create more problems
for the state. "I am horrified that this delay has led to potentially put security, functioning and training for
the workers at risk," he said in an interview.
Mr. Cardozo and John Ravitz, the executive director of the City Board of Elections, have both asked to
meet with state officials on the matter.
EXHIBIT M
Mr. Ravitz planned to submit a letter on Friday asking the state board to include more extensive security
tests and to clarify the procedures the state will use to reach contracts with voting machine
manufacturers.
A spokesman for the State Board of Elections, Robert Brehm, said that he could not comment on Mr.
Cardozo's letter but that the board would consider the recommendation before it votes on the regulations.
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY xiv
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 Knapp said state election law provides for consolidation or alteration of election districts by a city or
town. An election district is defined as a geographic area that determines where a person who lives
Plan would reduce local election costs there will vote. Districts can contain up to 950 registered voters, or with Board of Elections
Democratic chief cites city, town savings approval, up to 1,150 registered voters, she said.
County Republican elections officials said they had not seen Knapp's plan.
By Michael Valkys
Poughkeepsie Journal Knapp pledged to continue working with local officials, with whom she has already held preliminary
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060221/NEWS01/602210313/1 discussions.
006
"I have met with city and town leaders concerning my proposal and will assist them in any way
necessary to accomplish our mutual goal of reducing the cost to taxpayers," Knapp said.
The number of election districts, inspectors and voting machines in the town and city of
Poughkeepsie would decrease under what is being labeled a cost-saving plan by Dutchess County "This plan is in the best interests of all taxpayers and voters," she said.
Democratic Elections Commissioner Fran Knapp.
Knapp's plan is separate from proposals being considered by the Common Council that would
Knapp said the plan would streamline the voting process while saving taxpayer dollars. change boundaries in seven of the city's eight wards.
"Where we can save money, I think we should try to do it," said Knapp, who sent her proposal to Those changes are based on population figures from the U.S. Census.
leaders in the town and city last week. "I think this is an improvement all around."
Michael Valkys can be reached at mvalkys@poughkeepsiejournal.com
Knapp's plan would cut five election districts and 24 election inspectors in the town. Six districts
and 24 inspectors would be eliminated in the city.
"Finding election inspectors can be very difficult," Knapp said. "My proposal not only reduces the
number of inspectors needed, but potentially will save hundreds of thousands of dollars with fewer
voting machines required."
Knapp's proposal now goes to the town board and city Common Council for ratification. Each body
must approve the measure soon if Knapp's plan is going to be used this year.
Quick action stressed
She said any changes must be recorded at the Board of Elections by April 1, so the two governing
bodies would have to act on the proposals in the next few weeks.
Common Council Chairman Brian Doyle, D-4th Ward, said he plans to give information on Knapp's
plan to council members for discussion.
Doyle said he had some questions, but the proposal seems worth pursuing.
"A lot of it would appear to make good sense," he said.
Supervisor Patricia Myers was out of town and could not be reached Monday.
EXHIBIT N
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY xv
EXHIBIT ³O´
EDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to WDNY xvi
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4/7/2006 09:30 AM in Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn with Response to Motion
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 04-cv-1193 due by 3/21/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/27/2006, and both motions are
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
(LEK/RFT)
without essential parties to this case herein, with Plaintiffs response due February 28, 2006
LOEBER et.al.
Plaintiffs}
and return date of March 17, 2006 and DOJ reply date March 6th 2006.
v.
3. That I am a party in the referenced case WDNY 06-CV-00080 FORJONE
SPARGO et.al..
Defendants. et.al. v. CALIFORNIA et.al., .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
4. That I am a pro se Plaintiff Co-chairman of The AD HOC New York State
FORJONE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS¶ NOTICE OF CROSS
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE TO JURISDICTION OF Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber
WDNY 06-CV-00080 CASE FORJONE et.al. v.. CALIFORNIA et.al. in RESPONSE
IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT et.al. v. Spargo et.al.
BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and DEFENDANTS MAYOR
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK ABSENT 5. That pro se plaintiff John Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk in case
ESSENTIAL MUNICIPAL PARTIES
WDNY 06-CV-00080 FORJONE et.al. v. CALIFORNIA et.al, are the co-chairmen
Accordingly, I, John Joseph Forjone, declare and certify under penalty of perjury: members of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber et.al. v. Spargo et.al.

1. Am pro se without being an attorney, with my place for service at P.O. Box
6. That I am a pro se Plaintiff Co-chairman of AD HOC NYS People for
28 Clarendon New York 14429 with phone number (585) 721-7673 and email
Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity in
medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com.
WDNY 06-CV-00080 FORJONE et.al. v. CALIFORNIA et.al., with service duly effected
2. As a Plaintiff herein I hereby make this declaration affidavit in support of
upon Defendants on February 21, 2006.
PLAINTIFFS¶ NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE TO
7. That in the context of this supporting declaration I have given due notice to all
JURISDICTION OF WDNY 06-CV-00080 CASE FORJONE et.al. V. CALIFORNIA
pro se Plaintiffs who are members of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for
et.al. pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), in response to the Motion to
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting of my intent to support the cross motion for
Dismiss by separate notice of the U.S. Department of Justice filed February 10, 2006
change of venue and as such believe all are in unanimous agreement and give consent
shown as Docket #64 (a copy of the notice herewith marked EXHIBIT A) and Defendant
accordingly.
the city of New York filed February 17, 2005 shown as Docket #65 (a copy of the Notice
8. That in addition to the above cases I am a pro se plaintiff in the case
herewith marked EXHIBIT B) the First MOTION to Dismiss Motion Hearing set for
Forjone et.al. v. Leavitt et.al. WDNY 05-cv-395 with a jus tertii class The AD HOC NEW
Forjone Declaration in support of Venue Change Page 1 Forjone Declaration in support of Venue Change Page 2
YORK STATE CITIZENS for Federal, State, Municipal Corporation Equitable Means
and Needs Testing for The Annual Medicaid Real Property Tax Levy
9. That in Forjone v. Leavitt there are motions pending one of which is to
supplement the complaint with additional transactions and plaintiffs since October 6, 2005
before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott acting for the Honorable Chief
Judge Richard J. Arcara therein requesting a three Judge Panel under 28 USC 2284 in the
matter of unequal provision of plain speedy and efficient remedy in the matter of the
Judicial Districts of the state of New York as a statewide redistricting issue raised herein
the Loeber v. Spargo complaint especially Cause of Action Seven, having been ignored by
the NDNY Court.
10. That I similarly have a pending response due February 28, 2006 in the
Forjone et.al. v. Leavitt et.al. as a result of a motion to dismiss filed by the US DOJ in the
matter of its default by failure to answer to the summons and complaint therein.
WHEREFORE, Co-chairman prays of the Court for relief herein per FRCvP Rule
19(a) requesting as of right that the entire jus tertii class of The AD HOC New York State
Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber
et.al. v. Spargo et.al. NDNY 04-cv-1193, be granted a change of Venue to the Western
District of New York under the discretion of the Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara
WDNY for further adjudication by that Court for plain speedy with efficient remedy for
actual justice under FRCvP accordingly, and I that Defendants Motion be deemed pre-
mature without the necessary parties joined, and for differently and further relief that this
court deems necessary including but not limited to severance of necessary parties and or
issues to WDNY and or EDNY, and minimally Your Honor¶s recusal per 28 USC 455.
Forjone Declaration in support of Venue Change Page 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4/7/2006 09:30 AM in Albany before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn with Response to Motion
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 04-cv-1193 due by 3/21/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/27/2006, and both motions are
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
(LEK/RFT)
without essential parties to this case herein, with Plaintiffs response due February 28, 2006
LOEBER et.al.
Plaintiffs}
and return date of March 17, 2006 and DOJ reply date March 6th 2006.
v.
3. That I am a party in the referenced case WDNY 06-CV-00080 FORJONE
SPARGO et.al..
Defendants. et.al. v. CALIFORNIA et.al., .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
4. That I am a pro se Plaintiff Co-chairman of The AD HOC New York State
STRUNK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS¶ NOTICE OF CROSS
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE TO JURISDICTION OF Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber
WDNY 06-CV-00080 CASE FORJONE et.al. v.. CALIFORNIA et.al. in RESPONSE
IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT et.al. v. Spargo et.al.
BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and DEFENDANTS MAYOR
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK ABSENT 5. That pro se plaintiff John Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk in case
ESSENTIAL MUNICIPAL PARTIES
WDNY 06-CV-00080 FORJONE et.al. v. CALIFORNIA et.al, are the co-chairmen
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury: members of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber et.al. v. Spargo et.al.

1. Am pro se without being an attorney, with my place for service at 593
6. That I am a pro se Plaintiff Co-chairman of AD HOC NYS People for
Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn New York 11238 with phone number (845) 389-0774
Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity in
and email uncasvotes2@yahoo.com.
WDNY 06-CV-00080 FORJONE et.al. v. CALIFORNIA et.al., with service duly effected
2. As a Plaintiff herein I hereby make this declaration affidavit in support of
upon Defendants on February 21, 2006.
PLAINTIFFS¶ NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE TO
7. That in the context of this supporting declaration I have given due notice to all
JURISDICTION OF WDNY 06-CV-00080 CASE FORJONE et.al. V. CALIFORNIA
pro se Plaintiffs who are members of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for
et.al. pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), in response to the Motion to
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting of my intent to support the cross motion for change
Dismiss by separate notice of the U.S. Department of Justice filed February 10, 2006
of venue and as such believe all are in unanimous agreement and give consent accordingly.
shown as Docket #64 (a copy of the notice herewith marked EXHIBIT A) and Defendant
8. That on February 23, 2006 I filed application per FRCvP 5 to intervene as a
the city of New York filed February 17, 2005 shown as Docket #65 (a copy of the Notice
Plaintiff in the above referenced case with the Memorandum and Order including
herewith marked EXHIBIT B) the First MOTION to Dismiss Motion Hearing set for
Preliminary Injunction (³Order´) so ordered by Your Honor on January 27, 2006 in the
Strunk Declaration in support of Venue Change Page 1 Strunk Declaration in support of Venue Change Page 2
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
(845) 389-0774 fax service 845 338-5979
uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
February 23, 2006

By Mail
The Honorable John Gleeson
District Judge of the
United State District Court of
The Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11207
Re: Torres et.al. v. NYS B.O.E. et.al. 04-cv-1129
Subj.: FRCvP Rule 5 Intervention per FRCvP 20 & 24
The Honorable Judge John Gleeson,
My name is Christopher Earl Strunk, am pro se without being an attorney, hereby make
this application per FRCvP 5 (Endnote: i) to intervene as a Plaintiff in the above referenced case with
the Memorandum and Order including Preliminary Injunction (³Order´) so ordered by Your
Honor on January 27, 2006 in the matter of the constitutionality of the New York State Election
Law § 6-106(1) and §6-124(2) for state party nominations of the office of State Supreme Court
Justice under provisions of the State Constitution Article 6 Section 6(c), and as such I have fully
read and know the matters enjoined in the Order effects my liberty, is similar to judicial failure in
Molinari v. Powers that prolongs the torture without any actual remedy; and I hereby strive to
correct the false premises underlying the Order, and pray for plain, speedy and efficient remedy.
1
§ 6-106. Party nominations; justice of the Supreme Court. Party - nominations for the office of justice of the
supreme court shall be made by the judicial district convention.
2
§ 6-124. Conventions; judicial. A judicial district convention shall be constituted by the election at the preceding
primary of delegates and alternate delegates, if any, from each assembly district or, if an assembly district shall
contain all or part of two or more counties and if the rules of the party shall so provide, separately from the part of
such assembly district contained within each such county. The number of delegates and alternates, if any, shall be
determined by party rules, but the number of delegates shall be substantially in accordance with the ratio, which the
number of votes cast for the party candidate for the office of governor, on the line or column of the party at the last
preceding election for such office, in any unit of representation, bears to the total vote cast at such election for such
candidate on such line or column in the entire state. The number of alternates from any district shall not exceed the
number of delegates therefrom. The delegates certified to have been elected as such, in the manner provided in this
chapter, shall be conclusively entitled to their seats, rights and votes as delegates to such convention. When a duly
elected delegate does not attend the convention, his place shall be taken by one of the alternates, if any, to be
substituted in his place, in the order of the vote received by each such alternate as such vote appears upon the
certified list and if an equal number of votes were cast for two or more such alternates; the order in which such
alternates shall be substituted shall be determined by lot forthwith upon the convening of the convention. If there shall
have been no contested election for alternate, substitution shall be in the order in which the name of such alternate
appears upon the certified list, and if no alternates shall have been elected or if no alternates appear at such
convention, then the delegates present from the same district shall elect a person to fill the vacancy.
Strunk Motion to Intervene Page 1 of 10
As Background, I am a jus tertii member of a class of People (3) who are registered That Plaintiffs in Loeber v. Spargo have shown prima facie evidence of suffrage
voters or entitled Bottom-up (4) suffrage as defined under NYS Constitution Article II Suffrage infringement attributable to Defendants that act under color of the WMCA court decision therein
per Article IX for Local Government there entitled ³Homerule´ autonomy accordingly for those declaring the NYSC Article III Section 4 Senate District 1894 ³enlargement formula´ to increase
People resident within a municipality then entitled to a Board of Elections within, and as such from the minimum required fifty (50) Senate Districts unconstitutional, and remains
notify this court of related cases that significantly effect the outcome of this case as follows: unconstitutional, notwithstanding use of total population rather than just citizens; that without a
Am a pro se Plaintiff member of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for state constitution express replacement formula, Defendants appear to act by mis application and
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber et.al. v. Spargo et.al. administration of the State Constitution and Laws, that state of New York Constitution Article III
NDNY 04-cv-1193 requesting a 28 USC 2284 panel, with various motions languishing before mandates express:
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn in Albany with a request for change of venue per FRCvP 19(a) (endnote:ii) (i.) the use of 50 Senate Districts not 62 Senate Districts;
to the Western District of New York to be consolidated in case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. (ii.) the municipalities of Hamilton shall elect together with Fulton ± DON¶T;
06-cv-0080, and in which I am a Plaintiff member jus tertii of the AD HOC NYS People for (iii.) the city of New York shall not have more than one-third of all senators, has 24 of
Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity, also with a 62 Senate Districts coterminous within, must not exceed 16 of 50; and
request for a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel there before the Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. (iv.) The People resident within an existing municipality or county are without at least
Arcara with service effected upon Defendants February 21, 2006. two coterminous Assembly Districts in no less than forty-seven of fifty-eight
That the question of a constitutionally formed Judicial District per Article VI §6(b) is a municipalities.
three judge panel matter to hear New York electoral districting peccadilloes as per the watershed Within the Loeber v. Spargo case in which all the Supreme Court Justices are Defendants
case Baker v. Carr (see footnote below 5) that provides a factual background for relief that will as a class in the name of Justice Thomas Spargo, the seventh Cause of Action
involve statewide senate districts as a result of the April 22, 2002 reapportionment maliciously
cause Disproportionate Diminished Dilution (³DDD´) Injury inequity to Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated, and ill formed municipalities fatally effected Judicial Districts accordingly.
3
New York State Constitution Article IX ³Local Government´ definition of the ³PEOPLE´ (d)
Whenever used in this Article the following terms shall mean or include« (3) ³PEOPLE.´ Persons entitled
to vote as provided in section one of Article two of this constitution.
4
Bottom-up versus Top-down suffrage and autonomy is subject to Homerule authority in each
municipal entity entitled to a municipal board of elections that maintains the original registration and
enrollment records within the municipality of domicile rather than at a remote centralized location outside
of Homerule authority and control.
5
(See US Supreme Court decisions: Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); WMCA v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S.
633 (1964) with malicious use of ³total population´ in equal districts alleged as if in Reynolds v. Sims, 377
US. 583 (1964) ³one man one vote´, Arbor Hill v. Albany County NDNY 03 cv 502, Rodriguez v Pataki
SDNY 02 cv 618, and in the matter of the Homerule authority of the city of New York authority on the
unfunded portion of the Federal Medicaid mandate heard at second circuit in Lindsay v. Wyman, SDNY
71 cv 802, 372 F.Supp. 1360, Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) and as to real property TAKINGS
application of Atlanta Motel V. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)
Strunk Motion to Intervene Page 2 of 10 Strunk Motion to Intervene Page 3 of 10

integrally coincides with the conditions abetting the out of control EL §2-100 state party "From the standpoint of the groups of voters that are affected by the line-drawing
process, it is also important [462 U.S. 725, 750] to recognize that it is the group's interest
structure inside and outside the municipality of NYC, having been a malicious relationship to
in gaining or maintaining political power that is at stake. The mere fact that a number of
illegal mal-apportionment of Assembly Districts wrongly overlapping municipalities, that in part citizens share a common ethnic, racial, or religious background does not create the need
for protection against gerrymandering. It is only when their common interests are strong
by gerrymandering are drawn with Prime Active Voters lists (per EL §5-213) associated with
enough to be manifested in political action that the need arises. For the political strength
mal-formed ³bi-partisan´ Election Districts defined under EL §4-100 (endnoteiii) (not to be of a group is not a function of its ethnic, racial, or religious composition; rather it is a
function of numbers - specifically the number of persons who will vote in the same way."
confused with Census ³Election Districts´) and when EDs are legally created as ³bi-partisan´
Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 88 (1980) (concurring in judgment).
MUST be THE basic building block for the entire provision of suffrage and Homerule
Extensive deviation from established political boundaries is another possible basis for a prima
autonomy, and especially the Assembly Leader / Judicial Delegate elections system, intended for
facie showing of gerrymandering. The Court wrote in Reynolds v. Sims:
actual constitutional provision of EL §6-124 missing since 1964.
"Indiscriminate districting, without any regard for political subdivision or natural or historical
The fact that a proper ED formation was understandably, however outrageously ignored
boundary lines, may be little more than an open invitation to partisan gerrymandering." 377
by Chief Judge Edward Korman in Molinari v. Powers (2000) that further facilitates and U.S., at 578 -579. 21 Subdivision boundaries tend to remain stable over time. Residents of
political units such as townships, cities, and counties often develop a community of interest,
emboldens the malfunction of the EL §6-124 process and is integrally combined in the devious
particularly when the subdivision plays an important role in the provision of governmental
use of DDD as aptly referenced in the 1980 Federal Census redistricting challenge in New services. In addition, legislative districts that do not cross subdivision boundaries are
administratively convenient and less likely to confuse the voters. 22 Although the significance of
Jersey, to wit the US Supreme Court raised the issue of one person one vote applying to those
deviations from subdivision [462 U.S. 725, 759] boundaries will vary with the number of
eligible in the Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) case for New Jersey State Legislative legislative seats and the number, size, and shape of the State's subdivisions, the number can be
counted 23 and alternative plans can be compared.
redistricting. Wherein dissenting Justice Harlan raised the historically bad faith efforts of New
York to game the equal total numbers jargon that [462 U.S. 725, 776] decade of experience For a number of reasons, a burden that plaintiffs can meet in relatively few cases, as a threshold
matter, plaintiffs must show that they are members of an identifiable political group whose
with Kirkpatrick has shown that "the rule of absolute equality is perfectly compatible with
voting strength has been diluted.
`gerrymandering' of the worst sort." Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S., at 551, quote:
Must first prove that they belong to a politically salient class; see supra, at 749-750, one whose
³With ever more sophisticated computers, legislators can draw countless plans
for absolute population equality, but each having its own political ramifications. geographical distribution is sufficiently ascertainable that it could have been taken into account
in drawing district boundaries. 12
Although neither a rule of absolute equality nor one of substantial equality can alone
prevent deliberate partisan gerrymandering, the former offers legislators a ready
justification for disregarding geographical and political boundaries. I remain convinced Second, they must prove that in the relevant district or districts or in the State as a whole, their
of what I said in dissent in Kirkpatrick and Wells: "[Those] decisions . . . downgrade a proportionate voting influence has been adversely affected by the challenged scheme. 13
restraint on a far greater potential threat to equality of representation, the
gerrymander.´ Third, plaintiffs [462 U.S. 725, 755] must make a prima facie showing that raises a rebuttable
presumption of discrimination.
The majority therein held that because there is only one Equal Protection Clause. Since the
Clause does not make some groups of citizens more equal than others, see Zobel v. Williams, 457 That in the foregoing statewide reapportionment equity matter, the State Unified Court
U.S. 55, 71 (1982) (BRENNAN, J., concurring), its protection against vote dilution cannot be System since 1977 in provision of plain speedy and efficient remedy in each of twelve existing
confined to racial groups. As long as it proscribes gerrymandering against such groups, its
proscription must provide comparable protection for other cognizable groups of voters as well. Judicial Districts is fatally effected and causes unequal treatment especially in real property
As I have previously written: matters, effecting significant unequal lose of real property along with the People¶s bottom-up
"In the line-drawing process, racial, religious, ethnic, and economic gerrymanders are suffrage and Homerule autonomy not only within the ill formed municipalities, and thereby
all species of political gerrymanders.
(v.) ALL Judicial Districts per Article 6 Section 6(b) (6), MUST be based upon In light of the foregoing discussion as definitely a full plate, nevertheless this case and
Homerule municipalities / counties - are not now in compliance, and as Order have serious problems that by our intervention assist the court with efficient remedy:
(vi.) for the city of New York, it absolutely exceeds constitutional legal size, is only
entitled one Judicial District because it does NOT have ANY Homerule "county" x the Order by operation of the foregoing state constitution and related law matters and
within since no later than 1963 when all policy, patronage and purse as a matter of issues, Lacks essential Parties- absolutely requires ALL the municipalities entitled to
taxation and Homerule were consolidated only with the mayor and city Council a Board of Election within to be joined herein to be given a voice as essential parties
per se, the counties of the Bronx, Queens, New York, Kings and Richmond do not to the matter of Judicial Elections, which goes to whom is going to pay for all the
in fact legally exist are and have been a nullity since no later than 1964. primaries that the Order now requires- e.g. EL §4-138 requires the municipalities to
(vii.) That the present Borough of Brooklyn must be freed from NYC, the People given pay for all elections and that real property owners would have such levied
Homerule and MUST thereafter stand alone as one Judicial District separate from accordingly upon real property being a 5th amendment takings issue as a result of the
the city of New York, and the Borough of Staten Island; .further Order, especially in the matter of HAVA congressional mandates, question in the
(viii.) In regards to so-called ³county committees´ under EL §2-100, because 47 related case Forjone et.al v California WDNY 06-cv-0080.
municipalities are improperly formed and a nullity without equity of Homerule
autonomy for the People within NO county committee except in 11 municipalities x the Order upsets the placeholder Election Law function that minor state parties and
shall exist under the present reapportionment configuration; and the state parties per se use to cross-endorse Gubernatorial / Lt. Governor candidate
(ix.) That NYC per se without any Homerule entities within may only have one such slates so that they may coincide with the vote count of each slate which although
EL §2-100 municipal committees instead of purported five illegal committees votes are cast separately the ³slate´ is locked at the hip without an efficient
whose outrageous behavior has been the focus of the Order and Court herein. ³substitute´ process wherein state parties use the EL §6-124 function. If a slate is not
the same as another cross endorsed slate then utility of cross endorsement is
That 1st and 14th amendment applies herein to Plaintiffs¶ prima facie evidence of undermined by the Order, and goes to the crucial nature of the once in four year
statewide reapportionment DDD injury to U.S. Citizen expectation of effective electoral gubernatorial race to obtain state party ballot line status ± i.e. Green Party et.al. v
participation with speech and association infringement sufficient to convene a 28 USC 2284 NYS BOE et.al. EDNY 02-cv-6465 and now in related case with motions before
panel in WDNY consolidation of WDNY 05-cv-395, WDNY 06-cv-0080 and NDNY 04-cv- District Judge Norman A. Mordue in Fitzgerald et.al. v. NYS BOE et.al. NDNY 02-
1193 there, because Judge Kahn by actual bias and misbehavior disqualifies NDNY further cv-926 in which I am a Plaintiff with standing under 42 USC 1973gg.
jurisdiction, that obligates recusal and expedited grant of a change of venue and or severance of
the Judicial District issue to this court awaiting redistricting action by a 28 USC 2284 panel. x The Order fails to address an important state court decision whose original
jurisdiction under the Election Law Article 16 function (germane to this Order), that
6
b. Once every ten years the legislature may increase or decrease the number of makes electors direct stakeholders as with members of The AD HOC New York State
judicial districts or alter the composition of judicial districts and thereupon re-apportion Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting intervention herein fundamental;
the justices to be thereafter elected in the judicial districts so altered. Each judicial
district shall be bounded by county lines. and although not referenced by the Order -- I believe due to the curious West Law
failure to publish -- the decision deals with a challenge to state party involvement in

ENDNOTES:
i i
Rule 20. Permissive Joinder of Parties- (a) PERMISSIVE JOINDER. All persons may join in one
action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any
question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action. All persons (and any vessel,
cargo or other property subject to admiralty process in rem) may be joined in one action as defendants if
there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. A plaintiff or defendant need not
be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one or
more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to relief, and against one or more defendants
according to their respective liabilities.
(b) SEPARATE TRIALS. The court may make such orders as will prevent a party from being
embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom the party asserts no
claim and who asserts no claim against the party, and may order separate trials or make other orders to
prevent delay or prejudice. (As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987.)
Rule 24. Intervention - (a) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. Upon timely application anyone shall be
permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right
to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is
the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede the applicant¶s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant¶s
interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
(b) PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to
intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or
(2) when an applicant¶s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.
When a party to an action relies for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order
administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency or upon any regulation, order,
requirement, or agreement issued or made pursuant to the statute or executive order, the officer or
agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action. In exercising its discretion the
court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of
the original parties. (c) PROCEDURE. A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene
upon the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion shall state the grounds therefore and shall be
accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. The same
procedure shall be followed when a statute of the United States gives a right to intervene. When the
constitutionality of an act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question in any action in
which the United States or an officer, agency, or employee thereof is not a party, the court shall notify the
Attorney General of the United States as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., § 2403. When the constitutionality
of any statute of a State affecting the public interest is drawn in question in any action in which that State
or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, the court shall notify the attorney general of the
State as provided in Title 28, U.S.C. § 2403. A party challenging the constitutionality of legislation should
call the attention of the court to its consequential duty, but failure to do so is not a waiver of any
constitutional right otherwise timely asserted. (As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Dec. 29,
1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Mar. 2, 1987,
eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991.)
ii
Rule 19. Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication - (a) PERSONS TO BE JOINED IF
FEASIBLE. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the
person¶s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person
claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in
the person¶s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person¶s
ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of
incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. If the
person has not been so joined, the court shall order that the person be made a party. If the person should

join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, the person may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 04-cv-1129 (JG)
involuntary plaintiff. If the joined party objects to venue and joinder of that party would render the venue of
the action improper, that party shall be dismissed from the action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
(b) DETERMINATION BY COURT WHENEVER JOINDER NOT FEASIBLE. If a person as Margarita Lopez Torres, Steven Banks, C. Alfred Santillo,
described in subdivision (a) (1)±(2) hereof cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in John J. Macron, Lili Ann Motta, John W. Carroll, Philip C. Segal,
equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be Susan Loeb, David J. Lansner, and Common Cause / NY,
dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the Plaintiffs,
court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person¶s absence might be prejudicial to the
v.
person or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by
the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a
judgment rendered in the person¶s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an New York State Board of Elections; Neil W. Kelleher,
adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder. Carol Berman, Helena Moses Donohue, and Evelyn J. Aquila,
iii
in their official capacities as Commissioners of the
New York Election Law §4-100. Election districts; creation and alteration.
New York State Board of Elections,
1. The State of New York shall be divided into election districts which shall be the basic political
subdivision for purposes of registration and voting as provided in this chapter. Defendants,
2. The creation, consolidation, division or alteration of election districts shall be done by the
legislative body of the city or town within which the election district is contained except in the cities of New York County Democratic Committee, New York
Buffalo and New York and the counties of Monroe, Nassau, and Suffolk. In the cities of Buffalo and New Republican State Committee, Association of Justices of the
York, and the counties of Monroe, Nassau and Suffolk, and for any other town or city, upon the request of Supreme Court of the State of New York, Association of Justices
its legislative body, the creation, consolidation, division or alteration of election districts shall be done by
the board of elections. of the Supreme Court of the City of New York, and
3. a. Each election district shall be in compact form and may not be partly within and partly without a Justice David Demarest, individually, and
ward, town, city, a village which has five thousand or more inhabitants and is wholly within one town, or a as President of the State Association,
county legislative, assembly, senatorial or congressional district. Defendant-Intervenors,
Except as provided in paragraph b of this subdivision, election district boundaries, other than those Attorney General of the State of New York,
boundaries which are coterminous with the boundaries of those political subdivisions mentioned in this
paragraph, must be streets, rivers, railroad lines or other permanent characteristics of the Statutory Intervenor.
landscape which are clearly visible to any person without the need to use any technical or mechanical ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
device. An election district shall contain not more than nine hundred fifty registrants (excluding
registrants in inactive status) or, with the approval of the county board of elections, not more than CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK PRO SE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
eleven hundred fifty registrants (excluding registrants in inactive status), but any election district may MOTION TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT
be divided for the convenience of the voters.
b. An election district in a city or town may divide a block, provided that the board of elections prepares
an alphabetical list of all the streets in such city or town with the election district for each such street. If
any such street is divided between two or more election districts, then such list must contain the lowest Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:
and highest street numbers in each such district and if the odd and even numbers on a street are in
different districts, such list must contain separate listings for such odd and even numbers and if
there are both odd and even numbers in such different election districts, such list must contain
separate listings for such numbers. Copies of such lists shall be filed and kept open to public inspection
1. Am pro se without being an attorney, with my place for service at 593
in the offices of such board. One copy of each such list shall be delivered, upon request, to the state
board of elections and to a person or officer designated jointly by the speaker of the assembly and Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn New York 11238 with phone number (845) 389-0774
the temporary president of the senate. Surplus copies shall be sold at cost.
4. Any election district must be realigned when the total number of registrants, excluding registrants in and email uncasvotes2@yahoo.com.
inactive status, at the time of the preceding general election, exceeds the maximum number permitted by
this section by at least fifty registered voters.
5. Any creation, consolidation, division or alteration of election districts in any calendar year shall be 2. hereby make this application per FRCvP 5 to intervene as a Plaintiff in the
made on or before February fifteenth, and shall take effect on April first, except that when required
by the creation or alteration of a political subdivision, other than an election district, in which candidates above referenced case with the Memorandum and Order including Preliminary Injunction
are to be voted for at the next election, such creation, consolidation, division or alteration shall be made
and shall take effect immediately upon creation or alteration of such political subdivision. No
such creation, consolidation, division or alteration shall be made between February twentieth of a (³Order´) so ordered by Your Honor on January 27, 2006 in the matter of the
calendar year ending in seven and December first of a calendar year ending in zero unless required
by the creation or alteration of a political subdivision. constitutionality of the New York State Election Law § 6-106 and §6-124 for state party

1
nominations of the office of State Supreme Court Justice under provisions of the State for a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel there before the Honorable Chief Judge Richard J.
Constitution Article 6 Section 6(c), and have been active in such matters since no later than Arcara with service effected upon Defendants February 21, 2006, a copy herewith marked
October 1, 2003, a copy of my testimony to the Ferrick Commission herewith marked EXHIBIT 3.
EXHIBIT 1. 7. That Plaintiffs in Loeber v. Spargo have shown prima facie evidence of
3. As such I have fully read and know the matters enjoined in the Order effects suffrage infringement attributable to Defendants that act under color of the WMCA court
my liberty, and I hereby strive to correct the false premises underlying the Order, and pray decision therein declaring the NYSC Article III Section 4 Senate District 1894
for plain, speedy and efficient remedy, however omit same for the purpose of economy of ³enlargement formula´ to increase from the minimum required fifty (50) Senate Districts
space. unconstitutional, and remains unconstitutional, notwithstanding use of total population
4. As Background, I am a jus tertii member of a class of People who are rather than just citizens; that without a state constitution express replacement formula,
registered voters or entitled Bottom-up suffrage as defined under NYS Constitution Article Defendants appear to act by mis application and administration of the State Constitution
II Suffrage per Article IX for Local Government there entitled ³Homerule´ autonomy and Laws, that state of New York Constitution Article III mandates express:
accordingly for those People resident within a municipality then entitled to a Board of (i.) the use of 50 Senate Districts not 62 Senate Districts;
Elections within, and as such notify this court of related cases that significantly effect the (ii.) the municipalities of Hamilton shall elect together with Fulton ± DON¶T;
outcome of this case as follows: (iii.) the city of New York shall not have more than one-third of all senators, has
5. Am a pro se Plaintiff member of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for 24 of 62 Senate Districts coterminous within, must not exceed 16 of 50; and
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber et.al. v. (iv.) The People resident within an existing municipality or county are without at
Spargo et.al. NDNY 04-cv-1193 ( a copy of the complaint herewith marked EXHIBIT 2) least two coterminous Assembly Districts in no less than forty-seven of
therein requesting a 28 USC 2284 panel, with various motions languishing before Judge fifty-eight municipalities.
Lawrence E. Kahn in Albany with a request for change of venue per FRCvP 19(a) to the
Western District of New York to be consolidated in case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al.
06-cv-0080, and in which 8. Within the Loeber v. Spargo case in which all the Supreme Court Justices
6. am a Plaintiff member jus tertii of the AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up are Defendants as a class in the name of Justice Thomas Spargo, the seventh
Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity, also with a request Cause of Action
2 3
12. That in the Loeber v. Spargo statewide reapportionment equity matter,
integrally effects the State Unified Court System since 1977 in provision of plain speedy
and efficient remedy in each of twelve existing Judicial Districts is fatally effected and
causes unequal treatment especially in real property matters, effecting significant unequal
lose of real property along with the People¶s bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy
not only within the ill formed municipalities, and thereby :
13. ALL Judicial Districts per Article 6 Section 6(b), MUST be based upon
Homerule municipalities / counties - are not now in compliance, and as
14. for the city of New York, it absolutely exceeds constitutional legal size, is
only entitled one Judicial District because it does NOT have ANY Homerule "county"
within since no later than 1963 when all policy, patronage and purse as a matter of taxation
9.
As such the Loeber v. Spargo cause of action Seven integrally coincides
and Homerule were consolidated only with the mayor and city Council per se, the counties
with the conditions abetting the out of control EL §2-100 state party structure inside and
of the Bronx, Queens, New York, Kings and Richmond do not in fact legally exist are and
outside the municipality of NYC, having been a malicious relationship to illegal mal-
have been a nullity since no later than 1964.
apportionment of Assembly Districts wrongly overlapping municipalities,
15. That the present Borough of Brooklyn must be freed from NYC, the People
10.
that in part Assembly Districts are arbitrarily and capriciously drawn by
given Homerule and MUST thereafter stand alone as one Judicial District separate from
gerrymandering using Prime Active Voters lists (per EL §5-213) associated with mal-
the city of New York, and the Borough of Staten Island; further
formed ³bi-partisan´ Election Districts defined under EL §4-100 (not to be confused with
16. In regards to so-called ³county committees´ under EL §2-100, because 47
Census ³Election Districts´) and
municipalities are improperly formed and a nullity without equity of Homerule autonomy
11. when EDs are legally created as ³bi-partisan´ MUST be THE basic
for the People within NO county committee except in 11 municipalities shall exist under
building block for the entire provision of suffrage and Homerule autonomy, and especially
the present reapportionment configuration; and
the Assembly Leader / Judicial Delegate elections system, intended for actual
constitutional provision of EL §6-124 missing since 1964.
4 5
17. That NYC per se without any Homerule entities within may only have one 23. That Mr. Cormier further corresponded with the city of New York Voter
such EL §2-100 municipal committees instead of purported five illegal committees whose Assistance Commission on or about December 17, 2004, a copy of the letter herewith
outrageous behavior has been the focus of the Order and Court herein. marked EXHIBIT 5.
18. That my fellow pro se Plaintiff in the Loeber v. Spargo Case is Roy Pierre 24. That Mr. Cormier and I jointly petition the Secretary of State of New York
Detiege Cormier, a natural person resident in Brooklyn within NYC. for relief under the NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 to no avail a copy of the petition
19. That Mr. Cormier is a member of The AD HOC New York State Citizens herewith marked EXHIBIT 6.
for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting 25. That during September 2005 Mr. Cornier participated as an alternate
20. That Mr., Cormier has been injured by the wrongful mis application and Judicial Delegate at the Republican Party EL §6-124 Judicial Convention.
administration of the state constitution and related laws despite the questionable pre 26. That on October 27, 2005 the Kings County District Attorney Rackets
clearance by the Department of Justice under 42 USC 1973 has suffered a fifteenth Division in the matter of buying judicial office interviewed me as to a material witness in a
amendment injury accordingly by reapportionment and likewise he is affected by the matter under seal, a copy of the security entrance badge herewith marked EXHIBIT 7.
wrongful Judicial Districts and out of control so-called county committees in NYC and 27. That I am associated with Christopher Garvey who was an independent
elsewhere, and candidate for state supreme Court Justice having gathered petition signatures and been on
21. That Mr. Cormier complained of such to Mayor Bloomberg on or about the ballot in the Bronx for Justice office, and that after the election he told me that when he
November 16, 2004 to no avail, a copy of his letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 4. tried to obtain the vote tally for his ballot line he was told by the clerk of the Board of
st th
22. That 1 and 14 amendment applies herein to Movants¶ prima facie Elections that they do not bother releasing such independent vote tallies until after the
evidence of statewide reapportionment DDD injury to U.S. Citizen expectation of effective election because independent judicial candidate never win and would be a waste of their
electoral participation with speech and association infringement sufficient to convene a 28 time during the actual tally and canvassing.
USC 2284 panel in WDNY consolidation of WDNY 05-cv-395, WDNY 06-cv-0080 and 28. In light of the foregoing, I believe that this case and Order have serious
NDNY 04-cv-1193 there, because Judge Kahn by actual bias and misbehavior disqualifies problems that by our intervention assist the court with efficient remedy:
NDNY further jurisdiction, that obligates recusal and expedited grant of a change of venue 29. the Order by operation of the foregoing state constitution and related law
and or severance of the Judicial District issue to this court awaiting redistricting action by a matters and issues, Lacks essential Parties- absolutely requires ALL the municipalities
28 USC 2284 panel. entitled to a Board of Election within to be joined herein to be given a voice as essential
6 7
parties to the matter of Judicial Elections, which goes to whom is going to pay for all the
primaries that the Order now requires- e.g. EL §4-138 requires the municipalities to pay for
all elections and that real property owners would have such levied accordingly upon real
property being a 5th amendment takings issue as a result of the Order, especially in the
matter of HAVA congressional mandates, question in the related case Forjone et.al v
California WDNY 06-cv-0080.
30. the Order upsets the placeholder Election Law function that minor state
parties and the state parties per se use to cross-endorse Gubernatorial / Lt. Governor
candidate slates so that they may coincide with the vote count of each slate which although
votes are cast separately the ³slate´ is locked at the hip without an efficient ³substitute´
process wherein state parties use the EL §6-124 function. If a slate is not the same as
another cross endorsed slate then utility of cross endorsement is undermined by the Order,
and goes to the crucial nature of the once in four year gubernatorial race to obtain state
party ballot line status ± i.e. Green Party et.al. v NYS BOE et.al. EDNY 02-cv-6465 and
now in related case with motions before District Judge Norman A. Mordue in Fitzgerald
et.al. v. NYS BOE et.al. NDNY 02-cv-926 in which I am a Plaintiff with standing, under 42
USC 1973gg.
31. The Order fails to address an important state court decision whose original
jurisdiction under the Election Law Article 16 function (germane to this Order), that makes
electors direct stakeholders as with members of The AD HOC New York State Citizens for
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting intervention herein fundamental;
32. I believe due to the curious West Law failure to publish the decision that
deals with a challenge to state party involvement in the NYS Constitution Article VI §6(c)
8
EXHIBIT 1
10
EXHIBIT 2
2
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 1 of 29
EXHIBIT 3
15
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 2 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 3 of 29
Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier
25 Hattie Jones Circle
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11213
Phone 718-735-2321
November 16, 2004
The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg

Mayor of the City of New York
City Hall
EXHIBIT 4 New York, New York 10007
Re: Loeber et.al. v. Spargo et.al.

USCA 2nd Cir case 04-5720-cv
Subject: 15th Amendment Violations under the 1965

Voting Rights Act 42 USC 1973 in NYC
Dear Mr. Mayor,
In 2001, we met for the first time at the annual Lincoln Celebration Fund Raiser at
El Caribe Club in Brooklyn. At that time, we were introduced to each other by the Honorable
Arthur Bramwell, now deceased. I was the first independent Republican Candidate from Bedford
Stuyvesant and all of Brooklyn, from the under-represented Republican minority community, to
endorse your candidacy as a NEW Republican before the Republican Party Primary against
Herman Badillo for Mayor. I was the first and ONLY Republican to spend my personal funds in
promoting your candidacy. I have served on the Brooklyn Republican Party Kings County
Committee since 1991 and was associate Assembly Leader of the 56th AD, with loyal service as
an Election Inspector and Coordinator at the Brooklyn Board of Elections and have been a
candidate for the City Council 41st Councilmanic District and then the 36th affected by
gerrymander. I am writing to you in respect of your concerns expressed with the November 2,
2004 general election process as covered by the press; and I hereby invite your attention to my
efforts in association with other State citizens to reform an otherwise disastrously broken system
of suffrage, and especially here in Brooklyn since 1990 upon my return.
That I am a plaintiff and now appellant in the above referenced case, which
addresses New York State citizen injuries associated with the fundamental issues effected by the
16 1
on going process of gerrymandering, that since the 1960 Census has been done outside of the That our active concern is expressed by our class action complaint filed in the Northern
mandates of the New York State Constitution Article III, and now devolved into what we are District of New York without assistance of an attorney. We express alarm at the terrible violation
experiencing in the breakdown of both representative government throughout the state, with of suffrage matters that are then ignored by the District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on October 29,
extreme fiscal inequity and moral turpitude, that reflects unequal discriminatory treatment of all 2004, as the annexed document shows, whose Decision and Order is taken on appeal now before
State Citizens, who are effected differently as stakeholders in rural and suburban municipal the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit by way of a supplemental emergency motion for
entities in comparison to urban centers. However, even in those urban centers citizens are restraint and injunction for protection from continued irreparable injury that warrants a 28 USC
effected negatively by gerrymandering and also are disturbingly maltreated. Whereas on an 2284 three judge panel to review gerrymandering matters suffered here in New York.
entity by entity basis especially in covered counties in the matter of 15th amendment treatment of A series of injuries to State Citizens and especially minorities substantive due process
minorities, purportedly protected under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 15th Amendment, rights here in Brooklyn, now warrants a temporary restraining order to prevent constitutional
here in Brooklyn and elsewhere aren’t protected in the matter of delivery of equal suffrage and amendment and constitutional convention until the State Senate and Assembly are properly
autonomy. seated, and that a permanent injunction for equal treatment of suffrage and autonomy under State
In fact minorities have been maliciously and purposefully discriminated against here in Election law must be mandated for all New York State Citizens entitled to suffrage separate from
this municipality in violation of the matter of conduct of election under EL 8-202. That the non-citizens, minors and those adjudged civilly dead.
violation is related to the entirely destructive pattern of mutual consent of partisan control over That since November 1, 2004, we citizens similarly situated have suffered additional
the election process. We claim our injuries are directly caused not only by long-term compound injuries, that occurred when we were forced to associate under the duress of Election
gerrymandering, but also by complicity of the Republican and Democratic county and Statewide Law as partisan observers, rather than “non-partisan” observers at the November 2 General
party machines autocratic control over patronage policy and purse willfully designed under color Election. That we are treated differently than the persons of the Organization of Security and
of law. Who intentionally use the systematically flawed delivery of suffrage by consent not Cooperation in Europe’s team of Foreign Observers composed of non-citizens and citizen
competition that has gone on for so long by design without proper oversight and detection. employees of the former east block organization led by a Swiss delegation. We are also treated
That your appropriate expression of dismay, concerning delivery of suffrage here by the differently than the Press and Children under 16. That beyond prior experience, we have
New York City Board of Elections throughout the City, has not fallen on deaf ears. My discovered while acting as certified observers for the Libertarian Party Candidate for Presidential
associates and I believe, based upon evidence gained by observation done on November 2, 2004 Elector Christopher B. Garvey, that our further injuries are compounded and far more egregious
around the city and the state, that the collapse of the suffrage system is complete, and that than previously thought.
elections function by design under partisan County Party apparatus dealing by consent illegally, That we have urgently requested permission by motion to supplement the complaint with
rather than under “Bipartisan “ competition as required under NYS Constitution Suffrage Article injuries along with remand, for close scrutiny of the role of facilitation done by the errant New
II - have committed actual fraud under color of the Election law, by deceptive mischief and long York State Board of Elections, acts otherwise with plausible denial, and leaves citizens without
established unchecked habituation with lack of oversight. That the NYC Board of Elections here of NYS Civil Rights Law protection. That we discovered wrong doing on November 2, 2004 that
seemingly is operating without a responsible New York State Board of Elections - that somehow necessitates immediate need for injunction upon the Secretary of State to enforce civil rights law
claims a plausible denial of authority or responsibility to deliver uniform suffrage and election protection against all county boards and county party organizations operating outside of NYS
despite Election Law. Election Law, State Party by-laws and the NYS Chapter 6 Article 5A Civil Rights Law.
2 3
These are not simple matters, as you know. However, we believe that our attention to
right the broken election system is essential, as you have attempted to do by the failed “Non-
partisan” election referendum- which we believe, fell far short to address the problem. Our
common interest should lead to the earliest opportunity to meet and discuss what must be done.
We await your response- together we may effect a workable solution, even at this late date.
Respectfully yours,
Dated: November 16, 2004

Brooklyn, New York
EXHIBIT 5
__________________________
Attachment
Cc: The Honorable David N. Kelly,

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrews Plaza, New York New York 10007
Michael A. Cardozo, Esq. The NYC Corporation Counsel

Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0995
Appellants
4 17
25 Hattie Jones Circle
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11213
Phone 718-735-2321
Detie7@aol.com
November 16, 2004

Onida Coward-Mayers
Executive Director/Coordinator for the
Voter Assistance Commission of the City of New York
100 Gold Street
New York, New York 10038
Regarding: 15th Amendment Violations under the 1965

Voting Rights Act 42 USC 1973 in NYC
Subject: Consideration for appointment to VAC
Dear Executive Director,
In response to the November 26, 2004 correspondence from Andreana G. Joannidis

Staff Attorney for the Honorable Michael A. Cardozo, the NYC Corporation Counsel, who has
forwarded my November 16, 2004 letter to the Mayor to your attention. I have been directed to
coordinate efforts with you in the matter of free and fair elections here in the State of New York
and especially the City of New York which should be done with equal time place and manner.
My letter references injuries widely sustained on November 2, 2004 at the General

Election, I contend are directly caused not only by long-term effects of gerrymandering with
complicity of the Republican and Democratic county and Statewide party machines, with
autocratic control over patronage policy and purse, have conspired willfully to use the
systematically flawed delivery of suffrage by consent not competition, is wrongly without
proper oversight and detection. That we discovered wrong doing on November 2, 2004 that
necessitates immediate need for remedy to enforce civil rights law protection against wrong
actions by every and all county boards and county party organizations operating outside of NYS
Election Law, State Party by-laws and the NYS Chapter 6 Article 5A Civil Rights Law.
Every aspect of the New York State Election Law must be on the table for review
and consideration in the deliberation process of the VAC. I contend that despite the purpose of
EL 1-102, that there MUST be TWO opposing State Parties, per EL 2-100 any State Political
Faith MUST have at least TWO members to check each other, per EL 3-100 MUST observe BI-
PARTISAN competition, and that the entire system MUST be safeguarded by a system of
equivalent Election Districts mandated to be “Bi-partisan” under EL 4-100, and then not least of
which by operation of EL 8-202, there requires two inspectors who are not of the same political
faith to check each others corruption- isn’t followed.
AD HOC COMMITTEE TO INCORPORATE

THE MUNICIPALITY OF GREATER BROOKLYN
25 Hattie Jones Circle, Brooklyn, New York 11213
September 29, 2005

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT
The Secretary of the State of New York 7005 1820 0007 2656 6597
The New York State Department of State 7005 1820 0007 2656 6610
41 State Street
Albany, NY 12231-0001
Regarding: The New York State Constitution, and
NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5a.
Subject: Application for the Municipality of Greater Brooklyn
EXHIBIT 6 The Secretary of State,
We are the AD HOC Committee to incorporate the Municipality of Greater Brooklyn by

application hereby. We are residents of the existing municipality of the city of New York within
the Borough of Brooklyn that is without Homerule autonomy, and are representative of a class of
PEOPLE (1) denied equal treatment in suffrage and autonomy therein the 18th Senate District
(³SDs³), that violates the 42 USC 1973 Voting Rights Act (³VRA³) with a deminimus variation
exceeding the 10% from the mean number of Eligible Voters active, plus inactive or unregistered
notwithstanding total persons; and further, therein are denied our 14th Amendment right against
speech infringement guaranteed by the State Constitution Article I, II, Article III Section 4 inter
alia by the 1/3 Rule, Article IX fundamental right to have ALL Election Districts (³EDs´) created
per Election Law (³EL´) 4-100, are denied a ³Bi-partisan´ Election Districts (2) and elections per
EL 2-110, 3-300, 3-400, 3-401, EL 6-124, EL 6-140, EL 8-202- infringes the PEOPLE¶s speech
and expectation of effective suffrage. That the People of the adjoining Boroughs of Staten Island,
Queens, Bronx, within the Municipality of the city of New York by its municipal Board of
Elections in Manhattan also suffer unequal protection for suffrage and autonomy injury are
without equal treatment and substantive dues process - are not in conformance with the Law.
Furthermore, the class has been denied equal protection, substantive due process, and speech
infringement by Misters Silver, Bruno and Pataki et.al., since no later than April 2002, use the
Federal 2000 Census enumeration total population ignore Eligible Voters in reapportionment of
municipalities¶ Senate Districts and Assembly Districts (³ADs³), are not coterminous within the
respective SDs also effects Congressional Districts per US Constitution Article 1 Section 2.
1
New York State Constitution Article IX ³Local Government´ definition of the ³PEOPLE´ (d) Whenever
used in this Article the following terms shall mean or include« (3) ³PEOPLE.´ Persons entitled to vote
as provided in section one of Article two of this constitution.
2
Bottom-up versus Top-down suffrage and autonomy in each municipal entity MUST be done first by creating ALL
the EDs under EL 4-100 in every legitimate municipal entity around the State MUST be either 950 active voters
each or if approved by a County Legislature the COUNTY Boards (28 of which are illegal because each does not a
have an Assembly district to oversee within) are allowed to maintain EDs up to 1150 Active voters each not to vary
more than 50 active voters each - systematically missing throughout the state despite requirements of law. The
additional problem of inactive voters and those eligible however not registered have been neglected by Defendants
especially the Governor - under the NVRA and HAVA- don¶t promote suffrage participation and their location.
18
EXHIBIT 7
19
EXHIBIT 8
20
Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3
__________________________________________________ 8. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com By: Joseph L. Forstadt, Ernst R. Rosenberger, Kevin J. Curnin, David Sifre, Mary A. Gorman
Forwarded Message
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:51:47 -0800 (PST) Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
From: "Christopher Strunk" <uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>
Subject: Strunk Motion to intervene in Torres v BOE EDNY 04-cv-1129

Attachments
"bbglensfalls@aol.com" <bbglensfalls@aol.com>, "billgage@hotmail.com" <billgage@hotmail.com>,
"bvdeitz@aol.com" <bvdeitz@aol.com>, "captgabe1@yahoo.com" <captgabe1@yahoo.com>, "Dennis Karius"
<denkarius@gmail.com>, "Scott Harrington" <dualrange@verizon.net>, "frabenda@optonline.net" Files:
<frabenda@optonline.net>, "grodlane@frontiernet.net" <grodlane@frontiernet.net>, "hvanallen@hvc.rr.com"
<hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>, "joseph@patriotsaints.com" <joseph@patriotsaints.com>, Strunk_Motion_to_Intevene_in_Torres_v_NYS_BOE__EDNY_02_cv_1129.pdf (249k)
To: "lynneforjone1835@msn.com" <lynneforjone1835@msn.com>, "Lynne Landes" <lynnlandes@earthlink.net>,
"medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com" <medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com>, "nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com" Strunk_Declaration_in_support_of_motion_to_intervene_in_EDNY_04_cv_1129_Part_1.pdf (2.2MB)
<nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com>, "raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com" <raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com>,
"Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier" <rpdetiegecormier@yahoo.com>, "rsaxpress@aol.com" <rsaxpress@aol.com>,
Strunk_Declaration_in_support_of_motion_to_intervene_in_EDNY_04_cv_1129_Part_2.pdf (3.4MB)
"uncasvotes2@yahoo.com" <uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>, "valortoo" <valortoo@capital.net>, "Wayne Mack"
<waynealanmack@yahoo.com>
Strunk_Declaration_in_support_of_Cross_Motion_for_Venue_Change__NDNY_04_cv_1193.pdf (74k)
HTML Attachment
Servicelist for mail delivery needs a Certificate of service. Send me a copy for accompanying the
original. A copy with original cert is to be sent to the clerk also
1. BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW 161 Avenue of the
Americas, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013
By: Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr. Deborah Goldberg, Jeremy Creelan,

Adam H. Morse
2. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022-4690
By: Kent A. Yalowitz, Anand Agneshwar, S. Jeanine Conley, Angela Givens
3. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 590 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022;
By: Steven M. Pesner, Andrew J. Rossman, James P. Chou, James E. d¶Auguste, Vincenzo A.
DeLeo, Jamison A. Diehl
4. ARTHUR W. GREIG, ESQ. 401 Broadway, Suite 1902 New York, NY 10013
5. ROBERT ALAN MUIR ASSOCIATES LLP 205 Montague Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 By:
Robert Allen Muir Attorneys for New York State Republican Committee
6. SPECIAL COUNSEL TO STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
40 Steuben Street Albany, NY 12223-1650 By: Todd D. Valentine
7. ELIOT SPITZER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 120 Broadway,
24 Floor New York, NY 10271-0332 By: Joel Graber, Clem Colucci
file://C:\DOCUME~1\CHRIST~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\LPATXVMT.htm 2/27/2006 file://C:\DOCUME~1\CHRIST~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\LPATXVMT.htm 2/27/2006

Yahoo! Mail - nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com Page 1 of 2
Print - Close Window
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:25:55 -0800 (PST)
From: "Christopher Earl Strunk" <nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com>
Subject: Electronic Service of Notice of Cross Motion to Change Venue NDNY 04-cv-1193
Mary.pat.fleming@usdoj.gov, "agiardin@law.nyc.gov" <agiardin@law.nyc.gov>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov"

<askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "bbglensfalls@aol.com" <bbglensfalls@aol.com>, "bvdeitz@aol.com"
<bvdeitz@aol.com>, "captgabe1@yahoo.com" <captgabe1@yahoo.com>, "chris.herren@usdoj.gov"
<chris.herren@usdoj.gov>, "clonnen@orleansny.com" <clonnen@orleansny.com>, "coclerk@co.genesee.ny.us"
<coclerk@co.genesee.ny.us>, "dandelplatojr@yahoo.com" <dandelplatojr@yahoo.com>,
"etd@daddandnelson.com" <etd@daddandnelson.com>, "fbalon@websterszanyi.com"
<fbalon@websterszanyi.com>, "frabenda@optonline.net" <frabenda@optonline.net>, "gageserve@hotmail.com"
<gageserve@hotmail.com>, "jeffrey.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us" <jeffrey.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us>,
"jek@konstantylaw.com" <jek@konstantylaw.com>, "jlong001@nycap.rr.com" <jlong001@nycap.rr.com>,
To:
"kahlers@law.nyc.gov" <kahlers@law.nyc.gov>, "kessler@fixspin.com" <kessler@fixspin.com>,
"lynneforjone1835@msn.com" <lynneforjone1835@msn.com>, "medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com"
<medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com>, "nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com" <nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com>,
"peter.sullivan@oag.state.ny.us" <peter.sullivan@oag.state.ny.us>, "raptorprimo2002ad@yahoo.com"
<raptorprimo2002ad@yahoo.com>, "rpdetiegecormier@yahoo.com" <rpdetiegecormier@yahoo.com>,
"rsaxpress@aol.com" <rsaxpress@aol.com>, "Strunk" <uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>,
"tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us" <tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us>, "valortoo@capital.net"
<valortoo@capital.net>, "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>, "waynealanmack@yahoo.com"
<waynealanmack@yahoo.com>
Certification of Electronic Service of

x Pro Se Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue to Jurisdiction of WDNY 06-Cv-00080
Case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. in Response in Opposition to the U.S. DOJ, Mayor Michael Bloomberg
and the city of New York, Defendants¶ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Absent Essential Municipal
Parties
x Van Allen Affidavit In Response and Support of Plaintiffs¶ Notice of Cross Motion for Change of Venue
to Jurisdiction of WDNY 06-Cv-00080 Case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. in Response in Opposition to the
Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice and Defendants Mayor Michael
Bloomberg and the city of New York absent Essential Municipal Parties
x Forjone Declaration in Response and Support of Plaintiffs¶ Notice Of Cross Motion for Change of
Venue to Jurisdiction of WDNY 06-Cv-00080 Case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. In Response in Opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice and Defendants Mayor
Michael Bloomberg and the city of New York absent Essential Municipal Parties
x EXHIBITS A thru O.
for service by email electronic service upon:

WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division JOHN K. TANNER Chief, Voting Section by T. CHRISTIAN
HERREN JR Email; chris.herren@usdoj.gov, ROBERT POPPER Email: robert.popper@usdoj.gov, BARBARA D.
COTTRELL Email: Barbara.Cottrell@usdoj.gov
Anthony Giardina Email: agiardin@law.nyc.gov, Jeffrey M. Dvorin Email: jeffrey.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us, Todd D.

Valentine Email: tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us, James E. Long Email: JLong001@nycap.rr.com , James E. Konstanty
Email: jek@konstantylaw.com ,
Loeber v. Spargo, NDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs: "Burr Deitz (E-mail)" <Bvdeitz@aol.com>, "Christopher Strunk (E-mail)"
<uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>, "Edward M. Persons (E-mail)" <raptorprimo2002ad@yahoo.com>, "Fairlene G. Rabenda
(E-mail)" <frabenda@optonline.net>, "Gabriel Razzano (E-mail)" <captgabe1@yahoo.com>, "H. William Van Allen (E-
mail)" <HVanAllen@hvc.rr.com>, "John-Joseph Forjone (E-mail)" <lynneforjone1835@msn.com>, "Ronald E. Sacoff (E-
mail)" <rsaxpress@aol.com>, "Ronald G. Loeber (E-mail)" <valortoo@capital.net>, "Roy-Pierre Detiege (E-mail)"
<rpdetiegecormier@yahoo.com>, "William A. Gage (E-mail)" <gageserve@hotmail.com>, "William E. Bombard (E-mail)"
<Bbglensfalls@aol.com>
Forjone v. California WDNY 06-cv-0080 Plaintiffs: <nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com>,

"captgabe1@yahoo.com"<captgabe1@yahoo.com>, ³medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com´<medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com>, "raptorpr
<raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com>, "uncasvotes2@yahoo.com" <uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>, "valortoo"
http://us.f376.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=4542_35560016_4464... 2/27/2006
Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara as against the Federal Defendants, States of the
several states as effects the state of New York sub-divisions with bottom-up suffrage
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 04-cv-1193
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x under the False Claims Act, and that Plaintiffs are deserving of further and different relief
(LEK/RFT)
LOEBER et.al.
as the Court deems proper herein including 28 USC 455 recusal in lieu of Venue change.
Plaintiffs}
v.
That the supporting affidavit, declarations and exhibits make several points: (i) that
SPARGO et.al..
NDNY has failed to provide substantive due process, (ii) the municipal entities who are
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
essential parties herein are not joined - despite efforts of Plaintiffs to do so must be heard
PLAINTIFFS¶ The AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
in WDNY, (iii) the 15 year record of this court in Albany, with a short background as
Redistricting LAW MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION
FOR CHANGE OF VENUE TO JURISDICTION OF WDNY 06-CV-00080 CASE
FORJONE et.al. V. CALIFORNIA et.al. in RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE follows:
MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE and DEFENDANTS Background
MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK
ABSENT ESSENTIAL MUNICIPAL PARTIES That upon filing the complaint October 15, 2004 Plaintiffs requested a 28 USC 2284
Pursuant to the foregoing caption title per Local Rule 7.1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), in three Judge panel in the matter of a challenge to the April 22, 2002 statewide redistricting
response in opposition to the Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by the U.S. of State Legislative Districts, which included the impact such has upon both
Department of Justice, and Defendants Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city of New municipalities, and Judicial Districts configured using such municipalities in lawful
York absent essential parties to this case herein, Plaintiffs response is due February 28, provision of Bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy of the People resident within.
2006 and March 21, 2006 and with return date of March 17, 2006 and April 6, 2006 That on October 29, 2004 without affording due process the complaint was wrongfully
respectively and with DOJ reply date March 6th 2006 and NYC reply date March 27, ³dumped´, followed by an extended period at 2nd Circuit only to be remanded back to
2006. Based upon the supporting affidavit of Plaintiff H. William Van Allen, with district mandating due process.
supporting Declaration of John Joseph Forjone with Exhibits A thru O annexed, and the That on November 21, 2005, the amended complaint was filed, incorporating
Declaration of Christopher Earl Strunk with his motion the intervene in Torres et.al. v. injuries sustained by Plaintiffs and those similarly situated subsequent to the November
NYS BOE et.al. EDNY 04-cv-1129 thereto annexed duly served upon parties February 2, 2004 election, with imminent irreparable harm posed by the questionable January 1,
27, 2006, Plaintiffs as of right urge this Court to grant a change of Venue to the Western 2006 HAVA deadline that by Congressional over reaching, an extension of the 1993
District of New York in Case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. 06-cv-00080 before the National Voter Registration Act, that HAVA is done as a questionable mandate without
Plaintiffs¶ Law Memorandum Supporting Venue Change Page 1 Plaintiffs¶ Law Memorandum Supporting Venue Change Page 2
the authority of an amendment to the Federal Constitution that impacts and erodes one person one vote philosophy from Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579
express rights of the People that otherwise Article I Section 4 guarantees to the state (1964)? That according to our reading of both Reynolds and Baker, with
people¶s provision of suffrage in New York. The Congressional over reaching is clarification in Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 89 , (1966), One person one
outrageously injurious upon the people resident in questionably sized municipal vote ONLY applies to those entitled to vote excluding aliens, minors under 18,
subdivisions otherwise legally bound by equity and the state constitution to provide and those declared civilly dead? and
³bottom-up´ suffrage and Homerule autonomy now missing since the use of the 1960 (b) When a portion of a state constitution dealing with redistricting is found to be
Census. That the finding by the U.S. Supreme Court in WMCA v. Lomenzo deemed the unconstitutional, DOES it render the entire constitution to cease to exist as
New York State Constitution Article III to be in violation of the ³one person one vote´ experienced in the aftermath of WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (June
principle similar to the finding in Reynolds v. Sims. That WMCA involves the guarantees 15, 1962), the US Supreme Court deems the New York legislature Art. III
due U.S. Citizens entitled to suffrage both in the provision of reapportionment of state enlargement formula is unconstitutional- remains abandoned to this day has
legislative districts and suffrage; and that state political districting in Baker v. Carr was not been corrected other than to cease use the State Constitution entirely?
held to allow Federal intervention in state districting matters accordingly. With the 1980 Federal Census a redistricting challenge in New Jersey the US
State Political redistricting after Luther v. Borden Supreme Court raised the issue of one person one vote applying to those eligible in the
That based upon the broad overview of the entire court history in the matter of Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) case for New Jersey State Legislative
gerrymandering since it got involved in the political affairs of states starting with Baker v redistricting. Wherein dissenting Justice Harlan raised the historically bad faith efforts of
Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), otherwise not since the Luther v. Borden case of 1846 in the New York to game the equal total numbers jargon that [462 U.S. 725, 776] decade of
matter of a republican form of government guarantee to those people of Rhode Island experience with Kirkpatrick has shown that "the rule of absolute equality is perfectly
previously without equity on plantations without a state constitution, and since the compatible with `gerrymandering' of the worst sort." Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S., at
Federal Courts decided to use the 14th amendment to intervene in state political matters. 551, quote:
However, forty years later there are two substantive questions still remaining to be ³With ever more sophisticated computers, legislators can draw countless plans
for absolute population equality, but each having its own political ramifications.
answered herein: Although neither a rule of absolute equality nor one of substantial equality can alone
prevent deliberate partisan gerrymandering, the former offers legislators a ready
(a) within Article 1 Section 2 use of total population numbers - Whether or not justification for disregarding geographical and political boundaries. I remain convinced
of what I said in dissent in Kirkpatrick and Wells: "[Those] decisions . . . downgrade a
those who are eligible to suffrage are to be afforded equal protection of the restraint on a far greater potential threat to equality of representation, the
gerrymander.´
Because there is only one Equal Protection Clause. Since the Clause does not make some argument to dismiss, DOJ alleges Congress may do pretty much what it wants with broad
groups of citizens more equal than others, see Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 71 (1982) powers, and focuses it argument with questionable use of Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355
(BRENNAN, J., concurring), its protection against vote dilution cannot be confined to (1932) as one of no less than five cases that year dealing with the impact of the seditious
racial groups. As long as it proscribes gerrymandering against such groups, its misbehavior of the Congress. That until 1930 Congress had failed to either increase and
proscription must provide comparable protection for other cognizable groups of voters as or re-allot any house seats since the 1910 census, and with growing outrage having nearly
well. As Brennan had previously written: resulted in an up-rising centered around a threatened challenge by Al Smith of an illegal
"In the line-drawing process, racial, religious, ethnic, and economic gerrymanders are presidential election in 1928. That behind closed doors Senator Vandenberg and others
all species of political gerrymanders.
including NY Rep. LaGuardia, negotiated by joint conference, and then with
"From the standpoint of the groups of voters that are affected by the line-drawing
process, it is also important [462 U.S. 725, 750] to recognize that it is the group's interest parliamentary parlor tricks passed by voice vote the ³capping´ of the House seats to that
in gaining or maintaining political power that is at stake. The mere fact that a number of
citizens share a common ethnic, racial, or religious background does not create the need of 1911 - then 433 until New Mexico and Arizona were added in 1912 for a total of 435
for protection against gerrymandering. It is only when their common interests are strong
enough to be manifested in political action that the need arises. For the political strength under the same 1910 census (435 actually increased automatically to 437 with the
of a group is not a function of its ethnic, racial, or religious composition; rather it is a
function of numbers - specifically the number of persons who will vote in the same way." addition of Alaska and Hawaii but disappeared with the 1960 allotment); and that such
Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 88 (1980) (concurring in judgment).
skull duggery by voice vote only the capping amendment was added to the funding
Extensive deviation from established political boundaries is another possible basis for a
prima facie showing of gerrymandering. The Court wrote in Reynolds v. Sims: appropriation for the 1930 Census. That the sponsors knew that a recorded vote would
"Indiscriminate districting, without any regard for political subdivision or natural or have defeated the capping measure. Nevertheless a constitutional crisis was averted in
historical boundary lines, may be little more than an open invitation to partisan
gerrymandering." 377 U.S., at 578 -579. 21 Subdivision boundaries tend to remain stable 1929 by Senator Vandenberg, who in a national radio address to the people apologized
over time. Residents of political units such as townships, cities, and counties often
develop a community of interest, particularly when the subdivision plays an important for 10 plus years of Congressional misbehavior and treachery. That thereafter Congress
role in the provision of governmental services. In addition, legislative districts that do not
cross subdivision boundaries are administratively convenient and less likely to confuse under the 1930 re-allotment and state reapportionment following the fifteenth decennial
the voters. 22 Although the significance of deviations from subdivision [462 U.S. 725,
759] boundaries will vary with the number of legislative seats and the number, size, and census, as provided by the Act of Congress of June 18, 1929 (c. 28, 22, 46 Stat. 21, 26 (2
shape of the State's subdivisions, the number can be counted 23 and alternative plans can
be compared. U.S.C.A 2a)), left Minnesota entitled to nine Representatives in Congress, being one less
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment matters related to the Voting Rights Act, as than the number previously allotted.
applies to clarify what Congress may do under Article 1 Section 2, Article 1 Section 4 History speaks loudly in the matter of the ³Great Compromise´ that in 1787 was
goes much deeper than the gloss over done by D.O.J. in its motion. At the center of their the DEAL that founded our present union and constitution, and if the founders were to
have told the people of those states who were about to ratify the Constitution in 1787 that We have no other conclusion to draw other than a marauding corporate oligarchy
there was no DEAL then the ratification would have failed. That the DEAL mandates associated with the dark intent of NVRA and HAVA don¶t like the ³Great Compromise´.
that each individual sovereign state of the several states in exchange for loss of some Even hypothetically with the best of intention, in the best of all possible worlds,
express power requires each state: seemingly because the oligarchy think in a liberal fog, that the PEOPLE are somehow
a) shall have at least one member of the US House no matter how small the total treated unequally from state to state, whereby a state with small population with only one
population,
b) shall have two (2) US Senators coterminous within each state entity / person/ House member and two senators have a greater say than a larger state, and as such the
corporation of the several states, and
c) that the ³electors´ being the PEOPLE entitled to suffrage within each state whether oligarchy purchased, paid for and wired the ³NEW DEAL´ Federal Court system to
by bottom-up or top-down basis, shall elect each US House member or members
collectively or by single district left up to the determination of Each sovereign state misuse the 1868 14th amendment to eviscerate Article 1 section 2, Section 4 and the great
and furthermore shall have the elector qualifications based upon the most numerous
branch of the state legislature- i.e. in New York is based upon the Assembly; and compromise has been eviscerated with imposition of (1993) National Voter Registration
furthermore
d) Under Article 1 Section 4 the respective state legislature shall determine the time Act and the fraudulent so-called 2002 Help America to Vote Act to install corporate
place and manner of suffrage, and upon legislative failure to deliver equal time place
and manner, enables the Congress to narrowly guarantee such. dictatorship over the people¶s suffrage and autonomy; and as Stalin once said in one of
In 1789 ³IF´ any founder would have known of the 1917 entanglement in Europe his glib moments to the effect ³sure give the people the vote, but I will do the final
130 years later would lead to as it did the 1929 collapsing world economy and onset of count.´ The corporate intent with HAVA is no different, the devil is in the details, and the
the great depression only to end in further entanglement- wouldn¶t it be unimaginable to arbitrary rush to impose electronic machines by the very same constellation of forcing
change the DEAL without a constitutional amendment? Perhaps but would the alternative running the international gambling industry and especially those involved in global sports
argument be? e.g. the NEW DEAL means that the people actually are going to get less betting certainly don¶t want a paper trail for what they are able to do at a distance in the
representation as the state population increases and make representation decrease, and black box inner workings of computerized vote tallying. Congress may have dodged the
make Congress an autocracy bought and paid for by foreign lobbyists controlling bullets in 1929 however it will not survive the debacle of HAVA and all that portends.
corporate entities! Do you really believe the 1787 ratification would have occurred? Put Without belaboring the point, if HAVA were ³voluntary´ as the DOJ suggests
Smiley v. Holms in the context in which Congress avoided an upheaval, and the results why then did it on January 10, 2006 threaten to levy penalties and take away monies that
such makeshift hoodwink solution were narrowly applied to that mess- certainly does not otherwise should have been forth coming earlier with the mandated cooperation involved
apply to overreaching done first with the NVRA and then HAVA following in lockstep. with the NVRA. NVRA in fact was NOT ³voluntary´ was an entirely questionable
mandate with intent to control the database with all that entails and absolutely goes to
redistricting of every aspect of the ³bi-partisan´ suffrage system that has been missing of New York under the discretion of the Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara for
and for so long now functions by consent not competition. NVRA is the basis by which further adjudication for plain speedy with efficient remedy and for actual justice under
Congress uses HAVA to usurp and overreach without a constitutional amendment as was FRCvP accordingly; that Defendants Motion be deemed pre-mature without the
the focus of the Oregon v Mitchell case in 1970. necessary parties joined, for different and further relief that this court deems necessary
CONCLUSION IN SUPPORT OF CHANGE OF VENUE IN OPPOSITION TO ANY including but not limited to severance of necessary parties and or issues to WDNY and or
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AS PRE-MATURE WITHOUT ESSENTIAL PARTIES EDNY, and minimally Your Honor¶s recusal per 28 USC 455.
The People are entitled to vote, not the state, not any municipality, the Constitution says
We the People not we the state or we the autocratic government, our NYS legislature is a
nullity, DOJ a rubber stamp, and the city of New York tentacles grab north and west two
hundred miles with jurisdiction over water power and cheap labor effecting everyone¶s
The AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting
351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443 and c/o EMAIL: nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com
lives , so lets get beyond the niceties to the rub of this matter which is properly summed
Copy: Clerk of the Court of the NDNY and WDNY
up by the collected report of the New York State Commission on Government Integrity, it
for service by email electronic service upon:
held in ³Becoming a Judge´ on page 293 quote:
WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division JOHN K. TANNER Chief, Voting Section by T.
CHRISTIAN HERREN JR Email; chris.herren@usdoj.gov, ROBERT POPPER Email:
".political parties are geared to reward loyalty, not merit: to robert.popper@usdoj.gov, BARBARA D. COTTRELL Email: Barbara.Cottrell@usdoj.gov
discourage, not encourage, independence and diversity; and to
Anthony Giardina Email: agiardin@law.nyc.gov, Jeffrey M. Dvorin Email: jeffrey.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us,
obtain power rather than promote justice. Such - goals, however Todd D. Valentine Email: tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us, James E. Long Email:
valuable to the operation of the party system in general, have no JLong001@nycap.rr.com , James E. Konstanty Email: jek@konstantylaw.com ,
place in the election of our judges.´
Loeber v. Spargo, NDNY 04-cv-1193 Plaintiffs: "Burr Deitz (E-mail)" <Bvdeitz@aol.com>, "Christopher
Strunk (E-mail)" <uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>, "Edward M. Persons (E-mail)"
It is amply clear to Plaintiffs that then Justice Kahn was the subject of such <raptorprimo2002ad@yahoo.com>, "Fairlene G. Rabenda (E-mail)" <frabenda@optonline.net>, "Gabriel
Razzano (E-mail)" <captgabe1@yahoo.com>, "H. William Van Allen (E-mail)" <HVanAllen@hvc.rr.com>,
finding along with the appellate Justices associated with hearing the case Castracan v "John-Joseph Forjone (E-mail)" <lynneforjone1835@msn.com>, "Ronald E. Sacoff (E-mail)"
<rsaxpress@aol.com>, "Ronald G. Loeber (E-mail)" <valortoo@capital.net>, "Roy-Pierre Detiege (E-
mail)" <rpdetiegecormier@yahoo.com>, "William A. Gage (E-mail)" <gageserve@hotmail.com>, "William E.
Colavita and must now step aside as a Federal Judge in light of the January 27, 2006 Bombard (E-mail)" <Bbglensfalls@aol.com>
Federal Court Decision by the Honorable John Gleeson in Torres v NYS BOE EDNY 04- Forjone v. California WDNY 06-cv-0080 Plaintiffs: <nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com>,
"captgabe1@yahoo.com"<captgabe1@yahoo.com>, ³medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com´<medicaidtaxlevy@yah
oo.com>, "raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com" <raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com>,
cv-1129. Plaintiffs urge the Court for equity relief herein per FRCvP Rule 19(a); we "uncasvotes2@yahoo.com" <uncasvotes2@yahoo.com>, "valortoo" <valortoo@capital.net>,
<dandelplatojr@yahoo.com>, "Wayne Mack"waynealanmack@yahoo.com
request as of right that the entire jus tertii class of The AD HOC New York State Citizens Forjone v. Leavitt WDNY 05-cv-395: PETER B. SULLIVAN peter.sullivan@oag.state.ny.us, Frank V.
Balon Email: fbalon@websterszanyi.com, Karl S. Essler Email: kessler@fixspin.com, Alberto Gonzalez
for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting statewide redistricting case Loeber et.al. v. U.S. Attorney General E-MAIL: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov, DAVID C. SCHUBEL, E-Mail:
clonnen@orleansny.com, County Attorney for the County of Genesee, Email:
coclerk@co.genesee.ny.us, ERIC T. DADD email: etd@daddandnelson.com, MICHAEL A. CARDOZO,
Spargo et.al. NDNY 04-cv-1193, be granted a change of Venue to the Western District email: kahlers@law.nyc.gov , Mary.pat.fleming@usdoj.gov
04 Civ. 1193 (LEK)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Page
In the 42 USC 1983 suffrage and autonomy discrimination Table Of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... ii
Bombard, William A. Gage, John Joseph Forjone, H. William Preliminary Statement..................................................................................................................... 1
Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda, Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier,
Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr., Statement Of Facts.......................................................................................................................... 1
Christopher Earl Strunk and The AD HOC New York State
Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Plaintiffs Remain Unable To Articulate Any Facts
-against- Supporting A Claim Of Unconstitutional Conduct
THOMAS J. SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS By The City Of New York Or Its Mayor;
Supreme Court and all Justices of the State Supreme Court, et Consequently, The Complaint Must Be Dismissed
al. For Failure To State A Cause Of Action. ................................................... 2
The Motion To Transfer Can Not Forestall Dismissal ................................................................... 3
CITY DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF Plaintiff’s Allegations About The Integrity Of This
LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO Court Are Not Properly Posed In The Context Of
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND IN OPPOSITION The Motion To Dismiss Or The Motion To Change
TO PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS MOTION TO CHANGE Venue, And, In Any Event, Are Ridiculous. .............................................. 5
VENUE
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 6
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Attorney for Defendants

Box 1277
918 Ulster Avenue
Of Counsel: Anthony Giardina

Tel: (845) 340-7559
NYCLIS No. 05GL000260
-i-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------x
Colon v. Coughlin, In the 42 USC 1983 suffrage and autonomy discrimination CITY DEFENDANTS’
58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) ......................................................................................................2 Matter of: Ronald G. Loeber, Burr V. Deitz, William E. REPLY MEMORANDUM
Bombard, William A. Gage, John Joseph Forjone, H. OF LAW IN FURTHER
Gomez v. Toledo, William Van Allen, Fairlene G. Rabenda, Roy-Pierre SUPPORT OF MOTION
446 U.S. 635, 100 S.Ct. 1920 (1980)........................................................................................2 Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E. Sacoff, Gabriel Razzano, TO DISMISS THE
Edward M. Person, Jr., Christopher Earl Strunk and The AD COMPLAINT AND IN
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Frasch, HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative OPPOSITION TO
751 F. Supp. 1075 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ........................................................................................4 Redistricting
PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS
Petitioners / Plaintiffs, MOTION TO CHANGE
-against- VENUE
Treatise THOMAS J. SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the 04 Civ. 1193 (LEK)
17 Moore’s Federal Practice, (Matthew Bender 3d Ed.) ...........................................................3, 4, Court, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------------x
Preliminary Statement
In their opposition to the City defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim against the City or its mayor, the plaintiffs again fall back on broad and
conclusory political statements. In addition, they have filed a cross-motion to change venue,
even though this case is currently properly venued, and none of the underlying venue
considerations support such a change. Therefore, because the amended complaint remains bereft
of any semblance of a coherent cause of action against the City defendants, the amended
complaint should be dismissed, and the cross motion to change venue denied.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For a statement of facts, the Court is respectfully referred to the City defendants’
main memorandum of law in support of this motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
- ii -
ARGUMENT The Motion To Transfer Can Not Forestall Dismissal
PLAINTIFFS REMAIN UNABLE TO Following the filing of Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss by the City and federal
ARTICULATE ANY FACTS SUPPORTING A
CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL defendants, the plaintiffs have filed a motion asking this Court to transfer this case to the
CONDUCT BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK
OR ITS MAYOR; CONSEQUENTLY, THE Western District of New York, where plaintiffs have recently filed a somewhat similar action,
COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. Forjone v. California, 06 Civ. 0080 (RJA). However, as set forth below, there is no legal basis to
It is well established that to prevail on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish transfer this action, and indeed, by bringing this transfer motion, plaintiffs are simply engaging
that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a federal right. See 42 U.S. in a rather transparent exercise in judge-shopping.
§ 1983; Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920 (1980). “[P]ersonal involvement Venue is defined as the proper district court in which to file an action. See 17
of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages Moore’s Federal Practice, § 110.01 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) “A primary purpose of venue
under § 1983.” Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). requirements is to protect the defendant against the risk that a plaintiff will select an unfair or
In this case, plaintiffs still have not articulated a coherent cause of action inconvenient place of trial.” Id. at § 110.01(4)(a), citing, Leroy v. Great Western United Corp.,
describing any purported illegal or unconstitutional conduct of the City of New York or its 443 U.S. 173, 183-184, 99 S.Ct. 2710 (1979).
mayor. In their reply memorandum of law—which is essentially a rambling political The federal venue provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), provides as follows:
manifesto—the plaintiffs rail against “Congressional over reaching” (Pl. Mem. at p. 3), criticize (b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not
founded solely on diversity of citizenship may,
the federal defendants’ motion papers (Id. at pp. 5-6), discuss at length the Great Compromise of except as otherwise provided by law, be brought
only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant
1787 (Id. at p. 6), and assert that ‘the people’ are purportedly being victimized by “a marauding resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of
corporate oligarchy” (Id. at p. 8). the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the
The only mention of the City of New York is that it purportedly has “tentacles subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial
district in which any defendant may be found, if
[that] grab north and west two hundred miles with jurisdiction over water power and cheap labor there is no district in which the action may
otherwise be brought.
effecting everyone’s lives….” Id. at p. 9. In light of this sole, nonsensical assertion, it is
This case primarily challenges the manner in which HAVA funds are distributed
apparent that the City defendants are entitled to dismissal of this case, as set forth in their main
to the State and are expended within the State. In addition, plaintiffs challenge the manner in
memorandum of law.
which the State has been divided into election districts. See generally, Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, the Northern District, located in Albany—the seat of State government where these
-2- -3-
core determinations are made, and where the Legislature and State Board of Elections are Plaintiff’s Allegations About The Integrity Of This
Court Are Not Properly Posed In The Context Of The
located—is an appropriate and convenient venue. Moreover, with the exception of the City and Motion To Dismiss Or The Motion To Change Venue,
And, In Any Event, Are Ridiculous.
federal defendants, the majority of the State of New York defendants appear to reside or work in
Plaintiffs’ final assertion is that this Court must transfer the case as a de facto
Albany. Therefore, venue is appropriate in the Northern District.
recusal—based on the theory that any current or former state court judge is now somehow
Under these circumstances—in which the case is correctly venued in the first
tainted, in light of an Eastern District decision that recently found the state’s judicial nominating
instance—plaintiffs’ transfer motion implicates 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See 17 Moore’s Federal
conventions to be unconstitutional. See Pl. Mem. at p. 9, citing Torres v. New York State Board
Practice, § 111.02(1)(a) (Matthew Bender 3d Ed.). See also National Union Fire Ins. Co. of
of Elections, 04 Civ. 1129 (E D.N.Y. 2006) (Gleeson, J.)
Pittsburgh v. Frasch, 751 F. Supp. 1075, 1078 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Section 1404(a) provides as
However, if the plaintiffs believe that this Court is obligated to recuse itself, their
follows:
recourse is to file a proper motion for recusal, setting forth a judicially cognizable ground for
§ 1404. Change of Venue
(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in such relief. By its plain terms, the venue statute does not include a consideration of an individual
the interest of justice, a district court may transfer
any civil action to any other district or division judge’s capacity to preside over a particular case. Rather, it is premised on considerations of
where it might have been brought.
proper jurisdiction, the relationship of the district to the underlying facts of the case, and
As stated above, the core decisions being challenged would have been made in
convenience to the parties and witnesses.
Albany, where most of the state defendants reside and/or work. In addition, counsel for all
Moreover, the assertion that this Court’s background as a state court judge
defendants, except the City defendants, have Albany offices. By contrast, the Western District is
somehow disqualifies the Court from presiding over a federal case is patently absurd. Nothing in
geographically distant and lacks any nexus to the core issues of the action. A transfer would
the Torres decision suggests any grounds for recusal of a federal judge who, by fortuity,
only inconvenience the parties and witnesses, and therefore the motion should be denied. 1
happened to sit on the state bench in the past. It is also readily apparent that the plaintiffs are
simply judge-shopping. In the hundreds of pages of papers filed by plaintiffs in the context of
the Second Circuit mandamus proceeding—filed well before the Torres decision—they have
repeatedly questioned the seriousness and impartiality of this Court, and have asserted that this
case should be reassigned to a different judge. See e.g. Decl. of Christopher Earl Strunk, dated
1
In any event, as noted by the federal defendants, a ‘first filed’ principle would prevent transfer to the January 19, 2006 pp. 6, 11 (copy of pertinent pages annexed as App. “A”).
Western District, as that case was filed after Loeber.
-4- -5-
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the City defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 04-cv-1193
_____________________________________________________x (LEK / RFT)
complaint should be granted, and the cross-motion to transfer venue should be denied.
LOEBER et.al. and the AD HOC New York State Citizens for
Dated: New York, New York Constitutional Legislative Redistricting
March 9, 2006 Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO SPARGO et.al.
Corporation Counsel of the Defendants,
City of New York _____________________________________________________x
Attorney for City Defendants (City of New York
and Michael Bloomberg)
STRUNK¶S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY DEFENDANTS¶¶
/s MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
By: _______________________________
ANTHONY GIARDINA (Bar Number 513630) Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:
P.O. Box 1277 1. Am pro se without being an attorney, with my place for service at 593
918 Ulster Avenue
Kingston, N.Y. 12402 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238, in the Borough of Brooklyn within
Tel: (845) 340-7559
Fax: (845) 340-7564 the city of New York, with Phone 845-389-0774, and
E-mail: agiardin@law.nyc.gov
2. Am a member of the AD HOC New York State Citizens for
CHLARENS ORSLAND Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, resident in the city of New York registered to
Of Counsel,
vote in the 57th AD and 18th Senate District as is Plaintiff Roy-Pierre Detiege Cormier,
however in the 56th AD.
3. This is my personal response in opposition to the city of New York and
Mayor (³the City´) Defendants¶ counsel¶s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
(³MTD´) belatedly filed by the Assistant Corporation Counsel Anthony Giardina with
this response due March 21, 2006.
4. That as a member of the jus tertii class of plaintiffs / whistleblowers
³relators´ under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 in the matter of
Strunk Response to the City MTD Page 1

-6-
malicious intentional false billing of HAVA funds by the State and New York State City questionably includes the legislature¶s creation of the twelfth Judicial District
Board of Elections and the City, I support the motion for a change of venue and 28 USC without a Homerule municipal border.
2284 three judge panel since October 25, 2004 and now before Judge Lawrence E. Kahn 8. Voting per se has been rendered utterly meaningless in the city of New
in NDNY Loeber et.al. v. Spargo et.al. as a challenge to the April 22, 2002 statewide York with 66 Assembly, 51 City Council members coterminous within 26 questionable
redistricting that is without proper municipal parties that must be heard separate and apart senate districts and U.S. House Districts in a municipality with no other form of elected
in the WDNY 06-cv-0080, and hereby preserve my future rights to be heard accordingly. Homerule representation except for borough district attorney
5. That plaintiffs¶ Order to Show Cause so ordered November 29, 2005 9. Suffrage is rendered meaningless by gerrymandering with use of the Prime
remains unheard, and now more than 90 days later except for shenanigans to kill time active Voter list created under the auspice of the 1993 NVRA with enticement of HAVA
Defendant Mayor and city of New York, without so much as a word of answer join the Federal funds, and by the malicious mis application and administration of the state
court to outrageously cause further equity injury to plaintiffs, who under protest have constitution and laws, in which City defendants participated for partisan gain by consent
filed the Motion for a Change of Venue to the case Forjone et.al. v. California et.al. not competition had until March 1, 2006 to remedy, arrogantly reject by this MTD.
WDNY 06-cv-0080 as well as for recusal of this court and entire Northern District, 10. I was born in Manhattan, have been on balance a life long resident of New
shuffled out to Buffalo in the matter of the AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage York and in the city since 1974 after returning from military service experienced the
and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity; and implementation of Mayor Lindsey¶s ³Master Plan´ characterized by a dissenting
6. Notwithstanding anything that this court does to impose top-down commissioner therein as ³the book of the dead´ that followed after the county
suffrage in the state, would be a continuation of Congressional overreaching misbehavior municipalities loss of Homerule during the Wagner Administration city charter change,
that started November 29, 1990, despite HAVA remains beyond its authority without a that seized control over the budget and taxation, imposition of questionable corrupt union
constitutional amendment, and as such Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as of agreements that rang the final death knell of the last vestige of Borough president powers
right preserve all rights and opportunities to respond in WDNY 06-cv-0080, as well as at the Board of Standards and Appeals.
US Citizen relators in the case the United State of America v. New York State et.al. Case 11. Other than the sinecure imperia of 51 council members there is no
06-cv-263 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe with a hearing scheduled for March 23, 2006. Homerule municipal local government in any borough with control over taxation and
7. Plaintiffs challenge the April 22, 2002 state and federal reapportionment suffrage within the city of New York; and as such because there is only one government
of legislative districts in which the City had until March 1, 2006 to correct, and that in the in the City, after the southern Dixi-crat Johnson created the 1965 so-called ³great
Strunk Response to the City MTD Page 2 Strunk Response to the City MTD Page 3
society´ program the state legislature correctly created a single ³Social Service´ district 14. The mandate of the NVRA in 1993 questionably forced the creation of a
that in 1969 was complained of first by Mayor Lindsey and then by Mayor Beame in central database available on a two year cycle at Federal Elections, breeching municipal
Federal District in Lindsay v. Wyman, SDNY 71 cv 802, 372 F.Supp. 1360 that went on control of bottom up suffrage already existent in ill-formed municipalities outside of the
appeal review at Second Circuit- after the 1972 reapportionment and the 1974 seizure of city of New York whose illegal control over the state legislature
the statehouse by Hugh Carrey the single district became five. 15. The City exceeds a legal municipal size without any Homerule boroughs
12. The matter of how the City maliciously games Federal billing of Medicaid within thereby facilitates control over one third and more of all state senators and when
with the questionable use of five illegal social service districts instead of one, goes to the the April 22, 2002 fails to nest assembly districts coterminous within each senate district
way suffrage is outrageously disrupted now with use of both NVRA and HAVA that also effects regional control over the assembly majority when the City is combined with
similarly effects equal protection and treatment differently from municipality to the bordering Westchester and Nassau Homerule municipalities in fact controls more
municipality without substantive due process from one borough to the next, and that goes than half of the senate majority ± illegally ± done by mis application and administration
to the WDNY case 05-cv-395 Forjone v Leavitt filed April 22, 2005 complaining of both of the state constitution.
judicial and legislative districts impact upon unfunded mandates taking real property 16. How many times need one say these facts which control the entire
differently from ill formed municipality to ill-formed municipality. statewide districting under challenge herein? At this point after March 1, 2006 the City is
13. That Plaintiffs in the reply papers for the Order to Show Cause filed a passenger to Federal District venue requiring a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel for
December 14, 2005 provided exhibits in the matter of the challenged April 22, 2002 statewide redistricting outside the corruption of Northern, Southern and Eastern District.
reapportionment use of Prime ACTIVE Voters rolls per EL §5-213 in illegally formed 17. The City defendants game Federal billing for both Medicaid, and since
³partisan´ rather than ³bi-partisan´ Election Districts as outrageously ignored as in the NVRA entirely arbitrary use of Election Law without State Board of Elections oversight
case Molinari v Powers in (2000). That Election Districts of 950 Active Voters each shall in preparation, for federal HAVA cash flow by willful violation of the state constitution
be the fundamental building block for legal suffrage statewide required per EL §4-100 and related laws
now missing intentionally without EL §3-100 oversight in order to intentionally pack 18. That the City acts as a leviathan meddling in other municipality
sufficient active voter numbers within assembly, senate and congressional, as well as city jurisdiction both north and west of the city using the Federal Chesapeake, Delaware,
council manic districts rendering meaningless any expectation of an effective vote and or Catskill Croton Watershed agreements effecting no less than five adjoining states,
challenge to incumbency by gerrymandering, squander 20% of water given it, and exploit illegal alien cheap labor in violation of INA.
Strunk Response to the City MTD Page 4 Strunk Response to the City MTD Page 5
19. The people resident within the illegally oversized City are without
autonomy in rotten boroughs that are used as plantations for the purposes of racketeering
the federal treasury, and the state of the peoples liberty is compared with that existing in
the Rhode Island plantations before the republican revolution uprising adopted a
constitution in the early 19th century ± resulting in the Luther v Borden challenge before
the Taney U.S. Supreme Court, and
20. Likewise the condition of the people resident on borough plantations in
the city of New York are without a Republican form of government without use of the
state constitution that was abandoned in the 1964 WMCA v. Lomenzo case, that went to
the US Supreme Court rendering U.S. Citizens here in New York and especially the City
without guarantee of statewide equal treatment in provision of bottom-up suffrage and
liberty associated with use of property, goes to outrageous infringement of speech and
association- like the Rhode Island plantations New York tyranny only knows the bayonet.
21. Beyond the fact that the City is too large for its senatorial britches as a
state constitutional issue that effects statewide legislative districting, more important
herein is the absolute failure to provide for plain speedy and efficient remedy judicial due
process that ever since the 19th century ever enlargement in the number of state Judicial
Districts depends entirely upon equitable creation of Homerule municipalities, and since
1964 with the decline of Homerule municipalities is now missing Judicial constitutional
formation as effects Federal Judicial Districts as well - ALL MUST be bounded by legal
Homerule municipalities aren¶t.
22. The City must ONLY have one State Judicial District per se and ONLY
one Federal District within; however doesn¶t, and as such I am an Intervenor with a April
Strunk Response to the City MTD Page 6
Case 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Document 93 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 1 of 10 Case 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Document 93 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 2 of 10
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK counsel needs explanation and is notwithstanding the NYS Board of Elections, its
593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281 agents and or other state subdivision(s);
Brooklyn, New York 11238 d. my confusion here is were State Defendants’ answer at Docket No. 56 assumed
(631) 745-6402 / Email - uncasvotes2@yahoo.com after the January 8, 2008 Order not to include Misers Silver and Bruno in that
answer then what?
e. I misunderstand the expansion of Legislature defendants beyond Misers Silver and
March 24, 2008 Bruno representative of John and Jane Doe members that by majority voted support
for the present challenged law, and that my statement as to the lack of answer was
BY MAIL in that regard,
The Honorable Lawrence E. Kahn f. Any John/Jane Doe legislator may affect a new district as before, but only by this
United States District Judge of the action.
U.S. District Court Northern District of New York
James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse 2. In the next to last paragraph Mr. Baldwin’s prayer of the Court is to uphold any
445 Broadway, Room 424 magistrate’s time extension for all legislative defendants to answer again, I contend
Albany, NY 12207 that:
a. Because the False Claim Matter is dismissed along with any conspiracy including
Re: Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. NDNY 04-cv-1193 Federal parties (whether in part severed on appeal or not) statewide redistricting is
Subject: Reply to the NYS AAG response at Docket item 94, and request prominent, and
to hear related Forjone et al. v California et al EDNY 06-cv-1002 b. if the leaders Misers Silver and Bruno December 29, 2005 combined answer stands
for severance of state sub-division home-rule matters as filed by Mr. Dvorin, then any new answer would beg the prima fascie evidence
of all existing statewide political districts that goes to the merits of this case would
offer defendants a second bite of the apple (e.g. why didn’t Misters Silver and
The Honorable District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, Bruno make an alternative motion on December 29, 2005- because the matter
stands ready for discovery subject to the January 8, 2008 Order).
I am Christopher Earl Strunk pro se without being an attorney, and hereby reply to c. the prayer, notwithstanding the special master jurisdiction matter is rendered moot,
the March 10, 2008 response letter shown at Docket No. 94 by Mr. Aaron M. Baldwin. It d. for if any separate new answer were made, because there can’t be a separate
is my understanding that the NYS Assistant Attorney General represents members of the reapportionment vote, any new answer must be denied since legislative defendants
Assembly and Senate in anticipation of the hearing before the Court April 4, 2008 in the all have answered already in 2005, and
matter of determining jurisdiction of a special master and expansion of the time for all the e. because the April 2002 reapportionment law was enacted by a majority vote
Legislative members to answer individually pending settlement of the preliminary question renders the present political boundaries as prima fascie evidence, were Misers
under 28 U.S.C. 2284. I reply in reverse order to the matters presented in Mr. Baldwin’s Silver and Bruno’s answer different than for the rest of the legislators individually
Response Letter: with different answers would re-impose the portions of the complaint that have
been dismissed instead of what goes to the merits of Plaintiffs contention under the
1. In the “closing” paragraph, Mr. Baldwin alleges to the Court as if there were a pre- express State Constitution, leaving only the preliminary question of the Three
condition for a motion of “frivolous conduct at this juncture” existed under Federal Judge panel matter now before this court.
Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCvP) Rule 11, and as such I move to strike his statement
and assert that: 3. In the next set of paragraphs, notwithstanding the alleged “bulk” service allegation
a. there was no discrete notice to me as required under FRCvP Rule 11(c) and Rule 5 which Mr. Baldwin could have clarified himself with a phone call to the Clerk of the
by Mr. Baldwin who threatens proceedings against me in open court without Court didn’t call, according to the actual record not reflected on the docket shows
notice; service does meet Federal rules, wasn’t checked by the court before the exparte order
b. even when I requested that Mr. Baldwin’s notice be directed to my address it was expands time to answer two months, should have been.
not, he denied me an opportunity to amend my statements to the court with
clarification; 4. As such my above statements concerning surprise and lack of notice should help
c. The Office of Attorney General imposed a needless surprise without notice in the explain why my words “deceptive” and “stonewall” were used along with why I
appearance of Mr. Baldwin beyond that of Mr. Jeffrey Dvorin for State Defendants: expressed concern for what I believe is needless delay in what would have been
the State Executive, Controller, Legislature and Attorney General, that new clarified with proper due notice from Mr. Baldwin, I hope is understandable hereby.
1 2
In addition to the above, I urge that the related case Forjone et al. v California NDNY
06-cv-1002 applies herein with matters to be discussed at the April 4, 2008 hearing. That
matters concern the effects of the January 8, 2008 Order upon that case that requires
streamlining it with the Court calendar; as both cases involve statewide political and
legislative districting, and that a portion of the Forjone Case involves a preliminary
question for state home-rule sub-divisions with a request for a three judge panel for
statewide redistricting of subdivisions.
That the Forjone Case preliminary question involves the disposition of statewide
districting for all the existing state subdivisions with express use of the State Constitution
and whose residents have entitlement to a home-rule board of elections within; and thereby
proper application of law are used for the subdivision boundaries of State Judicial Districts
under NYS Constitution Article 6 and Federal Judicial Districts under 28 USC 112.
Mr. John Joseph Forjone among others had submitted a state subdivision redistricting
plan for Orleans and Genesee Counties that would entitle the resulting new state-
subdivision to one assembly district wholly within based upon total persons resident until
the next census and reapportionment; and that then based upon a new census total numbers
would require at least two assembly representatives wholly within or that it be consolidated
with an adjoining home-rule state subdivision or town(s) to increase the total residents
within entitling it to two representatives and thereby a home rule board of elections within.
(See letter herein). Similarly I requested compliance for Brooklyn as a home rule state-
subdivision (See my letter herein), and in turn it is my understanding other plaintiffs in
both related cases would also accordingly as applies to each sub-division of residence to
have a home-rule board of elections within by proper application and administration of the
express State Constitution as well as for statewide legislative and judicial redistricting.
Because of the complex nature of the Forjone Case, I request that the state subdivision
and home-rule board of elections issues be severed from the Forjone Case for disposition
herein, and that the remaining racketeering interstate diversity matter be transferred to
Eastern District of New York as matters related to my complaint received there on March
20, 2008 by petition now before the Honorable District Judge Nina Gershon (See the
Complaint herein).
Respectfully yours, /s/
___________________________
Attachments
cc: The Honorable District Judge Nina Gershon – re: petition in Strunk v. CIA et al.
Aaron M. Baldwin, NYS Assistant Attorney General
Plaintiffs in cases NDNY 04-cv-1193 and 06-cv-1002
Defendants Counsels in cases NDNY 04-cv-1193 and 06-cv-1002
Parties in Interest
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT respond, judgment on the pleadings, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If judgment is
granted against you, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.
RONALD G. LOEBER, et al., PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of
Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF MOTION Practice of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, any papers to be
-against- 04-CV-1193 submitted in opposition to the within motion must be filed with the Clerk and served upon counsel
THOMAS J. SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS LEK/RFT for the defendants no later than seventeen (17) days before the return date of the motion, exclusive
Supreme Court, et al.,
Defendants. of that day.
Dated: Albany, New York

April 9, 2008
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the Amended Complaint of the plaintiffs, the
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Memorandum of Law accompanying this motion, and upon all prior proceedings, defendants Thomas Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorney for Defendants, Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph
J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, the State Senate, Sheldon Silver, the State Assembly, George E. Pataki, L. Bruno, NYS Senate, Sheldon Silver, NYS
Assembly, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels
Randy A. Daniels, Eliot Spitzer and all members of the NYS Senate and Assembly previously named and Eliot Spitzer, et al.
The Capitol
herein as John and/or Jane Doe’s (hereinafter and collectively referred to in this motion as the “State Albany, New York 12224-0341
Defendants”), on May 16, 2008 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard before By: s/ Aaron M . Baldwin
Aaron M. Baldwin
assigned District Court Judge Lawrence E. Kahn (ON SUBMIT and without oral argument), will Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel
Bar Roll No. 510175
make a motion at the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, Albany, New Telephone: (518) 474-2913
Fax:: (518) 473-1572 (Not for service of papers)
York, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order Email: Aaron.Baldwin@oag.state.ny.us
dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety and denying the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge To: (see attached Declaration of Service)
panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284, together with such other or further relief as may be just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that when a motion for dismissal is made and properly
supported, you may not simply rely upon your Complaint, but you must respond by citing specific
legal authority or as otherwise provided in that rule, demonstrating to the Court why it should not
dismiss your Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If you do not so
Case 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Document 98-2 Filed 04/09/2008 Page 1 of 27 Case 1:04-cv-01193-LEK-RFT Document 98-2 Filed 04/09/2008 Page 2 of 27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Table of Contents

Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
RONALD G. LOEBER, et al., STATEMENT OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Plaintiffs, POINT I - THE DISTRICT COURT MAY DISPOSE OF THE CASE WITHOUT
CONVENING A THREE-JUDGE PANEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
-against- 04-CV-1193
POINT II - SINCE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT RAISED A SUBSTANTIAL
THOMAS J. SPARGO, et al., LEK/RFT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AND PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING, THE CASE
SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITHOUT CONVENING A THREE-JUDGE PANEL
Defendants. .............................................................4
A. The plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to present a significant constitutional

issue.........................................................................................................................4
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS B. The plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any alleged constitutional claim...............8
POINT III - THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED AS AGAINST ALL

LEGISLATORS WHO ARE SHIELDED FROM SUIT BY ABSOLUTE
LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY AND THE SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSES OF
THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
POINT IV - JUST AS THE INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS ARE ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE

IMMUNITY, SO TOO ARE THE GOVERNOR, THE STATE SENATE AND THE
STATE ASSEMBLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New York POINT V - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE STATE
Attorney for Defendants Thomas J. Spargo, JUDICIARY ARE ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
Joseph L. Bruno, NYS Senate, Sheldon INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Silver, NYS Assembly, George E. Pataki,
Randy A. Daniels and Eliot Spitzer, et al. POINT VI - EVEN IF THE COURT DOES NOT DISMISS THE ACTION UNDER RULE 12,
The Capitol THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL
Albany, New York 12224-0341 UNDER FRCP 8(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Aaron M. Baldwin CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel
Bar Roll No. 510175
Telephone: (518) 474-2913
Fax: (518) 473-1572 (Not for service of papers) Date: April 9, 2008
Preliminary Statement and dismissed the apportionment claims as against the City of New York and Federal defendants, as
This Memorandum of Law is respectfully submitted in support of the State Defendants’ well as the National Association of Secretaries of State. This Court noted that the constitutionality
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), F.R.C.P. of the redistricting plan was not yet before the Court and deferred decision on whether the
12(c) and F.R.C.P. 8(a). The State Defendants also hereby oppose the three-judge panel request of redistricting claim requires a three-judge court. Id. The Court further directed that the plaintiffs
the plaintiffs as convening such a panel is not warranted under the facts of this case. should name and properly serve the John and Jane Doe defendants or the action would be dismissed
against them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs attempted to serve all members of the State Assembly and
STATEMENT OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY State Senate.
On October 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Complaint asserting, among other things, various All of the State of New York defendants, including those newly added legislators previously
constitutional violations arising out of the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”) ( Pub. L. No. 107-252, named as John and/or Jane Doe’s, along with defendants Bruno, Pataki, Daniels, and Spitzer who
116 Stat. 1666, 42 U.S.C. §15301-15545 (2002)). Docket (“Dkt.”) # 1. On October 29, 2004, this previously answered the Amended Complaint, now move for dismissal pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)
Court Dismissed the Complaint. Dkt. #5. and 12(c), as well as F.R.C.P. 8(a).
On appeal, the Second Circuit, inter alia, dismissed all claims pertaining to the November The majority of the State Defendants are entitled to dismissal under principles of absolute
2004 elections. Dkt. #19. The Second Circuit, however, remanded “the redistricting claims” legislative immunity, as derived from the State and Federal Speech and Debate Clauses, which bar
including the issue of whether the case should be referred to a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 this action. Defendants Secretary of State and Attorney General are entitled to dismissal on grounds
U.S.C. §2284. Id. of lack of personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations.
The plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt #25. In the Amended Complaint, Finally, as is addressed in POINT I immediately below, the convening of a three-judge panel
plaintiffs advance fourteen (14) purported causes of action under HAVA and various other statutes is not needed for this Court to resolve the issues raised by the instant motion and dismiss the
including 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985. In addition to HAVA claims, the plaintiffs appear to challenge Amended Complaint.
the reapportionment of the State of New York’s current legislative, judicial and congressional
districts (Amended Complaint at ¶29). The current redistricting plan was adopted by the New York
State Legislature and signed into law by former Governor Pataki on or about April 22, 2002.
By Decision and Order dated January 8, 2008 (Dkt. #81), this Court dismissed all claims
brought under HAVA and the False Claims Act, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction,
2
POINT I substantial constitutional question and the issues raised are inescapably frivolous - leaving no room
THE DISTRICT COURT MAY DISPOSE OF THE CASE WITHOUT CONVENING A for the inference of a controversy. Further, this matter is otherwise not justiciable in district court
THREE-JUDGE PANEL
in light of the defenses of absolute legislative immunity and lack of personal involvement in the
Upon remand, the Second Circuit instructed this Court to: alleged constitutional violations.
...be mindful of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §2284, and that its inquiry regarding
whether to refer the matter to a three-judge panel is limited to 1) “whether the
constitutional question raised is substantial”; 2) “whether the complaint at least POINT II
formally alleges a basis for equitable relief”; and 3) “whether the case presented
otherwise comes within the requirements of the three-judge statute.” Idlewild Bon SINCE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT RAISED A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL
Voyage Liquor Corp. V. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715 (1962). A constitutional ISSUE AND PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING, THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED
question is insubstantial only if prior decisions render the issues inescapably frivolous WITHOUT CONVENING A THREE-JUDGE PANEL
and leave no room for any inference of controversy. Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512,
518 (1973).
Because the plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to articulate any federal constitutional
Dkt. #19 at p. 3.
apportionment claim that is justiciable in this Court, let alone a substantial constitutional question,
A single judge, however, “in the first instance may consider those claims that do not require
this case should not be referred to a three-judge panel. Moreover, in order to convene a three-judge
three judges and then call for the convening of a three-judge court only if the claims he has initially
panel under Section 2284 – indeed, to maintain the action at all – the plaintiffs must have standing,
considered do not dispose of the case.” 17A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
which they do not.
§4235, at 223 (2007). A single judge may dismiss a claim if the claim is insubstantial (Bailey v.
Patterson, 369 U.S. 31 (1962)) or “if the plaintiff lacks standing or the suit is otherwise not justiciable
A. The plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to present a significant constitutional issue.
in the district court”(17A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §4235, at 213
Although plaintiffs generally assert violations of constitutional provisions, they do not
(2007); Long v. District of Columbia, 469 F.2d 927, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Puerto Rican Intern.
specifically connect those alleged violations to any particular acts by the defendants. Instead, the
Airlines, Inc. v. Colon, 409 F.Supp. 960, 966 (D.P.R. 1975); Am. Commuters Ass’n v. Levitt, 279
plaintiffs offer a laundry list of wrongdoing by the defendants, but the vague, confusing and often
F.Supp. 40, 45-46 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)).
incomprehensible wording of the Amended Complaint makes it impossible to determine the nature
In this case, even though the plaintiffs appear to assert claims concerning the constitutionality
of any federal constitutional attack on New York State’s redistricting plan.1
of New York’s April 2002 redistricting plan which would fall within the ambit of §2284, this Court
1
can and should dispose of this matter on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing, there is no Often in the pleading, plaintiffs appear to make up their own legal doctrines, such as
“Disproportionate Diminished Dilution”(Amended Complaint, Dkt. #25 at ¶71).
3 4
The Second Circuit’s remand order instructed that plaintiffs be permitted to file an amended To be sure, the Second Circuit’s remand order stated that the original complaint, “while prolix
complaint “that omits unnecessary detail.” Dkt. #19 at p. 4. While the plaintiffs have reduced the and burdensome both for the Court and for appellees, can nonetheless be read and comprehended to
length of their pleading from 84 pages in the original complaint to 29 pages in the Amended plead at least some claims that are not frivolous on their face.” Dkt. # 19 at 3-4. The Second Circuit
Complaint, the latter does nothing to clarify the manner in which the defendants allegedly violated did not, however, identify those claims or otherwise indicate that they were federal constitutional
plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights. The substance of plaintiffs’ claims remains very much “well challenges to reapportionment. In fact, to the extent that specific claims can be extracted from the
disguised.” Amended Complaint, they appear to concern alleged violations of state law and HAVA (which latter
The Amended Complaint actually makes little direct reference to the federal constitution. One claims have already been dismissed), rather than the assertion of federal constitutional rights.
of the few passages in which such references appear is the opening section, under the heading For example, in their second cause of action, plaintiffs assert a violation of Article 3, Section
“Jurisdiction and Venue.” Those paragraphs, however, consist of no more than a jumbled catalog 4 of the State Constitution, which provides that “no county shall have more than one-third of all the
setting forth a myriad of federal laws and constitutional provisions, which are never connected to any senators; and no two counties, or the territory thereof as now organized, which are adjoining
factual allegations nor to any particular defendants. Moreover, the wording of that section is typical counties, or which are separated only by public waters, shall have more than one-half of all the
of a pleading replete with incomprehensible language. For example, the first paragraph reads: senators.” Plaintiffs contend that New York City’s allotment of 26 senate districts violates the
By authority of: the United States Constitution Article 1 Section 2, Article 1 Section requirement that no county have more than one-third of the total number of senate districts, and that
4, Article I Section 8 Clause 18, Article I Section 9 Clause 3 (No bill of attainder or
ex post facto Law shall be passed) as applies to the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), the City’s allotment, when combined with that of several neighboring counties, contravenes the
National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America to Vote Act
(“HAVA”), Article III court case and controversy for the Federal Question of HAVA prohibition against two adjoining counties having more than one-half of all the senate districts. Such
unconstitutionality with rotten boroughs suffrage infringement requiring a 28 USC
2284 panel on statewide senate reapportionment question, Article IV guarantee of a a claim is meritless on its face since Article 3, Section 4 was among the constitutional
republican form of government, Article V HAVA mandates that burdens U.S. Citizen
individual fundamental rights as to state citizen suffrage and autonomy of the reapportionment provisions declared unconstitutional in WMCA Inc. V. Lomenzo, 377 US 63
PEOPLE(2) imposed by Federal and State concerted acts that infringe the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, amendment (1963). Not to mention that the claim rests on a contention, utterly without basis, that the five
protection in the US Constitution; and the Court has jurisdiction of this claim under
28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1332(a), 1343(a), 1357, 1361, “Venue” Section 1391(e), counties of New York City should be treated as a single county within the meaning of Article 3,
and under 14th Amendment authority in 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and 1983 and 31
USC 3279 thru 3733 as applies to application and administration of the New York Section 4.
Constitution and Laws [footnote omitted].
Similarly, plaintiffs’ third, fourth and eighth, thirteenth and fourteenth causes of action seem
Amended Complaint at ¶ labeled “Jurisdiction and Venue.”
to involve only state law questions, and in many instances do not relate to apportionment. The fifth,
5 6
sixth, seventh, and twelfth causes of action, on the other hand, simply omit any clue as to the federal Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 125 S.Ct. 627 (2004) (granting summary
or state provisions implicated. Finally, the first, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action, which judgment and dismissing complaint which challenged the redistricting plans at issue herein under one
seem to have been the focus of the plaintiff’ Amended Complaint, appear to allege violations of or person-one vote, population-based and gerrymandering challenges - holding that the redistricting plan
issues related to HAVA, which claims have been dismissed. did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the Voting Rights Act, but instead reflected traditional
The absence of any concrete federal constitutional reapportionment claim is evidenced by the districting principles by maintaining equality of population).
language of the “Wherefore” clause which sheds some light – albeit it rather dim – on the nature of Thus, the constitutional question, if any, raised herein is insubstantial in light of not only the
Plaintiffs’ claims. None of relief requested expressly involves federal constitutional reapportionment inadequacy of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint but also prior decisions. Therefore, the case does
claims. Once again, the focus is on the funding provisions of HAVA. not warrant convening a three-judge panel. Goosby, supra, 409 U.S. at 518.
Although the standard for referral to a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284 is a There exist, however, additional reasons to not refer this matter to a three-judge court.
liberal one, it must be “clear that there exists a non-frivolous constitutional challenge to the
apportionment of a statewide legislative body.” Armour v. Ohio, 925 F.2d 987, 989 (6th Cir. 1991). B. The plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any alleged constitutional claim.
See also Simkins v. Gressette 631 F.2d 287 (4th Cir. 1980) (three judge panel need not be convened In addition to the absence of a substantial constitutional question, the plaintiffs lack standing
where the constitutional challenge was “insubstantial”); Overstock Book Co. v. Barry, 436 F.2d 1289 to pursue the constitutional claim they try to advance. The lack of standing not only serves as further
(2d Cir. 1970) (injunctive relief properly denied without convening three-judge panel where grounds to refuse a three-judge panel under §2284, but also serves as a basis for outright dismissal
allegations were insufficient to form basis for injunctive relief). for failure to state a claim.
Because a discernable reapportionment claim under the federal constitution has not been Standing is "the threshold question in every federal case." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498
presented, there is no cause to convene a three-judge panel. See e.g., Duckworth v. State Board of (1975). In Warth, the Supreme Court held that there are both constitutional requirements for
Elections, 213 F.Supp.2d 543 (D.M.D. 2002) (dismissing challenge to Maryland’s congressional establishing standing, as well as “prudential rules of standing” that limit the class of persons who may
districting plan without referral to three-judge panel). invoke the courts' decisional and remedial powers.” Id. at 499.
Indeed, the lack of a substantial constitutional question in further shown by the fact that a The constitutional “standing question is whether the plaintiff has “alleged such a personal
three-judge panel of the district court has previously rejected various statutory and constitutional stake in the outcome of the controversy,” so as to present a “case or controversy” within the meaning
challenges to the redistricting plan that is the subject of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. See, of Article 3. Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. To satisfy the constitutional Article 3 standing requirements,
7 8
a Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he has suffered an injury in fact, (2) that the injury is fairly prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim which would entitle [them] to relief.” Iqbal v. Hasty,
traceable to the defendant’s actions, and (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed through the relief 490 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2007).
sought. Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625, 632 (2d Cir. 2003), citing, Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, Finally on the three-judge panel issue, this case is also “otherwise not justiciable” in district
162 (1997). court and the issues raised are inescapably frivolous leaving no room for the inference of controversy
In addition to the constitutional prerequisites for establishing standing, the Supreme Court in light of the absolute defenses of legislative immunity and lack of personal involvement as set forth
has articulated “prudential rules” intended to avoid judicial involvement in cases raising “abstract in POINT III through POINT V, below.
questions of wide public significance” that are better left to other branches of government and in
which “judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.” Warth 422 U.S. at
500. First, the harm alleged must normally be more than a "generalized grievance" shared in
substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens . . . .” Id., at 499. “Second, even when
the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to meet the "case or controversy" requirement . . . the plaintiff
generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal
rights or interests of third parties.” Id.
The allegations of the mended Complaint amount, at most, to a “generalized grievance”
regarding which plaintiffs do not claim any interest other than as members of the voting public. See,
Dkt. #25, Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 34 (claiming disproportionate diminished dissolution, etc.),
96-108 (setting out generalized alleged injuries to the plaintiffs collectively). Plaintiffs have therefore
failed to meet either the constitutional or the prudential requirements for establishing standing.
Thus, in addition to the absence of a substantial constitutional question, there is no need to
refer the case to three judge panel because the plaintiffs lack standing.
Indeed, without standing, it is clear from the above that the Amended Complaint should be
dismissed under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) since “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff[s] can
9 10
POINT III Legitimate legislative activity encompasses virtually all of the work of the legislative process.
THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED AS AGAINST ALL Of course, “the act of voting is ‘quintessentially legislative.” Zdziebloski v. Town of E. Greenbush,
LEGISLATORS WHO ARE SHIELDED FROM SUIT BY ABSOLUTE LEGISLATIVE
IMMUNITY AND THE SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSES OF THE STATE AND 336 F. Supp. 2d 194, 203 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102, 111 (2d Cir.
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS
1999) (quoting Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. at 55). In addition, legislative immunity also clearly
Each and every member of the State Legislature who was previously named as a John/Jane
extends to the activities of to floor debate, committee meetings and hearings. People v. Ohrenstein,
Doe defendant and was recently served with process in this action, as well as defendants Bruno and
77 N.Y.2d 38, 54 (1990). In Almonte, the Second Circuit explained that the sphere of legitimate
Silver who previously answered the Amended Complaint, are entitled to immunity against this
legislative activity goes well beyond just casting a vote on a bill or participating in a committee
lawsuit. The plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of absolute legislative immunity and the
hearing, and “covers all aspects of the legislative process.” 478 F.3d at 107. The breadth and nature
principles which underlie the State and Federal Speech and Debate Clauses, prohibiting suits against
of the protection to lawmakers was made quite clear in Bogan v. Scott-Harris:
lawmakers as to their legislative activities.
Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive
State and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. or intent of the official performing it. The privilege of absolute immunity “would be
of little value if [legislators] could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and
§1983 for their legislative activities. Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49 (1998); see also Tenney distractions of a trial upon a conclusion of the pleader, or to the hazard of a judgment
against them based upon a jury’s speculation as to motives.”
v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 377 (1951) (“Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited
Bogan, 523 U.S. at 54-55, citing Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377 (internal quotation marks deleted).
discharge of their legislative duty”). This absolute immunity enables legislators to be free, not only
Moreover, legislative immunity applies regardless of whether the defendants are sued in their
from “the consequences of litigation’s results but also from the burden of defending themselves.”
official or personal capacity. See, Consumers Union v. Supreme Court of Virginia, 446 U.S. 719,
Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85 (1967). “In actions invoking federal civil rights statutes,
734 (1980) (holding that the “Virginia Court and its members are immune from suit when acting in
federal courts customarily ‘equate[] the legislative immunity to which state legislators are entitled ...
their legislative capacity”); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. at 376 (“The privilege would be of little
to that accorded Congressmen under the Constitution.” National Ass’n of Social Workers v.
value if [legislators] could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial upon
Harwood, 69 F.3d 622, 631 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Consumers Union v. Supreme Court of Virginia,
a conclusion of the pleader...”); Larsen v. Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 152 F.3d
446 U.S. 719, 733 (1980)). Thus, legislative immunity protects a State legislator from having to face
240, 252-54 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that legislative immunity applies to suits brought against
a trial “if the act in question was undertaken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” Almonte
legislators acting in their official capacity); Scott v. Taylor, 405 F.3d 1251, 1256 (11th Cir. 2005)
v. City of Long Beach, 478 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2007).
11 12
(“The purpose of legislative immunity being to free legislators from [] worries and distractions, it Applying these principles to the case at bar, there can be no disputing that the state legislators
makes sense to apply the doctrine regardless of the capacity in which a state legislator is sued.”). are entitled to the benefits of such protections and the dismissal of the instant action in its entirety
Additionally, legislative immunity applies to and bars actions for damages, injunctive and under the principles of legislative immunity and the Speech and Debate Clauses of both the State and
declaratory relief. See, Consumers Union v. Supreme Court of Virginia, 446 U.S. at 732 (“Although Federal constitutions.
Tenney involved an action for damages under § 1983, its holding is equally applicable to § 1983 The defendants herein were clearly acting within the realm of “legitimate legislative activity”
actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.”); Star Distributors, Ltd. v. Marino, 613 F.2d 4, 9 (2d concerning all the actions they took related to the enactment of the April 2002 redistricting plan.
Cir. 1980) (“state legislators, to the same extent as their federal counterparts, are immune from suit National Ass’n of Social Workers v. Harwood, 69 F.3d at 630 ( legislative immunity protects not only
under § 1983 for injunctive relief as well as damages based on their activities within the traditional “speech and debate”, but also “voting”, “circulation of information to other legislators”, “participation
sphere of legislative activity”). in the work of legislative committees”, and “a host of kindred activities”).
The New York State Constitution provides protections coextensive to those under federal The current district boundaries in New York were defined by the New York State Legislature
law. Article III, §11 provides: “For any speech or debate in either house of the legislature, the in April of 2002, following the 2000 census. Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 351 (S.D.N.Y.
members shall not be questioned in any other place.” See, Matter of Straniere v. Silver, 218 A.D.2d 2004) (three judge court). The districts are defined by statutes enacted and amended from time to
80, 83 (3rd Dept), aff’d, 89 N.Y.2d 825 (1996). “The clause not only shields legislators from the time by the Legislature. See, New York State Law § 111 (congressional districts); § 121 (assembly
consequences of litigation, but also protects them from the burden of defending themselves in court.” districts); § 124 (senate districts); and New York Judiciary Law § 140 (judicial districts). In enacting
Id., at 83 (citing cases). New York State’s Speech and Debate Clause has been construed to ensure these provisions, the legislature was acting pursuant to its authority under the New York State
that the other branches of government do not interfere with legislators in the performance of their Constitution, Article III § 4.
duties. People v. Ohrenstein, 77 N.Y.2d 38, 54 (1990). As a matter of law, the New York State Thus, all State Legislator defendants – the newly added state defendants, as well as defendants
Constitution prohibits any citizen and the courts from compelling legislators to answer for their Bruno and Silver – are each entitled to judgment on the pleadings and dismissal of the action because
legislative deliberations and considerations. Matter of Straniere, 218 A.D.2d at 85. they are protected by legislative immunity. Rodriguez v. Pataki, 280 F. Supp. 2d 89, 95 (S.D.N.Y.
2003) (“State legislators therefore are entitled to the dismissal of Section 1983 suits brought against
them to recover monetary damages or declaratory or injunctive relief.”); Miles-UN-Ltd. v. Town of
New Shoreham, 917 F. Supp. 91, 98 (D.N.H. 1996) (“Effectuating the intentions of the legislative
13 14
immunity doctrine, legislators acting within the realm of legitimate legislative activity, should not be POINT IV
required to be a party to a civil action concerning legislative activities”). JUST AS THE INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS ARE ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY, SO TOO ARE THE GOVERNOR, THE STATE SENATE AND THE
To the extent that the plaintiffs herein suggest an improper motive by the defendants, such STATE ASSEMBLY
a suggestion cannot overcome the entitlement to legislative immunity. Immunity applies when the
The plaintiffs have also named as defendants in this lawsuit: the “the STATE SENATE in the
nature of the underlying act is legislative, regardless of the motive or intent of the official performing
person of Joseph Bruno”; the “STATE ASSEMBLY in the person of Sheldon Silver”; and “THE
it. Bogan, 523 U.S. at 54; U. S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972). See also, X-Men Sec., Inc.
STATE EXECUTIVE in the person of George Pataki.”2 See, Dkt. #25, Amended Complaint at
v. Pataki, 196 F.3d 56, 71-72 (2d Cir. 1999) (“legislators enjoy absolute immunity for legislative acts,
¶¶15-20. Just as the individual legislators are entitled to absolute legislative immunity, so too are the
regardless of their motivation”, including if they allegedly singled a Plaintiff out for adverse
Governor and both houses of the State Legislature. The case against Messrs. Bruno and Silver
treatment); Hollyday v. Rainey, 964 F.2d 1441, 1443 (4th Cir. 1992) (“Legislators must be permitted
directly (as opposed to in representative posture) was addressed in the preceding point.
to discharge their legislative duties without fear of being subjected to the cost and inconvenience of
Although the State and Federal Speech or Debate Clauses speak in terms of protecting
a trial at which their motives come under scrutiny.”); Knights of Columbus v. Town of Lexington,
legislators, their purpose is to protect “the integrity of the Legislature,” not simply to give private
138 F. Supp. 2d 136, 139 (D. Mass. 2001) (“the doctrine of legislative immunity preclude[s]
individuals legal protection because they happen to be legislators. Ohrenstein, supra, 77 N.Y.2d at
legislators from being subjected to examination about their personal motivation” related to the
54 (emphasis added); Star Distributors, Ltd. v. Marino, 613 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir. 1980) (“unimpaired
enactment of legislation).
state legislatures” must be able to “act free of interference by the courts”) (emphasis added).
For these reasons, each and every member of the State Senate and Assembly who was
Thus, there is a concomitant “institutional immunity for the legislature itself” and the
previously named as a John/Jane Doe defendant and was recently served with process in this action,
Amended Complaint must be dismissed as against the “Senate” and the “Assembly.” United States
as well as defendants Bruno and Silver who previously answered the Amended Complaint, are entitled
v. Craig, 528 F.2d 773, 780 (7th Cir. 1976); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 375 (1951) (“the
to immunity against this lawsuit.
legislature must be free to speak and act”); Warden v. Pataki, 35 F. Supp. 2d 354, 358 (S.D.N.Y.),
aff’d sub nom., Chan v. Pataki, 201 F.3d 430 (2d Cir. 1999) (“bars actions against legislators or
governors – and, a fortiori, legislatures”).
2
Of course, the current Governor is David A. Patterson.
15 16
With respect to the claim(s) against the Governor, it must be noted that immunity is construed To the extent that the plaintiffs name the Governor for any reason other than the signing of
“broadly to effectuate its purposes.” Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 501 (1975). the redistricting plan into law, it must be further noted that "a state official's duty to execute the laws
“Judicial review must be limited to determining whether the action constitutes a legitimate legislative is not enough by itself to make that official a proper party in a suit challenging a state statute."
activity. Once a determination is made that the action is within the purview of legitimate legislative Warden, 35 F. Supp.2d at 359. Similarly, the general duty to faithfully execute the laws does not,
activity, the court’s review must end.” Straniere, 218 A.D.2d at 85. standing alone, make the Governor a proper party in an action challenging a state statute as
"The well-settled doctrine of absolute legislative immunity . . . bars actions against legislators unconstitutional. Romeu v. Cohen, 121 F. Supp.2d 264, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff'd, 265 F.3d 118
or governors . . . on the basis of their roles in enacting or signing legislation." N.Y. State Motor (2d Cir. 2001).
Truck Ass'n v. Pataki, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25519 (N.D.N.Y. 2004); Warden, supra, at 358 Thus, in line with the foregoing, every defendant involved in the passage and signing into law
(“enacting or signing legislation”); see also, Lajoie v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations, 837 of the April 2002 redistricting plan – including the Governor and the Legislature itself (i.e., sued
F. Supp. 34, 40 (D.Conn. 1993); Humane Society of New York v. City of New York, 188 Misc. 2d herein as the “State Senate” and “State Assembly”) – is entitled to absolute legislative immunity.
735, 738 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2001)(absolute immunityextends to Governors and government officials In turn, as discussed in the next point, any named defendants who were not involved in the
in the executive branch when they are engaged in legislative activities). passage and signing into law of the April 2002 redistricting plan are entitled to dismissal on the
Simply stated, absolute legislative immunity for the legislators applies with equal force to grounds of lack of personal involvement.
former Governor Pataki for signing the April 2002 redistricting plan into law. See, Torres-Rivera v.
Calderon-Serra, 412 F.3d 205, 212-13 (1st Cir. 2005) (“a governor who signs into law or vetoes
legislation passed by the legislature is also entitled to absolute immunity for that act”); Women’s
Emergency Network v. Bush, 323 F.3d 937, 950 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Under the doctrine of absolute
legislative immunity, a governor cannot be sued for signing a bill into law.”); Rini v. Zwirn, 886 F.
Supp. 270, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (“Active participation in the legislative process entitles an executive
to absolute immunity.”); Campaign For Fiscal Equity v. State, 179 Misc.2d 735, 907 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1999) aff’d 265 A.D.2d 277 (1st Dept. 1999).
17 18
POINT V The plaintiffs allege in the Amended Complaint that the Attorney General “is vested with the
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE STATE authority to defend the State Constitution, Civil Rights Law and Public Officers with duties during
JUDICIARY ARE ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
INVOLVEMENT good behavior.” Dkt # 25 at ¶20. With respect to the Secretary of State, the plaintiffs set forth that
As this Court has observed, “[i]t is extremely difficult to decipher from the Plaintiffs’ such official is “charged with responsibility to safeguard civil rights under CRL to review for
Amended Complaint what their claims are and which Defendants are the subjects of particular compliance and repository for all, incorporated and unincorporated association due process including
claims.” Dkt. #81 at Fn. 1. The plaintiffs have, however, named the “the STATE 57 municipalities with Boards of Elections within, safeguards all records for New York.” Dkt # 25
JUDICIARY...representative in the person of Thomas J. Spargo,” as well as “the New York Attorney at ¶19.
General in the person of Elliot Spitzer,” and “The New York Secretary of State in the person of Regardless of the plaintiffs’ allegations, by operation of law the Attorney General is charged
3
Randy A. Daniels.” Dkt. 25, Amended Complaint at ¶¶15-20. Since these defendants had absolutely with the defense of the state constitution, under New York Executive Law (“NYEL”) § 71, and of
no involvement in the alleged constitutional violation, they Amended Complaint should be dismissed public officers, under New York Public Officers Law § 17, but he has no such responsibility regarding
as against them. the New York Civil Rights Law.4
It is axiomatic that a defendant in a case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 can only be In turn, the position of Secretary of State is created by § 90 of the New York Executive Law,
held responsible for constitutional deprivations caused by its acts or failures to act. Colon v. and the other sections of Article VI of the Executive Law set forth the duties of the Secretary and
Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995); Reynolds v. Guiliani, 506 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2007). of her agency, the Department of State. Pursuant to § 93, the Secretary has “the custody of all laws
To be held accountable, the defendant must have been involved in causing the claimed constitutional and concurrent resolutions of the legislature,” and she maintains the rules and regulations of state
violation. Id. agencies. NYEL § 102.
In this case, despite an opportunity to re-plead once already, there are still no cognizable Finally, the jurisdiction and powers of the courts of the State of New York are set forth in
factual allegations linking the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, nor the judiciary to the Judiciary Law §2-a, et seq., and have absolutely no application to the instant action.
apportioning of districts throughout New York State. The duties of these officials simply do not give them any authority to enact legislation or,
more particularly, to decide district boundaries. Again, the current district boundaries in New York
4
The Attorney General does have the authority to enforce, pursuant to § 57, the provisions of article
3
The current Attorney General is Andrew M. Cuomo and the current Secretary of State is Lorraine V-A of the NYCRL, and also can bring an action under § 79-m of that statute, but these have nothing to do
A. Cortes-Vazquez. with the present case.
19 20
were defined by the New York State Legislature in April of 2002, following the 2000 census. These defendants simply have had no involvement in the acts complained of in the Amended
Rodriguez, supra.; New York State Law § 111 (congressional districts); § 121 (assembly districts); Complaint, no matter how generously it might be interpreted. Thus, the action must be dismissed as
§ 124 (senate districts); and New York Judiciary Law § 140 (judicial districts). In enacting these to them.
provisions, the State Legislature was acting pursuant to its authority under the New York State Even if the Court were to disagree in whole or in part with the foregoing arguments, the
Constitution, Article III § 4. Amended Complaint remains so “unintelligible” and the claims so “indiscernible” that dismissal under
The provisions cited above provide for no role by the Attorney General, the Secretary of F.R.C.P. 8(a) is appropriate as set forth in the final section, below.
State, nor the judiciary in making these determinations. Since the Amended Complaint makes no
cognizable allegations against these defendants, and because it is well settled that a state officer
cannot be held liable for damages without some personal liability on his part, the Amended Complaint
should be dismissed as against the Attorney General, the Secretary of State and the judiciary.
Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 230 (2d Cir. 2004); Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union
Free School District, 365 F.3rd 107, 122 (2d Cir. 2004); McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 934
(2d Cir. 1977).
An official cannot be held liable under §1983 “merely because he held a high position of
authority”. Black v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1996). Although under Ex parte Young, (209
U.S. 123, 155-58 (1908)), a public official sued in his or her official capacity may be enjoined to take
or refrain from future action, since the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have no authority
to grant any of the relief the plaintiffs seek, they are not proper defendants under this theory. “Young
does not apply when a defendant state official has neither enforced nor threatened to enforce the
allegedly unconstitutional state statute.” Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty v. Deters, 92 F.3d
1412, 1415 (6th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
21 22
POINT VI Amended Complaint still does nothing to clarify the manner in which defendants allegedly violated
EVEN IF THE COURT DOES NOT DISMISS THE ACTION UNDER RULE 12, THE plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights. The substance of Plaintiffs’ claims remain very much “well
AMENDED COMPLAINT IS NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL UNDER
FRCP 8(a) disguised” leaving the defendants and the Court to try and decipher what the plaintiffs’ claims are,
Even if this Court were to refuse to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to F.R.C.P. against whom they are made, and what the plaintiffs are seeking.
12(b)(6) and (c) on the grounds of lack of standing, legislative immunity and lack of personal Where, as here, an amended pleading still remains “a labyrinthine prolixity of unrelated and
involvement, dismissal under F.R.C.P. 8(a) is still warranted. vituperative charges that defied comprehension,” dismissal is appropriate. Prezzi, 469 F.2d at 692.
The standard for measuring the adequacy of a complaint is lenient. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a)(2) Indeed, the Second Circuit has affirmed dismissal of a similar case brought by plaintiff Christopher
requires only that a complaint contain “a short and concise statement of the claim showing that the Earl Strunk in which the district court determined that the complaint was “unintelligible” and the
pleader is entitled to relief.” To meet that standard, a complaint “must simply give the defendant fair claims “indiscernible.” Strunk v. United States House of Representatives, 68 Fed.Appx. 233, 235 (2d
notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds on which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 Cir 2003).
S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-513 (2002), quoting It is respectfully submitted that one opportunity to re-plead should have been sufficient. Since
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Moreover, as the Second Circuit noted in its remand the Amended Complaint still fails to provide a short and concise statement of the claim showing
order, it is well established “that pro se complaints are to be construed liberally.” Dkt. #19 at 4-5, entitlement to relief and fair notice of what the plaintiffs’ claim is and the grounds on which it rests,
quoting, Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2005). dismissal with prejudice is now warranted.
Even under these liberal standards, however, a complaint may be dismissed if it is “so
confused, ambiguous, vague or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well
disguised.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F. 2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988); see also Prezzi v. Schelter, 469
F. 2d 691 (2d Cir. 1972) (amended complaint properly dismissed where it was “incomprehensible”),
cert. denied , 411 US 935 (1973).
The Second Circuit’s remand order instructed that plaintiffs be permitted to file an amended
complaint “that omits unnecessary detail.” Dkt. #19 at 4. While the plaintiffs have reduced the length
of their pleading, from 84 pages in the original complaint to 29 pages in the Amended Complaint, the
23 24
CONCLUSION DECLARATION OF SERVICE
For the reasons set forth above, the convening of a three-judge panel is not warranted in this I, Aaron M. Baldwin, declare pursuant to 28 USC § 1746, that on April 9, 2008, I served
the annexed Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Law upon all defendants of record via
case. Instead, the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety as against the State
CM/ECF and upon the following individuals by depositing true copies thereof, properly enclosed
Defendants pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and/or 12(c) on the grounds of lack of standing, legislative in sealed, postpaid wrappers, in a post office box in the City of Albany, a depository under the
exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department, directed to the
immunity and lack of personal involvement. individuals at the addresses designated for that purpose, as follows:
Dated: April 9, 2008
In the alternative, dismissal under F.R.C.P. 8(a) is also warranted.
Albany, New York
/s/ AARON M. BALDWIN
AARON M. BALDWIN
Dated: Albany, New York
April 9, 2008 Christopher Strunk Ronald E. Sacoff
ANDREW M. CUOMO 593 Vanderbilt Avenue 84 Boylan Street
Attorney General of the State of New York Apt # 281 Staten Island, NY 10312
Attorney for Defendants Thomas J. Spargo, Brooklyn, NY 11238
Joseph L. Bruno, NYS Senate, Sheldon Gabriel Rassano
Silver, NYS Assembly, George E. Pataki, Ronald G. Loeber 135 Gordon Place
Randy A. Daniels and Eliot Spitzer 2130 Berne Altamont Road Freeport, NY 11520
The Capitol Altamont, NY 12009
Albany, New York 12224-0341 Edward M. Person, Jr.
William E. Bombard 392 Saldane Avenue
P.O. Box 882 North Babylon, NY 11703
By: s/ Aaron M . Baldwin Glens Falls, NY 12801
The Ad Hoc NYS Citizens for Constitutional
Aaron M. Baldwin
William A. Gage Legislative Redistricting
Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel
10 Greenfield Lane 351 North Road
Bar Roll No. 510175
Hampton, NY 12837 Hurley, NY 12443
Telephone: (518) 474-2913
Fax: (518) 473-1572 (Not for service of papers)
John Forjone Burr V. Deitz
Email: Aaron.Baldwin@oag.state.ny.us
P.O. Box 28 444 Whitehall Road
Clarendon, NY 14429 Albany, NY 12208
TO: (see attached Declaration of Service)
H. William Van Allen Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier
351 North Road 25 Hattie Jones Circle
Hurley, NY 12443 Brooklyn, NY 11213
Fairlene G. Rabenda
8 Claudia Lane
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BOE defendants that have already answered and only requires expedited discovery necessary to
-----------------------------------------------------x redistrict by the Federal panel by June 1, 2008. The various other state defendants and
Ronald G. Loeber et al. legislators, and the DOJ under the pre-clearance requirement of section 5 of the 14th Amendment
04-CV-1193 (LEK)
Plaintiffs, are to remain within the jurisdiction of this court for purpose of assessing liability individually
v. STRUNK’S RESPONSE jointly and severally to pay for the redistricting. As a prima facie matter due notices were given
IN OPPOSITION TO
Thomas J. Spargo, et al. MOTION TO DISMISS AS to all defendants in time for action before March 6, 2006 and as time is of the essence before
TO STATE DEFENDANTS
Defendants. June 1, 2008 under 28 USC 2284; therefore, despite further involvement of such defendants
-----------------------------------------------------x other than the NYS BOE and various local Election Boards is moot, other than only liability
aspect for state defendants to pay for breech of fiduciary duty are ultra vires, and remain
I am Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se without being an attorney, representing
individually and severally liable.
myself in this matter, with eleven other plaintiffs each pro se without any being an attorney, and
Any posturing by State defendants at this point does not eliminate the fact that each then
who each have an injury complaint specific to their own representative situation where each vote
and now have been involved with or since the April 2002 districting, and subsequently all have
and reside and have a proprietary property right to suffrage. I hereby respond in opposition to
ultra vires liability for breech of fiduciary duty as applies under the express state constitution and
the Notice of Motion to Dismiss as to State Defendants as a second bit of the apple against
laws, and that only if the record has an objection(s) for each or any, and as with the three men in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b) (6) 12(c) and 8(a) as filed by New York State
the room if any; and short of a public record of districting objection as done by the Honorable
Assistant Attorney General Aaron M. Baldwin (Mr. Baldwin) on or about April 9, 2008, with my
Richard Dollinger, makes each individually liable and or jointly and severally accordingly for the
response due April 29 under local rules with a return date on submission with under twenty-six
cost of redistricting with a special master and necessary notice to the voters before June 3 of new
pages for a proper response without more for exhibits and complicated detailed explanation; and
district boundaries so that petitioning and the proper committee(s) may be formed for both the
I hereby request oral argument on May 16 to limit response page size, and is necessary for every
primaries and general election in November 2008.
Plaintiff to speak for himself. To the extent that the District Court has considerable background
Mr. Baldwin asserts without a supporting declaration a series of citations in the
while in the State Judiciary and the Albany County home rule state–subdivision, the Court may
accompanying MOL with some cases germane herein. I have a good working knowledge of the
have specific questions that need a plaintiff explanation of individual injury germane to 28 USC
WMCA and associated cases, and intervention experience with Rodriguez v. Pataki for senate
2284 as a reason for oral argument to be available.
enlargement in NYC as a Voting Rights Act (VRA) covered state–subdivision that under section
Personally I believe at this point in time the 28 USC 2284 panel only needs the NYS
5 of the 14th and related 15th amendments had issues alleged to be measured under Title 42 VRA
1 2
with use of the 10% de minimus rules. That the complaint therein was dismissed in its entirety the Republican Party v. New Rochelle matter with remarkable results germane to redistricting
with deference given to the jurisdiction of the State Constitution Article III express mandate statewide, and wherein He ordered that if He didn’t do it the right way, I may have standing to
without any interpretation by Judge Walker presiding with Judge Koeltl and Judge Berman in go the Second Circuit. He did it right, but thereafter with poor follow-up by the Republicans,
that 28 USC 2284 matter; however, was not a statewide VRA matter; and therefore, does not which seems true to form generally.
preclude this complaint, for in that regard I may speak with first hand knowledge. Had the State Constitution been properly administered and applied in April 2002 with the
When Judge Walker expressly held e.g. as under Article III Section 1 that the State senate proper use of the WMCA findings as to home-rule requirements for properly formed state-sub-
shall have 50 and the Assembly 150 members, which under the WMCA decision shall be used divisions entitled to a local board of elections within, we wouldn’t be here now; and that the state
isn’t . Then must be used as we demand herein, and that would give the legislature impetus to act constitution now prohibits any state official from changing the district lines after March 6, 2006.
on constitutional amendment as also recommended by the Brahman New York City Bar Therefore, the matter is left to the Federal Court pursuant to Baker v. Carr, using the specific
Association in February of last year for creating a permanent redistricting commission, and by exceptions and unrealized requirements of the WMCA case that relates to state-subdivision
reference I enter the memorandum into the record herein as a public record. compliance subsequent to the U.S. Supreme Court holding that the formula for the Senate
That for Mr. Baldwin to construe Rodriguez v. Pataki as having somehow settled the enlargement is in conflict with the 14th Amendment. Therefore, we must be using 50 senate seats
statewide issue before this court verges on vexation with specious arguments as if a Federal 28 rather than any other amount without authority to do so by constitutional amendment. The US.
USC 2284 panel post March 6, 2006 were moot- which it isn’t. This Court must keep jurisdiction Supreme Court did not approve use of 62 seats.
over the legislators, both past governors including the Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of That use of the 14th amendment since the Warren Court, was foreseen by Abraham
Malta George Pataki and Mr. Spitzer for malicious conspiracy, the past controller, the past NYS Lincoln’s objections that its implementation would make it too easy to find any state in non-
Attorney General, and except for the NYS Secretary of State who serves at the pleasure of compliance subject to creation of outrageous new national debt as an equal protection matter
Knight Pataki, and various members of Judiciary who each may be a Knight or high mason by easier to create unlike previously done to guarantee debt collection with the U.S. Constitution
discovery admission be liable to pay for the redistricting costs too. remedy for the Articles of Confederation failures after the revolution; as if an equivalent to a
Mr. Baldwin did not mention that I was also in the Arbor Hill case for redistricting of the Title 13 chapter 11 protection for the states.
Albany County legislature in which as of right I intervened as of right, granted by the State Nevertheless, no state has sought bankruptcy protection yet. The present situation of New
Constitution, and that after a hearing in Second Circuit, this Court established a Rooker v. York without a republican form of government is not unlike the matter considered by the Taney
Feldman exception sustained by Second Circuit in Hoblock v. County of Albany following the Court in the demurer of 1846 in Luther v. Borden. However now after Baker v. Carr, a Federal
elections correcting Judge Mordue’s errors. That I had also intervened before Judge Brieant in Judge may correct a republican form of government violation as with gerrymandering, by
3 4
misapplication and misadministration of the state constitution related with districting and Supreme Court dockets which document my and other Plaintiff’s due notice petition to the state
suffrage injury. since no later than December 2000, when the Federal Census was taken, that without
For redistricting the court must use a precise population in each district as done with any enlargement of the House itself as I had requested along with the proper census taking questions
U.S. House seat(s) that although each allotment may vary from state to state significantly as to be asked during the 2000 census while taking the reapportionment for each state’s allotment.
exception, shall not vary within a state more than one person. That the exception with the 10% Thereafter, any challenge to State and U.S. House seats is done together under state law only.
de minimus standard under the VRA, now must be applied equally to minorities including the Individually, plaintiffs have challenged action done by the legislature and executive
Caucasian minority adversely affected for state political districts must be done by the express under state law leading upon to and following the April 2002 Districting Law with only a portion
words of the respective State Constitution, without any interpretation allowed what so ever selectively pre-cleared by the DOJ voting rights section ( 1 ). To continue districting without use of
except with striking those sections found in violation of the 14th amendment until we receive new the State Constitution express requirements as applies under State and Federal law is against
rules. However, with original jurisdiction by a three judge Court statewide, if interpretation is promotion of citizen participation in suffrage among those eligible voters separate from those not
essential for that redistricting process, has discretion to certify a question to the NYS Court of entitled to vote including aliens and those without civil rights. Otherwise is an outrageous
Appeals for a finding of law; as herein with the size of home rule subdivisions definitions as Mr. trespass by defendants and their agents as a matter of public record with significant variation as a
Baldwin himself raises with whether New York City is a home rule state sub-division similar to a matter of magnitude difference from state subdivision to state subdivision; especially that of
county to be considered under the one third and one half rules of Article 3 Section 4. NYC resulting with less than 25% voter turnout. Mr. Baldwin ignores that fact that citizens are a
I object to Mr. Baldwin’s portrayal of the facts germane herein, that the Procedural protected class with sovereignty guaranteed under State Civil rights law different than minors
history is only partially docketed in NDNY. That procedure is itself enmeshed with bureaucratic and aliens or those not entitled to suffrage; and as such he dissembles the difference inherent in
intrigue involving two Chief Judges and several Judges including Judge Sharpe in the case US v what it means to be eligible to vote per se, and conveniently ignores both the present redistricting
NYS BOE 06-cv-263, and more importantly the machinations of the Clerk’s office itself, and as and ultra vires matter associated with his clients and Federal authorities by their wrongheaded
such all the actual records must accompany Mr. Baldwin’s construct contention in his six Points interpretation of the related law including the state constitution. That since HAVA in October
seen as moot points without the procedural history of EDNY SDNY NDNY WDNY, and 2002 all those persons over 18 years of age when all included by unscrupulous use maliciously
includes the direct involvement of NYS AAG Joel Graber since 1999 at every venue except 1
Pre-clearance based upon belief is a habit or tradition developed by the DOJ that is based upon a person’s skin
color or language group that is done by the DOJ under section 5 of the 14th Amendment and as related to title 42
WDNY, plus I am sure, the fact that Mr. Baldwin had full knowledge and withheld from this VRA that is suppose to correct prior invidious discrimination; but now is done without any proof of discrimination
at all thereby discriminating in fact against those who do not speak Spanish or have no protective skin pigmentation
court other procedural actions germane herein. Because I am sure He has spoken with Mr. against ultra violet light damage, and as a fiction favors false minorities unreasonably. With a method that resembles
no empirical basis for proceeding, that as Dr. Einstein once observed that any test of insanity holds true when if
Seaman of his office and the six or so assistants there in Capitol involved with NYS State something doesn’t work you keep on doing it anyway despite empirical proof to the contrary and as such the person
repeating the experiment is clinically insane.
5 6
seek federal dollars than entitled by treating aliens equal with citizens entitled to suffrage, and is rule board of elections within. That NYC is a home rule state sub-division like a county
an unequal treatment question for upstate citizens and home-rule state-subdivisions of residence. subdivision with a top-down home rule board of elections within unlike Buffalo or Albany city.
Because aliens are included in the total of residents along with illegal aliens admitted to Therefore, what does a fully functional local board of elections mean for the smallest
being more than 500,000 in NYC alone, as if each were a citizen entitled to vote and county state –subdivision such as Orleans County upstate? A candidate for the assembly or
concentrated downstate in NYC, on Long Island and Westchester. That as a result of creating a senate must file in Albany with the state board there rather than in the state subdivision in which
separate region state defendants’ gerrymandering control over policy form an illegal downstate it is suppose to be located wholly within by expressed mandate of the state constitution. There is
coalition in the legislature that by backroom deals off the record conceal discretionary funds, and a considerable impact upon both ballot access and expectation of success for each voter and
business deals for special interests illegally. That thereby defendants transfer considerable power candidate as an unequal protection matter, and as such must also have state action to correct the
away from the sovereign people in upstate state subdivisions in favor of a few special interests. infringement here, see Exhibit B herein.
That April 2002 redistricting has been done without use of the surviving provisions of In fact there are only 58 state sub-divisions with a home rule Local Boards of Election
Article III that are express provisions untouched by the Federal Courts in WMCA and others, within, not 62 as Mr. Baldwin implies. The complaint refers to 47 of 58 that are improperly
and are now even more important than before as apply to each home-rule subdivision entitled to formed according to WMCA mandates and express use of NYSC Article III.
a home rule local board of elections within. As a matter of enforcement of NYC size compliance When we attempted to intervene with no success in the US v NYS BOE case in NDNY
in relation to the other state home rule subdivisions, and any overreaching by NYC legislators 06-cv-263 to maintain the integrity of the causes of action herein involves the misinterpretation
that benefit by gerrymander when various counties entitled to a home-rule board of elections of HAVA as to the bottom-up nature of state-subdivision delivery of suffrage equal protection
within don’t have home rule as Mr. Cormier, and I claim here in Brooklyn and Mr. Sacoff in impact on the active eligible voters within each bottom-up total population accordingly.
Staten Island who is sharing an assembly and senate seat and Judicial District with Brooklyn.; As for Strunk’s response to Mr. Baldwin’s Point I – I contend that based upon the law
and as we requested be corrected I n September 2006, see Exhibit A herein. and federal rules the three Judge Panel should have been decided in 2005 wasn’t. I contend the
Any state-subdivision without home-rule is not entitled to a commensurate home-rule District Judge has no authority to rewrite the amended complaint to include more State
board of elections within. That within NYC there are no home rule state-subdivisions when defendants after March 6, 2006 for reasons stated above and especially since they have already
instead we have five boroughs without home rule, Brooklyn requires it now. answered the amended complaint, for which district has improperly given a third bite of the
When Mr. Baldwin mentions a county per se as a home rule state-subdivision, he must apple with this motion that should not have taken place in the first place, exceeds district
also include a municipality like NYC which has a different structure than say for Buffalo or authority, is substantive denial of due process and equal protection.
Syracuse or Rochester or White Plains or Yonkers or even Albany city that doesn’t have a home
7 8
As for Strunk’s response to Mr. Baldwin’s Point II – I have raised several than those town residents with home rule elsewhere in effect makes borough residents merely
“significant” state and federal constitutional issues beyond the ability of a single district judge to subjects of an exploitive plantation system for real property manipulation and unjust enrichment
dispose of, and rather than repeat each of those listed in the complaint listed below for emphasis. of elite few within and elsewhere benefit from non enforcement of equal treatment statewide.
And whatever is significant about the word significant as Mr. Baldwin uses, I leave District to There is a difference from a NYC Borough than for a home rule bottom up town or even
sort out, I am not a sophist. village contained within a non-complying state subdivision with residents otherwise not entitled
For Mr. Baldwin to say that the Plaintiffs lack standing is not only absurd on its face it to a local board of elections within; but nevertheless, with a local board that does not meet the
countermands the previous decisions in this case including that of the Second Circuit. minimum size of population for two assembly members wholly within.
The sovereign eligible voters are a class separate and apart from the total of all persons Further, an even larger home-rule state subdivision with an adequate total population
within a home rule district. A representative is chosen by voters only and it is the voters who shall have a senate seat wholly within unlike the smaller home rule subdivision etcetera.
suffer when each is not treated equally in each home rule district within a state subdivision However, with the proviso set in 1893 by constitutional changes for drawing districts before the
entitled to a local board within. advent of computers, as was then upheld in the 1938 modifications to the State Constitution, the
A voter must be singled out from among all those persons not entitled to vote because all size of total population for any home-rule state subdivision shall not exceed the size of total
persons are not entitled. When the voter(s) are not given equal treatment of the law either population in relation to the entire state’s set of subdivisions shall not have more than one-third
statewide and or within a respective state-subdivision where such voter resides and entitled to of the senators within; and to the contrary would unconstitutionally control the once in twenty
home-rule sovereignty. There is a federal question that must be sorted out accordingly as involve year constitution convention. Further, as to adjoining state sub-division and regional dominance
the VRA and application of equal treatment under the 14th 15th Amendments. is created when an adjoining home rule state-subdivision is combined and has one-half or more
The WMCA case does not deal with questions like why the express mandate of the state of the senators; goes well beyond just the convention question, given a two year legislative term
constitution wasn’t applied for the 1962 redistricting. No one asked how come there are not two basis, it should be clear to anyone with a 8th grade education that the matter of controlling all
assembly districts wholly within each senate district and or state subdivision entitled to a local legislation is possible from a regional standpoint, and that is to be prevented. Furthermore, as
board within, with the U.S. Constitution, there is no New York state Constitutional provision that allows
WMCA wasn’t meant to solve all unasked questions as even then Nassau County regional governance per se - period.
Attorney Jack B. Weinstein asserts in his follow-up article in the 1965 Columbia Law Review That above constitutional fact draws into question the use of authorities that the
about the effect of WMCA upon state subdivisions as applies to the status of unequal treatment Harriman-Rockefeller top-down monocentric power structure define as public benefit
in NYC of its Borough residents without bottom up home rule. Is entirely different treatment for corporations and even use of secretive non-profit tax dodges protected by Federal Reserve Bank
9 10
oversight and the vagaries of IRS arbitrary provisions, all protected by the State attorney general The original New York state Constitution along with every change thereafter treats an
oversight to circumvent the sovereignty of the people within a home rule state-subdivision eligible voter and suffrage as a matter of individual sovereignty, that as an equal protection issue
The matter of a voter’s sovereign home rule is absolutely a constitutional question before herein it gives citizen sovereignty deference as those entitled to vote and infringes allocation of
this court. The matter of citizen sovereignty is a matter long infringed by monocentric representation to the legislature in both the senate and assembly under equal treatment different
corporatism and the tyranny of top-down governance imposed with a vengeance by the from those not entitled to suffrage privilege; and that all home-rule state subdivisions per se are
Harriman- Rockefeller dynasties associated with the Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of to be afforded equal treatment to prevent major differences for residents in subdivisions like
Malta along with high level masons of the Scottish and York Right Freemasons, as depicted by towns, villages and boroughs as a state issue that are denied a collective local board of elections
the Symbol Emblematic Chart of Freemasonry herewith marked Exhibit C, that without within for guaranteeing placement of state legislative members from the respective home rule
registration have been banned in this state after the candidacy of Chester A. Arthur’s Anti- state subdivision.
Masonic Party who sought authority under NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A whose Further historical evidence of state subdivision bottom-up home-rule matters are directly
mandates are ignored while being more than ever necessary to prevent secret societies with accomplished with the great compromise, as it is based upon home-rule statehood
blood oaths and intrigue to control or interfere with a citizen’s sovereign right liberty and notwithstanding population size; that every state must receive at least one house member and two
freedoms given by Almighty God, includes the right to a representative republican form of members in the U.S. Senate.
Legislature, responsive Executive and Judiciary, that now all creeps in the shadows perform In New York eligible voter residents are given deference in a home rule sub-division in
sedition and requires sunshine as under the law of the land for equal treatment. regards to the Assembly; and as with any home rule state of the several states, two assembly
Any organization whether corporate or unincorporated that requires an oath of allegiance members are required for every State home rule subdivision here in New York wholly within and
with exclusive membership that has more than 19 members shall register with the secretary of further entitled to a senate member(s) wholly within when having a larger population total
state or be fined and or incarcerated accordingly; and that at the Federal level the Judiciary has commensurate with such member. That following the WMCA decision the need for close
authority over any party who takes a secret oath of allegiance with exclusive membership who scrutiny over what size a home-rule state-subdivision is increased as a Federal question for
acts as an agent of foreign influence who interferes with domestic and or foreign affairs, Has a express use of the state Constitution mandates under Article III for how big a state subdivision
mandate available under 28 USC 1361, that shall have a Federal officer perform duties to shall be, in conformance with the law of the land.
register such violator and or else be fined and incarcerated up to three years per offense under That when the State legislature creates a new state subdivision entitled to a home rule
title 18 Chapter 45 that includes the Logan Act under Section 953, that survives from the 1799 local board of elections within, done before the next census, it shall have at least one assembly
action of the Adams Administration’s Alien Sedition Act still applies now. member wholly within; and further, when established before March 6th of the 6th year after the
11 12
previous census, after the new census shall have at least two assembly members. Further still, However, gerrymandering has packed votes into the legislature making that impossible. The
when such entity grows large enough in population size for a senate district wholly within it also Courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment even under an Article 78 mandamus, thereby
requires at least two assembly members wholly within also; and further yet, that for the smallest leaving jurisdiction to the State Supreme Court before March 6, 2006 for statewide districting
new state-subdivision to qualify for a local board of election and home rule it shall not be smaller and afterward only to be done by Federal three Judge Panel as herein..
in population size than the combination of Hamilton and Fulton state subdivisions that share an The Defendant Legislators or at least the ones having participated in the April 2002
assembly and senate member and shall elect together. redistricting may be involved in a conspiracy whose sedition involve actual members of a secret
That instruction is very simple, however has not been followed as a rule since the 1992 organization in violation of law and or have profited by unjust enrichment by receiving taxpayer
redistricting law took effect when the rule was then followed. But with the April 2002 changes, dollars illegally as a false billing matter like Assemblyman Green in the 57th AD or others with
Hamilton and Fulton do not elect together with a shared Assembly and Senate district that has stories yet to be discovered herein. That discovery will expose assembly and senate members
injured my associate Bill Bombard accordingly in his three runs for the assembly. In this matter who have profited with discretionary funds as with investments in the cigar factory in the
alone, I would say that like a row of dominoes this a constitutional question with statewide Dominican Republic etcetera infinitem; all those funds must be returned with penalties as a
impact effect among all our individual complaints except for NYC that has all political districts unjust enrichment tort, and that needs only a preponderance of evidence driven by facts admitted
totally contained except for the 34th SD. However the WMCA solution requires the express total to and or discovered upon the record involving brokered deals by the Rockefeller Institute done
of no more than 50 senate seats statewide until the state legislature by constitutional amendment behind closed doors to operate and maintain a top-down monocentric control to prevent
creates a new senate and or assembly enlargement formula to replace that found unconstitutional legitimate polycentric bottom-up home-rule with a properly configured home-rule state
in the WMCA case. There is no way that the Hamilton and Fulton issue of electing together an subdivisions composed of towns cities and villages or unincorporated communities to deny
assembly and senate seat may be contained locally if the court decides that the state constitution speech and effective expectation of suffrage participation as in Albany, Buffalo and the like in
express terms that requires they elect together and at least two assembly members be wholly NYC’s boroughs. That equity and law requires at least Brooklyn regain home rule for its more
th
within a senate district or else be unconstitutional as against the 14 amendment without than 2.5 residents different than the other boroughs as if plantations.
foundation. The total senate seats were never before the U.S. Supreme Court in WMCA. That the entire Rodriguez v. Pataki case was contrived in conflict with 28 USC 1359.
As for Strunk’s response to Mr. Baldwin’s Point III – There is no individual immunity That it only applies to NYC, not statewide, alleged wrongly its residents were entitled to yet
for ultra vires offenses causing public and private injury, and that even the State Court of Claims another senate seat or 63 by some magic finagled formula dreamed out of thin air, and as if
has no jurisdiction to hear a redistricting matter on a statewide basis. section 2 of the VRA were violated. The rule of state law is diminished once again as voter
The state constitution has provision for removal from office of all public officials. bottom-up control over House representatives in Washington DC further evaporated after the
13 14
2000 allotment loss of two more House seats leaving 29 members reduced from 42 from 1960; prosecutor to correct most of the wrongs as we have seen ongoing in New Jersey and just
and although with greater population applied to the use a 3 judge Panel. However in Rodriguez v recently as the tip of the iceberg here in the New York City Council and recently with Clarence
Pataki it never dealt with a single statewide issue as we present here, and that a 3 judge panel has Norman, you haven’t seen anything yet.
never even scratched the surface of the statewide districting matter presented herein. . As for Strunk’s response to Mr. Baldwin’s Point V – this case was filed in October
That Judges Walker, Koeltl and Berman nevertheless cut through all the phony VRA 2004, amended in 2005 and to the extent that Mr. Cuomo was not around after he left his term at
issues and granted me personally the ability to take my complaint to another Federal Jurisdiction HUD after replacing Cisneros after that indictment, even with his run at the governorship in 2004
because the matters I complain of are too important and so different from the dog and pony show he appears free of liability herein. However, Mr. Spitzer had until March 6, 2006 to do
going on there, are now to be heard here; and despite the fact that this court has denied my something, but did nothing, and then went on to a well deserved imminent impeachment before
supplement to the complaint with the injury I am facing ancillary to the April 2002 districting he resigned as he should have as Attorney General, and whose sedition aided and abetted illegal
with my candidacy in the 18th since last summer. sanctuary for aliens having invaded New York. As for the past controller he too belongs in
There is a time deadline here because the party petitioning starts on or about June 2 prison with loss of his estate, but instead his family dynasty carries on because of
coming, and that every district must be built by then in order not to disrupt the process further. In gerrymandering. As for the then secretary of state that served at the pleasure of the Knight of the
New York city every Assembly district under the questionable section 5 pre-clear mumbo-jumbo Sovereign Military Order of Malta George Pataki, who was responsible along with Mr. Spitzer
discriminates based upon the color of ones skin not the content of ones heart, says anyone who for breech of fiduciary trust under the enforcement of the NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6
speaks Portuguese is to be discriminated against by a Spanish speaking white person and that a Article 5A and both over Corporation laws as they relate to home rule issues as applies to the
Spanish speaking black person is not to be considered a black person, and that English is to be various local boards. All State Defendants as public officers are culpable individuals who have
abhorred because it is too dominant – phooey how about equal treatment under law? been duly notified and need to be under jurisdiction of a three judge panel, to be held liable for
As for Strunk’s response to Mr. Baldwin’s Point IV – individual legislators are ultra the costs of political district correction by a special master expense.
vires by breech of fiduciary duty to perform constitutionally required duties, are not protected As for Strunk’s response to Mr. Baldwin’s Point VI, contends the State Defendants
from impeachment or removable for cause, and as such as a simple matter of not taking the oath had to file a motion in December 2005, when instead they jointly submitted an answer to the
of office on time for instance there is a basis why the term absolute immunity is absurd on its amended complain then. The District court not only exceeded discretion as a requirement under
face. Anyone illegally in office or who violates the law or commits breach of fiduciary trust as 28 USC 2284, continues as before with questionable authority, and whatever must done to
we see in the past with elected representatives that not only puts them in prison but seizes their expedite matters before June 3, be must be done at Second Circuit, and that based upon what I
entire estate for repayment is instructive. Realistically though that it will take a federal have seen there, they won’t fail to see failure in process, as would the U.S. Supreme Court too.
15 16
restrictions using arbitrary local law enforcement so that illegal rentals for alien tenants would
Strunk’s Response summary argument facilitate conspirators unjust enrichment for some owners, but singled out other owners to
in opposition to dismissal of State defendants destroy resale value in targeted areas where Plaintiff Person lost property value as a matter
directly connected with gerrymandering with illegal alien sanctuary.

Any small upstate state sub-divisions composed of home rule towns are not adequately
That in Nassau County specifically the House District of Caroline McCarthy, involves
represented in the Assembly without two assembly members wholly within. Therefore must
the Local Election Board in conspiracy with Her office maliciously to use gerrymandering that
redraw state home rule subdivision with additional towns within to have an effective local
concealed public records from scrutiny, carried out three elections after April 2002 that illegally
election board able to process two local assembly and senate candidates; otherwise are forcing
allowed for the re-election of McCarthy back to office with votes cast from the House District of
any contender to go to the NYS Board of Elections instead of a local board at great
Congressman King illegally; and that when all the while Plaintiff Razzano was told he was in the
inconvenience as an equal treatment matter for voters and candidates, different than for a larger
McCarthy’s district when in fact he was in King’s District. Then in early 2007 Razzano
sub-division with adequate population and properly political districts created wholly within.
discovered the true facts by thorough investigation, and by conducting the investigation and
There are state subdivisions that are of adequate population size entitled to multiple
follow-up with authorities such discovery and administrative complaint exposed the extreme
assembly districts wholly within a senate district in turn wholly within the subdivision. That
cover-up as a Federal and State matter of criminal infringement of his rights and being singled
voters are not treated equally with other subdivision voters such as in NYC, Westchester,
out with denial of equal protection of his 1st , 2nd , 5th 6th, 9th 10th and 14th amendments rights as
Suffolk, Nassau, Erie, Onondaga Monroe and others except for Dutchess and Albany County in
a state and Federal Bivens case action question directly effected as a result of malicious
which Plaintiffs such as Loeber in the rural portion and Deitz within Albany city is improperly
gerrymandering with direct outrageous injury to Plaintiff Razzano.
divided up for the assembly members within adversely effecting the rural portion voters.
That the injury to Plaintiff Cormier is on the record with an original affidavit in the case
Suffolk County that injured Plaintiff Person was done to undermine real property values
before Judge Bates in Person v. The NYS BOE SDNY 06-cv-6365, a case in which I also had
in the village of Farmingville was singled out different than elsewhere. When illegal aliens were
intervened in the matter of infringement of voter speech and expectation of success for any
provided illegal sanctuary against federal law for parties in interest maliciously at transport bulk
challenger candidacy involving the USPS as a supplement therein denied now as a matter before
load transfer points along the Federal Highway serving various interstate corporate interests
Judge Ross in the EDNY with a petition for relief..
intent to exploit illegal alien labor to under cut citizen living standards. That with the crime of
That Plaintiff Cormier and I are from adjoining Assembly districts and inter alia have
aiding and abetting sanctuary by parties in conspiracy with State Defendants and those yet to be
complained that voters within Brooklyn do not have districts drawn with total eligible voters that
named, would be exposed with adequate discovery to have acted to circumvent local zoning
meet the 10% de minimus requirements of the VRA; and that each district is different than NYC
17 18
an the average, and are effected as a result of illegal gerrymandering, and that the senate districts while not conflicting with the law of the land; and that the NYS Board of elections report to the
drawn do not contain assembly districts wholly within as with the Congressional districts too. voters and candidates any change made be at the liability of state defendants who are each ultra
None follow state law guidelines set by the state constitution in regards to the way both the vires by breech of individual fiduciary duty after notice before March 6, 2006. That state
assembly and the senate are drawn. defendants’ motion be denied and that the three judge panel be expedited along with other and
That plaintiff Sacoff of Staten Island along with Mr. Cormier and I are injured by the different relief as necessary.
failure to provide bottom-up home rule in the boroughs and by drawing political districts That I declare under penalty of perjury, that I know the contents of the foregoing thereof;
illegally against express the state constitution using illegal aliens to disproportionately diminish the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on
and dilute voting strength effects the ability of candidates and voters to elect representation and information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs
has infringed voters expectation and voter turnout as a result of illegal redistricting. as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and
That as mentioned above Mr. Bombard is injured by the fact that Hamilton and Fulton records, and personal knowledge.
assembly and senate districts are not shared as with the 1992 redistricting, do not elect together
Dated April 28, 2008
and as a result also injure Mr. Gage in Washington County. Brooklyn New York /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk
_____________________________
That both Ms. Rabenda in Dutchess and Mr. Van Allen in adjoining Ulster are injured CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
accordingly by districts improperly drawn as referenced similarly above and that each sub-
division is without a dedicated voice in the State legislature due to both gerrymandering
misapplication and misadministration of the state constitution and despite decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court as in the WMCA series of cases; and that the Assembly districts in state
subdivisions with diminished population size as with Ulster county require strict use of the
express State Constitution Article III, instead are drawn to serve special interests for questionable
purposes in what may be properly termed an enterprise under the RICO Act.
Wherefore the foregoing reasons I request oral argument on May 16, and that the state
defendants be held under a three judge panel jurisdiction in anticipation of the NYS Board of
Elections to draw the political district maps ordered by the Court and special master by June 1,
2008; and that each political district conform as close as possible to the express state constitution
19 20
Appellant / Plaintiff
08-3242-cv
________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281
Brooklyn New York 11238
(212) 307-4444 email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Appellee / Defendants:

________________________________________________________________________
James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS Board of Directors
Christopher Earl Strunk, United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.
Appellant / Plaintiff, Washington, DC 20260
-versus- by
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS), James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS Benton J. CAMPBELL
Board of Directors; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC); NYC BOARD OF United States Attorney
ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony United States Attorney's Office
Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O’Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Eastern District of New York
Mottola-Schacher, Gregory C. Soumas, Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and 271 Cadman Plaza East
Individually; Brooklyn, NY 11201-1820
Phone: (718) 254-6024
Appellees / Defendants,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC)
New York State Board of Elections, New York State Attorney General, and Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo
the United States Attorney General, NYC Law Department
100 Church Street
Parties-in-interest New York, NY 10007
________________________________________________________________________ NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS

NYC BOE Commissioners
32 Broadway
APPELLANT BRIEF New York, NY 10004.
Parties-in-interest
(errata corrections) Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General
State of New York, Office of the Attorney General
________________________________________________________________________
120 Broadway
New York, NY, 10271
Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq.
pro se without being an attorney
Special Counsel
593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281
New York State Board of Elections
Brooklyn New York 11238
40 Steuben St.
(212) 307-4444 uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
Albany, NY, 12207
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page Page(s)
CASES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................……………………....iii
Federal Authorities:
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..……………………………… 1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)………..3
QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................……………………... 2
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)……………………………….19
x Court Jurisdiction over United States Postal Service under 28 USC 1339 with Issues 1- 4 ….2 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
x Court Jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service agents under Bivens with Issue 5.…2 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)……………………………………………..……………19,
x Court Jurisdiction over the Constitutionality of 39 USC 201 as to the process appointing 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
directors for the “independent” United States Postal Service agents with Issue 6………….……..4 Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966)………………………………………………….……...19
Rodriquez v Pataki USDC SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284)…………………………………10,19
x Ballot Access and Suffrage injury with Issues 7 thru 12………………………………………5
Davis v. Bandemer 478 U.S. 109 (1986)…………………………………………………...……. 19
x Court jurisdiction over the question of first impression of what is Voting Age Population of Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1946)…………………………………………………………..19
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13 n. 16 (1976)……………………………………………..………3
NVRA and HAVA that does affect ballot access and suffrage with Issues 13 thru 15………..…..7
Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 61 n.13 (2d Cir. 1994)…………………………………..……….6
x Court jurisdiction over gerrymander injury to ballot access and suffrage with Issues 16 – 19..8 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
x Court jurisdiction over supplemental injury that must be ancillary to a related case request for Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 652 (1993) ("Shaw I"): voting civil rights involved in redistricting
a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel with Issues 20 thru 21……………………………………........9 Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. ("PRLDEF") v. Gantt et al. EDNY 92 cv
1521 / 92 cv 1776 by minority reapportionment complaints
x Court disparagement of claim of civil rights conspiracy of secret organizations w/ Issue 22..10 Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992): “Usual Residence” definition by 8 Justices
Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973)
STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION......................................………………………10
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .................................………………………11 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................………………………11
Gray v. Sanders, 372 US 368 (1969)
STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................…..………………......12 Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………...18
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
CONCLUSION...........................................…………………...........................................………..20
Article I Section 3 Cl. 4 - Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate…...4
JURAT…………………..………........................................………………...................................20
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
ii iii
Postal Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 7…………………………………………….…………5 x 1965 Voting Rights Act Section 5 review……………………………………..…………9,14,17
Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5 - No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State…5 x Civil Rights Act pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Sections §1983, §1985, §1988…………………..3
Article II: Section 2 Clause 2 - [the President] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and x National Voter Registration Act 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg (NVRA) .................………….2,3,7,13,18
Consent of the Senate,………………………………………………………………………………5 x Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) under postal service treaty with the State of New York,
Article IV Section 2-1: Citizens of each State enjoy equal privileges and immunities………. NYC and NYC Board of Elections for equal protection under 42 USC §1973..……2,3,7,13,18
Article IV Section 4: Guarantee of Republican form of government………………………..….19 x The Hatch Act 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508 for State employees…..2,3
First Amendment: People right to assemble / petition government to redress grievance ………….3 x The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (ch. 27, 22 Stat. 403) of 1883………………………3
Fifth Amendment: no deprivation w/o due process of law…………………………………………3 x the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, (P.L. 92-225), 86 Stat. 3,
Ninth Amendment: certain rights shall not deny/disparage rights retained by People…….……….3 enacted 1972-02-07, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.)……………………………………………….…..3
Tenth Amendment: Powers not granted Federal nor prohibited reserved by People…....................3 x 28 USC §1339…………………………………………………………………………….……3,
Fourteenth Amendment: Citizen due process and equal protection……………………………. x 28 USC §1343 (a) (1) (2) (3) (4); 28 USC §1331; 28 USC §1357.
x 28 USC 2284 for three judge panel……………………………………………….………2,9,10
NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION x 39 U.S.C. § 201 : There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
The amended New York State Constitution branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service………….….4
NYS Constitution Article III Section 4………………………………….…………………………9
Article III the State Legislature Sections 5 ……………………………………………. 8,9 FEDERAL RULES
x USPS Non-profit Standard Mail Rule 703…………………………………………..…..….2,3
NEW YORK STATUTES x 2nd Circuit Rule §.27 - Certification of an Issue to the NYS Court of Appeals……..............20
NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 . sovereignty in the people x Fed. R. Ap. P. (FRAP) R. 34, oral argument in re USPS Non-profit Standard Mail Rule 703
NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Art 5A Section 53 thru 57 x Fed. R. Ap. P. R. 44(a), Constitutional question when USPS is party
NYS Election Law: x Fed. R. Ap. P. R. 44(b), Constitutional challenge to gerrymander by state laws
§1-104(3) for qualifications of state parties
§3-102 (granting the State Board the power to "issue instructions and promulgate rules . . . relating RELATED CASES (Appellant as direct party):
to the administration of the election process," to "direct" that county board procedures be x Rodriquez v Pataki - SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284)
modified, and to "perform such other acts as may be necessary") x Arbor Hill et al. v. Albany County et al. NDNY 03-cv-502 (NAM) and at 2nd Cir 04-9132
§3-104(1) (granting the State Board responsibility for "statutes governing campaigns, elections x Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193………………………………..………2,7
and related procedures") x Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002………………………………2,7,14
§ 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 RELATED APPEAL CASES:
HAVA, EL §6-136(1), EL §6-136(2) (h), EL §6-136(3)………………………………….……….6
§5-602 - voter enrollment list………………………………………………………………..…..…6 Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193 with appeal case 08-4323-cv with an
§6-124 for the Republican Party Judicial Convention to choose Republican Judges………..……..1 emergency motion for expedited hearing of three judge panel issue…………………………11
FEDERAL STATUTES
x 28 U.S.C. § 1291..................................................................................……………..……….1,10
x 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) …………………………….……………………….……3,7,19
iv v
INTRODUCTION action sua sponte as being irrational and frivolous with prejudice, without reaching the merits of
Pro se Appellant, Christopher Earl Strunk (Strunk), below appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. the complaint. That this complaint has supplemental injuries associated with the gerrymandering
§ 1291, with the Notice of Appeal filed 6/30/08 (A-17) from the Order and Civil Judgment of and federal issues related to those alleged in Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193
6/11/08 (A-18) of Judge Allyne R. Ross for the case in the Eastern District of New York along and Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002; both requesting a 28 USC §2284
with the underlying Memorandum and Order of 5/9/08 (A-20) as to the underlying Amended three judge panel on statewide districting.
Complaint (AC) of 08-cv-1744 filed 6/9/08 (A-26). QUESTIONS PRESENTED
That Strunk had filed a T1080 emergency motion for ballot access for the Republican
Court Jurisdiction over United States Postal Service
Primary on September 9, 2008, and other relief 7/3/08 (A-4) that was denied by the Hon. under 28 USC 1339 with Issues 1 thru 4
Barrington D. Parker, Circuit Judge on 7/15/08 (A-3); and that thereafter 2nd Circuit Clerk ISSUE 1: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the conclusive
9/5/08 Order to Show Cause for Dismissal on Default of Appeal Case 08-3242-cv Strunk v presumptive evidence of injury when eligible voter lists are systematically maintained with
USPS (A-1), requires that this Appellant Brief and Appendix annexed be filed on or before between 20% and 35% inactive voters as impacted wrongly by dicta associated with the NVRA
9/19/08 accordingly. and HAVA in which the USPS has a direct duty and authority to act with the NYS BOE and
That Strunk is a legitimate Republican Party Candidate with important issues including: respective local Boards including the NYC BOE to ascertain the actual certification and
the Election Law (EL) §6-124 Judicial Nominating Convention for which Strunk also sought to eligibility of those qualified to vote, and duty failure directly injures and burdens Plaintiff along
be a Republican Delegate from the 57th Assembly District (AD) to be put on the agenda in with those similarly situated.
Albany involving Brooklyn Home rule; various legislative initiatives; preparation for the 2010 ISSUE 2: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon his challenge to
Federal Census that would lead to the 2012 redistricting of all State and U.S. House seats; most the applicability of the Hatch Act 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326 to the USPS in regards to Rule 703 and
importantly for facilitating the 2016 State Constitutional Convention; and therefore, I sought that the USPS in that regard must not be exempt under Section 7324 of the Hatch Act that
ballot access for the September 9, 2008 Primary and November General Elections for election to provides an exemption to the ban on political activities to:
th
the New York State Senate from the extremely gerrymandered political district of the 18 Senate
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
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 . (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
That Strunk had filed the complaint informa pauperis, and that although having been Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be
granted the opportunity to amend the complaint, nevertheless the Judge dismissed the exparte pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
1 2
ISSUE 3: That the Judge erred by dismissing the complaint as to the USPS despite 28 USC Court Jurisdiction over the Constitutionality of 39 USC 201
as to the process appointing directors for
§1339, USPS Board of Directors are a return to the spoils system in that without a meritorious the “independent” United States Postal Service agents with Issue 6
competitive hiring with an appointment system that violates the Pendleton Civil Service Reform ISSUE 6: There is a case of first impression challenging independence of the USPS Directors
Act (ch. 27, 22 Stat. 403) of the year 1883 as the United States federal law that established the from the executive branch appointment that now by advise and consent with the Executive VP as
United States Civil Service Commission, which placed most federal government employees on President of the Senate does not conform with the law for an independent establishment;
the merit system and marked the end of the so-called "spoils system." The act provided for some whereby, control by members of two federal political parties is a matter of misadministration and
government jobs to be filled on the basis of competitive exams. misapplication and or unconstitutionality of 39 U.S.C. § 201 as would apply to appointing
directors.
ISSUE 4: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon his challenge to
When the Congress established the USPS as an independent establishment of the
the applicability of USPS Rule 703 under the Federal Election Campaign Act Among the act's
executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service, it
major features are the creation of the Federal Election Commission and rules concerning
requires unlike that of the Court system as if a fourth branch of government to be separate from
disclosure, public financing, and contribution limits: while the Hatch Act pertains to only the
manipulation by the executive; now in fact is not an independent body from the Executive
Federal workforce, the Federal Election Campaign Act (or FECA) regulates all activities
different than from the Justice Branch must at least have election of all USPS Director of the
associated with federal elections—Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional races.
board by the entire Congress not just the Senate when members are proposed by the Executive:
Court Jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service’s a. Nine members are selected from the Republican and Democratic Party appointed
agents under Bivens with Issue 5
by the President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate only.
ISSUE 5: That the Judge erred by dismissing the complaint as to the USPS despite 28 USC That the activity of the USPS by the very nature of its mandate interferes with interstate
§1339, in that USPS and its agents as of right as against the Director(s) and their agents under commerce, individual rights and directly conflicts with:
Bivens, as of right as under congressional enabling legislation under the NVRA and HAVA Article I Section 3 Clause 4 - The Vice President of the United States shall be President
provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) have violated the 1st, 5th 9th and 10th amendment of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. Means that the vote of the
rights of Plaintiff and those similarly situated, and as a matter of denial of substantive due Senate alone is not independent entirely of the executive requires a votes of the House unlike that
process and equal protection under the law enabled by Congress, Strunk alleges a conspiracy of the Executive officers who serve at the pleasure of the President and of Judges who once
with state action as applies under 42 USC 1983 and 1985. Discovery would have proven such. 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.
3 4
Article 1 Section. 8 Clause 1 that the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect starts at (A-6) therein Petitioner has been injured by denial of ballot access, and is entitled to a
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and certified voting list as required by this court in the appeal case Schulz v. Williams 44 F.3d 48. 6 1 n.
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform 13 (2d Cir.1994). and therein this Court stated that EL Section 5-602 provides in relevant part:
throughout the United States;

"The board of elections shall prepare at least fifty copies of such pamphlet and
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 – that congress has the power to regulate Commerce with 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
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes, not the USPS; 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."
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 ISSUE 8: That the Judge erred in dismissing sua sponte when there is conclusive presumptive
State. – The USPS affects such activity directly. albeit first class mail in the same from every evidence which is rebutable by the NYC BOE misapplication and misadministration of active
state some state sin the matter of USPS Rule 703 burdens some more than others in the elective voters list shown by the facts and allegations asserted in the AC starting at paragraph 23 (A-34).
process in other states, in that the subsidy is not done on upon a per capita basis; and therefore, ISSUE 9: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the alleged facts
singles out and injures political opponents to incumbents of specific smaller State parties. of the Brooklyn BOE office manager denial of access to the active Republican Party voter
Article II: Section 2 Clause 2 - [the President] He shall have Power, by and with the enrollment, alleged at AC paragraphs 54 through 59 (A-40).
Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present ISSUE 10: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon unlawful denial
concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall of enrollment and voter list at the cost of reproduction alleged at AC paragraphs 59 (A-41).
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all ISSUE 11: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the NYC BOE
other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, denial of a certified enrollment and voters list on digital media at the cost of production of $1
and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of cost of a CD.
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the ISSUE 12: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the
Heads of Departments. constitutionality issue of capping signatures for those State Parties while burdening minor or
Ballot Access and Suffrage injury with Issues 7 thru 12 smaller State Parties with significantly more signatures under the 5% of enrollment rule related
ISSUE 7: The Judge erred in dismissing when there is conclusive evidence of speech and to EL §5-304 (3), EL §5-210(g), EL §5-604, EL §5-606 in which certification of lists apply to
association injury from the burden imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents, as NVRA and HAVA, EL §6-136(1), EL §6-136(2) (h), EL §6-136(3).
complained of in AC. See paragraph 43 (A-13) in Strunk’s Affidavit in Support of Relief that
5 6
Court jurisdiction over the question of first impression of what is Court jurisdiction over gerrymander injury to ballot access and suffrage
Voting Age Population under NVRA and HAVA with Issues 16 thru 19.
that does affect ballot access and suffrage with Issues 13 thru 15.
ISSUE 16: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon an ongoing
ISSUE 13: That the matter of Voting Age Population (VAP) used by the HAVA, has been
conclusive presumption of gerrymandering injury in that the 57th AD is subdivided by the 18th
misconstrued by bad actors to mean all persons of Voting Age rather than all persons qualified
SD that imposes an unreasonable burden upon petitioner's ability for ballot access as the
under law to vote; and under Federal Law as well as State Law that means only those qualified to
Republican Party Judicial Convention delegate from the 57th AD, and that when the 57th AD is
vote, which is at the center of the controversy burdening Plaintiff herein; and remains a question
not wholly within the 18th SD as required by the New York State Constitution Article 3 Section
of first impression complained of in the case Loeber v. Spargo in NDNY 04-cv-1193 now on
5, quote:
appeal from an order to dismiss and is related to the supplemental injury to plaintiff herein. The
“Assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be
two cases are inseparable and have interlocking issues yet to be heard by a three-judge panel. of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable, each of which
shall be wholly within a senate district."
That the VAP issue as a matter of first impression has been alleged in Loeber et al. v.
"In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts
Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193 and Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002; shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be evenly divided
among the senate districts of any county."
however, has never been heard on the merits of the injury involved, should be heard herein,
ISSUE 17: That the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing with evidence that the 18th SD
especially since the matter has been discussed in the affirmative in the appeal case Kalson v.
does not have a minimum number of ADs wholly within as required by the State Constitution for
Patterson U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit No. 07-1243-cv with a decision issued 9/9/08.
mandatory equal protection, that provides AD residents a reasonable expectation to unify the AD
.ISSUE 14: That the Judge fails to guarantee Petitioner’s equal treatment of fundamental rights
with the adjoining ADs to effect control over the respective corresponding senator .
as applies to Citizens of each State for suffrage and autonomy excluding non-citizens, who
ISSUE 18: That the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing despite evidence that the 18th SD
absolutely have no right to vote; and therefore, aren’t part of the Voting Age Population at all.
does not have the same number of ADs wholly within equal to the other existing SDs within
ISSUE 15: That the Judge fails to recognize that Petitioner is a member of the Voting Age
Brooklyn as a matter of equal treatment and burden upon petitioner and those similarly situated
Population that by gerrymandering, varies wildly from one district to the next, suffers from
as a gerrymandering injury. That in regards to the Strunk Affidavit in support of relief from
Disproportionate Diminished Dilution of voting power, notwithstanding total persons, within
paragraph 13 on A-8 that in general as to gerrymandering injury, is shown starting at A-63,
any total population district as a result of mechanistic malfeasant dicta set forth under the VRA.
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
7 8
23rd SD has portions of 6 ADs; at A-74, a part of the 25th SD has portions of 4 ADs; and at A- ISSUE 21: This case is dispositive to the related case Loeber v. Spargo in that facts associated
75, the 27th SD has portions of 9 ADs.. with the injury support the claim here, that there is a substantial issue for creation of a three
ISSUE 19: That the Judge erred in dismissing when there is prima facie evidence of Judge Panel and requires a narrow interpretation of the State Constitution and related remedies
misapplication and misadministration of the State Constitution Article III Section 4 as to available to a Federal judge as created under Baker v Carr, and Karcher v. Daggett that kept
redistricting of Senate. and as directly coincides with Article III Section 5 for Assembly home-rule state political Boundaries when drawing districts.
redistricting, related to county home rule as well as to U.S. House seats that shall be drawn
Court disparagement of claim of civil rights conspiracy of
together and have from the April 2002 redistricting, notwithstanding any pre clearance process secret organizations with Issue 22.
under the limited purpose of the Voting Rights pre-clearance process for which any seat within a
ISSUE 22: The judge erred when it characterized as irrational and frivolous the claim that asserts
Voting Rights Act (VRA) covered county specifically dealing with home rule boundaries without
there is an underlying civil rights conspiracy to deprive rights involving the York and Scottish
recognizing the interrelation of the two branches of the state legislature and House seats, that
Rite Freemasonry of the Free and Accepted Fraternity of Masonry operating with those of the
mindlessly calculates an arbitrary guidelines without proof of any injury 40 years after some
Sovereign Military Order of Malta in conjunction with State action based upon available history.
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
STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION
control using backroom computer programmers for redistricting.
Certainly Circuit has jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 USC 1291; and in regards
That Justice Rehnquist in the decision for the case Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725
to whether or not the District Court has jurisdiction over these above matters it clearly does and
(1983), stated that county political boundary lines are a legitimate concern in districting and that
that as to the ancillary matter of the supplemental injury associated with the request for a three
even with total population being equal, voters may be effectively disenfranchised and chosen by
judge panel this case absolutely does apply to the jurisdiction that the district judge would have
an incumbent using a sophisticated computer program; and that the Justice refers to New York as
under 28 USC 2284. However, herein it gets complicated by related cases. Circuit must have
traditionally cunning in that regard.
jurisdiction at this point to resolve this complicated matter. Especially since the related case
Court jurisdiction over supplemental injury that must be ancillary to a related case decision shown at A-123 alleges such a request is insubstantial uses the WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo,
request for a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel with Issues 20 thru 21
377 U.S. 633 (1964) and Rodriquez v Pataki SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284) too broadly; and
ISSUE 20: That the Judge erred even when notified of the supplemental injury affected by the
needs review herein whether in a panel on the same day or jointly since Strunk is also a Plaintiff.
related case request for a 28 USC 2284 panel; must be seen as ancillary to such actions.
9 10
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 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
When I got the fax from Circuit Emergency Motion Counsel on July 16, 2008, evidenced
was one of three plaintiffs in a matter in which they sued the Federal Reserve Bank and some
by the date stamp on the faxed page shown at A-2, I was not aware that on the same day there
very lofty defendants. The plaintiffs in their first complaint were granted copious amounts of
had been a Schedule issued requiring that I had to provide my brief by 8/15/08. I don’t remember
time and energy by the magnanimous court including all parties in a phone conference for as
seeing any such paper and I get a lot of legal paper and realize how important it is. I have all my
much as two hours; wherein, the judge made every effort for the minority plaintiffs. However,
mail delivered to my facility where it may take service. However, because I have been working
district ordered Plaintiffs to amend the complaint. Thereafter, because I was a party in interest to
up in Massachusetts last week, I did not receive the OSC date 9/5/08 shown at A-1 until
the outcome, I joined in the amended complaint, which eliminated defendants as the court
Wednesday whereby I am to deliver my brief by 9/19/08 or else. I did not start to work on this
requested, but kept the Federal Reserve Bank and the lofty defendants, and the case was
brief and appendix until Wednesday afternoon and as such it is both abbreviated and possibly
dismissed with prejudice; and that we had no money to launch an appeal.
will go without response by respondents; and therefor whether or not I am able to Reply per se to
I have been at this for a long time and I am well aware for how everything works. But as
a non response is also up in the air.
a pro se litigant whose every effort is to save this state by using every opportunity including
Therefore, I believe it essential that I be allowed both a reply to a non response; and
running for office with little or no funds is what I have to do; and that I should not be penalized
furthermore, be granted the opportunity for oral argument even if respondents do not appear, and
for having no funds under the conditions that I am subjected to here in this particular district
that I be granted an extended oral argument time at the hearing, to be expedited to occur before
where I reside. If I were to have money or be a minority and have an attorney, I would get better
the election in November 2008, and on the same day before the same panel as that of the appeal
process and hearing; however, haven’t and rather than commiserate the merits or circuit dislike
with an expedited emergency three judge matter before it in Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in
of pro se cases, which should be apparent, I merely request my day in court as if I had money.
NDNY 04-v-1193 with appeal case 08-4323-cv with an emergency motion for expedited hearing
STATEMENT OF FACTS
of three judge panel issue
There is a statement of a series of facts stated both in the Amended Complaint starting at
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A-26 and in the Strunk Support Affidavit for emergency relief starting at A-6. I am not going to
This is not a simple informa pauperis case of an inexperienced pro se litigant as the
repeat all the facts since District hasn’t seen them, and since the ballot access effort is moot for
record will show. This is also not the first time that I have had a case before Judge Ross, who in
this year; however, injury is not moot, will repeat time and time again, and must be corrected.
fact has three such cases that under the district dicta to assign a judge to a pro se and poor
1. I am an active voter within the New York 57th Assembly District (AD) and NY 18th
person. I am hit with an additional burden because I am involved in issues that no bread and
Senate District (SD) created in April 2002.
11 12
2. I am an enrolled New York State Republican Party member actively seeking ballot access state and localities deal with the voting lists without oversight of the EAC and DOJ, can get more
as the Republican Candidate for election to the 18th S D and as a Republican Party Delegate or money by maintaining false listing in exchange for Federal dollars, in part is what the Forjone et
th
alternate from the 57 AD to the Republican Party Judicial Nominating Convention at the al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002 case is about, and in which I am a plaintiff; the end
September 9, 2008 and or General Election of November 4, 2008. result is an inaccurate enrollment list with up to 30% or more false names of the dead, moved,
3. For a state candidate in a district which the local state party in very small and in the homeless, duplicates and or outright illegal alien or say felons and the excluded included.
minority, That the basis to get a candidate on the ballot is to collect designating petition 9. I performed a series of mailings that prove such facts, and because it is all done by the
signatures equal to 5% of the respective state party enrollment list within a political district. USPS, provides presumptive evidence that gives me standing for the complaint to go forward.
4. However, the dominant State Party has benefited by gerrymandering, and in this case is 10. Because the effort for ballot access was ongoing, the Judge never saw the evidence
the Democratic Party that doesn’t have to get 5% of the enrollment; because, the signatures are gained by my campaign and petition activity, represent supplemental facts to the amended
cappped on signatures for membership over a certain size. There is a serious ballot access complaint filed June 9, 2008.
problem for challengers especially when the enrollment lists are inflated 30% illegally as is 11. In the Strunk Affidavit in support of emergency relief (A-6) there is a chart of the 66
going on statewide, and can only be confirmed by the discovery process under subpoena. USPS Returned Mailings within the 57th AD of the 18th SD (see A-99) compiled based upon 420
5. I am the challenger to anyone not a citizen to keep them from participating illegally in individual mailings posted with the USPS from June 6, 2008 through June 18, 2008, and
elections unlike a majority of Democrats and past President like Mr. Clinton and the current crop delivered by the USPS to active Republican Party members of the 57" AD in the 18th SD with a
of open border, ‘let them all in’, presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle. conformed copy of the Designating Petition (shown at A-86 thru A-88) mailed out with a return
6. I have credentials in fighting vote fraud and am associated with controversial people in envelope addressed to petitioner sender campaign for the candidacies.
that regard including my good friend the Honorable Robert K. Dornan as referenced at A-91 thru 12. That there is prima facie evidence of misapplication and misadministration of the State
A-96. Constitution Article 3 Section 4 as to redistricting of Senate, Assembly, and House seats from
7. When a challenger to any incumbent especially within a party has no money or very little the April 2002 redistricting, and must be notwithstanding any pre clearance process under the
money to wage an expensive campaign and petition effort, then the USPS becomes essential for Voting Rights Act (VRA) or review performed by the US Department of Justice.
mailing which is the least expensive and most efficient way to seek office; and given the fact that 13. There is conclusive presumptive evidence that is rebutable by the NYC BOE
the 18th SD involvement is enormous and would involve expenditure of an inordinate amount of misapplication and misadministration of active voters list.
time without an accurate certified enrollment list. The USPS Rule 703 is a burden. 14. There is conclusive evidence of speech and association injury as a result of the burden
8. Since enactment of the NVRA and the fallout from HAVA operates so that when the imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents.
13 14
15. That under USPS Rule 703 for Non-profit Standard Mailing rates, as relates to any being: 11- NDAA, 13- ANK, 3-FTE and 1 VAC; and is a questionable return rate of 28 percent
challenger or voter's expectation of reasonable effectiveness in participation in suffrage, is wherein the USPS is unable to deliver.
absolutely a component part of petitioner’s ballot access actions and a voter’s right to know at 20. A 28% return rate for a multiple Republican Party member single households is counter
the mail box, as such voter injury is compounded as a result of the gerrymandering done intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.
16. Of the 110 pieces of mail sent on June 6.2008 to the Republican Party County Committee 21. Of the combined 210 or so pieces of mail sent on June 17 and 18, 2008 to the Republican
th
members with addresses posted by the Republican Party in October 2007 for the 57 AD Party members within the 57th AD intersection with the 18th SD, all recipients were chosen
th
intersection with the 18 SD, listed on Exhibit D-5 page 4 through page 6 (A-81 thru A-83), 12 randomly within a single household, and of that total listed on Exhibit E (A-99) are listed from
of 110 pieces were returned by the USPS. were: 1-FTE, 3 -Am, and 8- IA and as such is a Line item 41 through 66 as returned with the remark subtotal for the 26 returns being I0-NDAA,
questionable return rate of say 11 percent unable to deliver. 9- ANK, I -FTE. 2-lA. 1 -NSS, 1 -NSN. 1 -UNK. 1 –UR (Unknown return); and as such is a
17. That the Republican Party list of County committee members intentionally do not provide questionable return rate of say 13 percent, wherein the USPS is unable to deliver for petitioner to
an adequate address sufficient to deliver notice to the County Committee members of petitioner's obtain ballot access with signatures.
candidacy with the 110 pieces sent using the USPS, and as compared to the address list provided 22. A 13% return rate for those single Republican Party members in a single household is
by the NYC BOE date June 9, 2007 used for mailing 310 pieces to those Republican party counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.
members other than the County Committee, and; whereas, of the total pieces 8 of 110 were IA as 23. That because the NYC BOE list of June 9, 2007 used to make the 310 mailings within the
th
opposed to only 2 - IA of 310 pieces referenced below; and furthermore. as shown at line item 1 57 AD intersection within the 18th SD have certified presumption by the NYC BOE as valid
through 4 on Exhibit E (A-99) the County Committee listed were not even designated by the Republican Party active voters any USPS return is questionable.
NYC BOE list of June 9, 2007 with a Voter ID. 24. That under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America
18. An 11% return rate for official Republican Party county committee members is counter to Voter Act of 2002 (HAVA) the USPS and NYC BOE have a fiduciary responsibility to do all
intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation. due process involved to verify active voting registration and or enrollment by mail. including any
19. Of the 100 or so pieces of mail sent on June 16, 2008 to the Republican party members change of address or as otherwise known as motor voter registration complained of by petitioner.
within the 57th AD in the 18th SD all recipients were chosen based upon the multiple number of 25. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers 13 through
party members within a single household (available to no less than say 250 Republican party 66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of
members available to sign a designating petition). and of that total listed on Exhibit E (A-99), are irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list.
listed from Line item 13 through 40 as returned pieces of mail with the USPS remarks, total 28 26. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E(A-99) line item numbers 13 through
15 16
66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of ARGUMENT
irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list and or failure of fiduciary duty of the USPS Ballot access and the active right to associate involved in party building within a political
and or its agents. district depends upon equal protection of the law for ballot access at the primary and general
27. That the results of the 12 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers 1 through 12 election. Equal ballot access is outrageously missing in my district and throughout NYC and
designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of statewide because of the significant difference of VAP and the referenced arbitrary rule for
irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list to check and certify the Republican County capping rather than getting 5% of district enrollment that varies from one district to the next;
Committee members on file with the NYC BOE. varies as much as 40% below to 40% above the mean eligible voters within the state and federal
28. That the results of the 1 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers I through 66 districts- that is a fact and as such greatly impacts the primary and general election process.
designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of Wealth must not be a standard to run for office, every method must be available for me.
irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list and possible voter fraud that would support a The USPS and an accurate voting enrollment list are essential and the provision of that list has
order allowing for inspection of the original voting buff cards of elections going back to no later broken down as one based upon partisan gain and money. The USPS has a fiduciary duty under
than 2002. NVRA and HAVA to work and coordinate with the NYC BOE and others to guarantee accurate
29. That there is prima facie evidence of misapplication and misadministration of the State enrollment lists and that process has broken down when partisan greed inflates the lists and
Constitution Article 3 Section 4 as to redistricting of Senate. Assembly and House seats from the
USPS returns are ignored for the purpose of filing false claims with the state and federal
April 2002 redistricting, notwithstanding any pre clearance process under the Voting Rights Act
government in hopes of HAVA and other funding. Inflated lists injure me and my party.
(VRA) or review performed by the US Department of Justice.
That NYC Defendants are ultra vires under the State Constitution Article 3, and act with
30. There is conclusive presumptive evidence which is rebutable by the NYC BOE
the USPS and its’ agents by operation of the NVRA and HAVA are culpable herein and are
misapplication and misadministration of active voters list.
operating together in conspiracy as applies herein as if under the Bivens case decision by the US
31. There is conclusive evidence of speech and association injury as a result of the burden
Supreme Court. Petitioner is without a constitutionally mandated Senate, Assembly and
imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents.
Congressional District as apply to the mandatory relationship to the component ADs that must be
32. That under USPS Rule 703 for Non-profit Standard Mailing rates as relates to any challenger
wholly within the respective senate district, and that based upon the breach of NYC BOE
or voter's expectation of reasonable effectiveness in participation in suffrage is absolutely a
fiduciary duty and social contract as applies, both segregate active voters and without
component part of petitioner’s ballot access and right to know at the mail box as a voter compounded
ascertaining citizen status of active voters, and that petitioner is under imminent threat of injury
as a result of the gerrymandering injury.
from alien(s) voting with impunity by inaccurate voting lists; and that Petitioner has no other
17 18
means for relief available and has expended all options and is entitled to expedited suffrage We already know the answer, but we have a right to know whether or not the court
protection herein. The arguments used by the Judges in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. considers the state constitution has been nullified in its entirety by the WMCA, Reynolds v Sims,
Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) Kalson v. Patterson U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit No. 07- Rodriguez decisions and whether or not this court considers our citizen right to a republican form
1243-cv decision issued September 9, 2008 are germane herein. of government under the 9th amendment to Federal constitution continues. Nowhere in any
Since the Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), federal case to date has there been any expression that would give anyone other than a state
decision have changed the gross aspects of disenfranchisement, there has developed a more citizen who is also a USA citizen over 17 years of age the right to suffrage and when otherwise
insidious form of disenfranchisement that requires knowledge and intelligence to detect. The construed disparages that right protected by the 14th Amendment.
decision in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), regarding the inadequacy of equal total CONCLUSION
population that then discriminates against actual voters within a district and between districts Although the issues in this appeal are broad and complicated they are all related and are
must be revisited herein and within the lens of the Justices in the cases Burns v. Richardson, 384 festering. This case must be remanded to district to incorporate the supplemental injury that is
U.S. 73 (1966), Davis v. Bandemer 478 U.S. 109 (1986), Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1946), accruing since the June 11, 2008 order to dismiss. Discovery must proceed and a decision on the
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13 n. 16 (1976), that give a glimpse of the problem now existing constitutionality of the above referenced issues settled either in district or for economy of the
big time in New York state, the land of computers and greed. calendar by a fully briefed presentation to a hot court here in Circuit and if deemed under 2nd
In the matter of districting related herein, the narrow decision of Rodriquez v Pataki Circuit Rule §.27 for Certification of an Issue to the NYS Court of Appeals. I believe my
SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284), in which I was an intervener told to start a new case separate requests are reasonable and sound within good jurisprudence- however unique they may seem. I
and apart from it did so in the Loeber Case, and all Plaintiffs and those similarly are suffering also request that the hearing of the gerrymandering and ballot access issues be heard on the same
from the underlying problem affecting us all statewide since the 1962 districting is WMCA, Inc. v day for oral argument before the same panel for economy of the court’s time.
Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964); that it must be revisited as a narrow decision not in the sweeping
Respectfully submitted and certified to be true under penalty of perjury,
one that it was thought to be, that has thrown with improper use the baby out with the bathwater
Dated: September 19, 2008 /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk
has eliminated one problem in favor of another. Although no court since Justice Taney in Luther Brooklyn, New York ________________________
v. Borden (1842) has taken on the heart of the issue that in all the cases is denial of a republican
Respectfully submitted conformed brief corrected and certified true under penalty of perjury,
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 Dated: September 29, 2008 /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk
Brooklyn, New York ________________________
rule county who in no less than 47 counties are without a dedicated voice in the NYS legislature.
19 20
Table of Contents for Appeal 08-3242-cv Pages
08-3242-cv
________________________________________________________________________
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
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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
Christopher Earl Strunk,
Judge Ross’ Memorandum and Order of 5/9/08……………….A-20
Appellant / Plaintiff, Amended Complaint of 08-cv-1744 filed 6/9/08………………A-26
Letter of Transmittal of Amended Complaint of 6/8/08……….A-98
-versus-
USPS Returned Mailings within the 57th AD / 18th SD………..A-99
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS), James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS NYC BOE- June 9, 2007 Active Voter List extract within
Board of Directors; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC); NYC BOARD OF Within the 57th AD / 18th SD……………………………A-100
ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony
Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O’Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Endorsed Republican Party Designating Petition of 6/16/08…A-101
Mottola-Schacher, Gregory C. Soumas, Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and 2nd Circuit’s Summary Order of 8/15/05 in re Loeber v Spargo
Individually; 04-5720-cv remanding to NDNY 04-cv-1193………….A-102
Appellees / Defendants, 2nd Circuit’s Order of 1/24/06 in re Loeber v Spargo
05-6536-cv granting poor person relief……..………….A-106
New York State Board of Elections, New York State Attorney General, and Judge Arcara’s Decision and Order of 8/14/06 transferring
the United States Attorney General,
Forjone v US EAC et al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 to
Parties-in-interest 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
APPENDIX 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
pro se without being an attorney NYS AAG’s 8/18/08 Letter Opposing Reconsideration of
593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281 The 7/31/08 Order dismissing Loeber v Spargo.………A-135
Brooklyn New York 11238 Judge Kahn’s Order of 9/10/08 affirming dismissal of
(212) 307-4444 uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
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
Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 14-3 Filed 08/06/2009 Page 17 of 21
Albany, N.Y.: Timesunion.com - Print Story Page 1 of 2 Albany, N.Y.: Timesunion.com - Print Story Page 2 of 2
Blatchly testified that Spargo then called him on his cell phone on Dec. 19, 2003. He
said the judge boasted he would be returning to Ulster County in 2004 and would
Convicted ex-judge is disbarred handle Blatchly's cases. In addition, he testified, the judge revealed that Spargo's close
Spargo forbidden from practicing law, removed from roll of attorneys friend, Albany County Surrogates Court Judge Cathryn Doyle, was expected to preside
¬
over Blatchly's divorce from his now ex-wife.
Staff reports
First published: Friday, December 4, 2009
Thomas J. Spargo, the former state Supreme Court judge convicted in August of trying
to shake down lawyers and solicit a $10,000 bribe to pay his mounting legal bills, has
been disbarred.
The Appellate Division of state Supreme court accepted Spargo's resignation Thursday,
ordering his disbarment and that his name be removed from the roll of attorneys.
He is also forbidden from practicing law in any way, including working as a clerk or
employee of anyone in the legal field.
The court's action is not unexpected; Spargo's conviction in U.S. District Court was
expected to trigger his disbarment.
When he is sentenced Dec. 21, Spargo faces a maximum of 20 years in prison for his
attempted extortion and a maximum of 10 years for the attempted bribery conviction,
federal sentencing guidelines would likely result in lesser penalties. Spargo's attorney,
E. Stewart Jones, has said he believes his client faces a criminal sentence that will
range from probation to three years.
The disbarment completed the downfall of a once pre-eminent election law attorney
later ousted from the state Supreme Court bench.
Spargo, 66, a prominent East Berne Republican, supported George W. Bush in Florida
following the disputed 2000 presidential election. He also earned a reputation as one of
the nation's top election lawyers.
But Spargo's legal troubles mounted when a state committee earlier this decade
launched an investigation to remove him from the bench.
At the federal trial, the government proved Spargo tried to extort attorneys to offset
his legal costs, including Bruce Blatchly, an Ulster County lawyer with more than 32
years of experience, who had eight cases before the judge. Spargo solicited a $10,000
bribe from Blatchly on Nov. 13, 2003. But when the attorney declined to pay up,
Spargo pressured him again through a friend, identified as attorney Sanford
Rosenblum, in the coat room of a Kingston restaurant, the government said in court
papers.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=873356 12/30/2009 http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=873356 12/30/2009
Ex-Judge Disbarred Following Conviction NYLJ - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 1 Former Judge Sentenced to 27 Months for Attempted Extortion NYLJ.com - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 1
Ex-Judge Disbarred Following Conviction NYLJ Friday, December 4, 2009 1:09 AM Former Judge Sentenced to 27 Months for Attempted Extortion NYLJ.com
From: "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> Monday, December 21, 2009 4:50 PM
To: "Richard Winger" <richardwinger@yahoo.com> From: "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>
To: richardwinger@yahoo.com
Ex-Judge Disbarred Following Conviction

An Appellate Division, Third Department, yesterday formally disbarred Thomas J. Spargo, the ex-Supreme
Court justice convicted in August of trying to extract payments from attorneys practicing before him to help
pay the legal fees he was incurring during a battle with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The
Free Breaking News: Former Judge Sentenced to 27 Months
disbarment was based on Mr. Spargo's resignation from the bar following his conviction in Northern District for Attempted Extortion
federal court on counts of attempted extortion and soliciting a bribe (NYLJ, Aug. 28). The disbarment of Mr. Joel Stashenko
Spargo, 66, is for a minimum of seven years. He will be free to apply for reinstatement starting in late
2016.
12-22-2009
ALBANY - Former state Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. Spargo was sentenced today
Mr. Spargo faces sentencing on Dec. 21 before Northern District Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Though facing as to 27 months in federal prison for attempting to extort donations from lawyers doing
many as 30 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000, sentencing guidelines suggest a range of between
business in the upstate court where he sat.
probation and 3½ years. His attorney, E. Stewart Jones of Troy, has maintained that the filing of an appeal
of his conviction by the former judge will likely depend on the sentence he receives. Matter of Spargo Northern District Judge Gary Sharpe said that, whether through "venality" or "misplaced
appears on page 6 of the print edition of today's Law Journal. — Joel Stashenko exuberance," Mr. Spargo was responsible for attempting to secure contributions of up to
$10,000 from local lawyers for a fund to pay Mr. Spargo's legal defenses during the ex-
judge's bitter dispute over campaign activities with the Commission on Judicial Conduct
"This is extortion," Judge Sharpe told Mr. Spargo. "This is threatening people who
appeared before you with harm."
Judge Sharpe continued, "For a judge, there is nothing more reprehensible."
Mr. Spargo, 66, of East Berne, Albany County, faced a maximum prison sentence of
between 33 months and 41 months for his federal conviction in August of attempted
bribery and soliciting a bribe (NYLJ, Aug. 28).
Judge Sharpe said he was departing somewhat from federal sentencing guidelines
because Mr. Spargo did not appear to have engaged in any "systematic" or "concerted"
criminal enterprise.
Mr. Spargo was a Supreme Court justice from 2002 until his removal in 2006 on the
recommendation of the conduct commission.
Mr. Spargo's attorney, E. Stewart Jones of Troy, said the former judge would serve, at
most, 85 percent of his 27-month sentence and that he would recommend that Mr.
Spargo spend his time at a minimum-security federal penitentiary closest to the Albany
area.
Mr. Jones said that Mr, Spargo would not appeal his conviction.
http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=11&fid=%2540S%2540Search... 12/30/2009 http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=7&fid=%2540S%2540Search&... 12/30/2009

Indy Battle In 20th CD Goes To Court - Capitol Confidential - New York Politics - times... Page 1 of 2 Indy Battle In 20th CD Goes To Court - Capitol Confidential - New York Politics - times... Page 2 of 2
Florida presidential recount at which Sweeney earned his nickname from

Indy Battle In 20th CD Goes To Court - Capitol Confidential - New York Politics - timesunion.com - President Bush: Congressman Kickass. Among the many issues that came up in
Albany NY the year’s leading up to his removal from the bench was his political
Wednesday, December 30, 2009 5:50 PM activism (in his case, Republican), in which judges are not supposed to
From: "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> engage.
To: "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com>
Sorry…Back to the 20th CD.
Spargo filed a lawsuit challenging Gillibrand’s petitions in state Supreme

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/1754/indy-battle-in-20th-cd-goes Court in Saratoga County – a move Long said he found suspicious (he called
-to-court/ it “judge shopping,” noting that all the Saratoga Couty judges are
Indy Battle In 20th CD Goes To CourtJuly 28, 2006 at 3:54 pm by Elizabeth Republicans) – since elections cases are typically filed in Albany County
Benjamin where the state Board of Elections is located (and also where there are more
Republican U.S. Rep. John Sweeney’s campaign has successfully knocked Democratic judges).
Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand off the Independence Party line, for which both
candidates were vying. Long, meanwhile, filed his suit regarding Sweeney’s Wilson-Pakula in Albany
County and, via the judge wheel, ended up with state Supreme Court Justice
But Gillibrand’s camp isn’t giving up yet; they’re headed to court next week Joseph Teresi, who is a Democrat.
to challenge Sweeney’s Independence Party Wilson-Pakula.
For more on that Wilson-Pakula issue, which is a bit complicated, click
If Gillibrand loses this fight, Sweeney will not only be able to save money here.
by avoiding a primary battle, but he’ll also have one more ballot line
(R,C,I) than she does (D, WFP) come November. Long’s suit is scheduled to be in court Monday; Spargo’s on Tuesday. The
state Board of Elections commissioners are scheduled to rule Wednesday on
If she wins, the candidates will be evenly matched at two lines apiece, at objections filed in various races statewide, so the 20th CD court battles
worst. At best, she’ll get the Indy line herself, although that seems a might be put off untilÂ after that occurs.Â
longshot at this point.
Gillibrand’s attorney, the seemingly-ubiquitous Jim Long, said Sweeney’s

attorney, Thomas Spargo, an elections law expert who was booted off the
state Supreme Court bench in May, had successfully challenged enough of her
1,230 petition signatures at the state Board of Elections yesterday to put
her about 70 names short of the 873 threshold.
Long, who used to work for the state Senate Democrats, said he managed to
get about 20 of the names reinstated, but Gillibrand’s still roughly 50
short. He’s thinking of challenging the Sweeney camp’s challenges in court.
At particular issue, Long said,Â is the part of New York’s arcane Election
Law that requiresÂ signers to write the town or city in which they live, NOT
the hamlet or village.
Trouble is, most people don’t know about this little foible, which was also
a bigÂ issue back in 2000 when New York GOP leaders (read Gov. George Pataki
& Co.) unsuccessfully sought to keep U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Az, and Steve
Forbes off the Republican presidential primary ballot as a favor to then
Texas Gov. George W. Bush.
Interestingly, Spargo represented Forbes when he was struggling to get on

New York’s presidential ballot back in 1996.
Spargo, who used to represent the state GOP, goes way back with Sweeney.
Both men took part in the now-infamous demonstrations during the 2000
Pyramid Companies -- Company History - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 6 Pyramid Companies -- Company History - Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of 6
six days a week. Congel enjoys fierce loyalty from his lieutenants by
Pyramid Companies -- Company History Wednesday, December 30, 2009 5:54 PM
lending them money to buy ownership stakes in the projects on which they
From: "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> work. As a result Pyramid is a nest of partnerships between Congel, his
To: "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com> associates, and local ownership groups, with Congel reportedly owning from
50 percent to 90 percent of each project. In recent years he and Pyramid
have become preoccupied with a project dubbed DestiNY USA, a megamall
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Pyramid-Companies-Company-H tourist attraction to grow out of an existing Pyramid mall in Syracuse.
istory.html DestiNY USA, unless scaled back, would be larger than Minnesota's Mall of
America and feature 400 stores, 30 restaurants and cafés, 20 movie screens,
Pyramid Companies two Broadway-style theaters, and a concert hall. If as successful as Pyramid
studies indicate, DestiNY USA will draw more visitors than San Francisco,
Get 50 expert sample business plans and put your great idea down on paper! New Orleans, or Disneyland.
Find Angel Investors in your area Forming Pyramid Companies in 1968
Congel worked as a laborer for his father's small Syracuse construction

Address: company before striking out on his own. In 1968 he teamed up with two
4 Clinton Square like-minded young men in the area, Michael J. Falcone and Joseph T. Scuderi,
Syracuse, New York 13202 and formed Pyramid. The company grew slowly in the beginning, its first
U.S.A. major break coming when it was awarded a $13,000 contract to lay sewer pipe.
Looking to become involved in more lucrative ventures, Congel contacted
Telephone: (315) 422-7000 Simon Property Group, an Indianapolis mall developer, which, ironically,
Fax: (315) 422-2717 would one day become involved in the building of the Mall of America. The
Simons essentially gave Congel a two-day seminar on the principles of the
shopping center/mall business, teaching him about the design and building of
Statistics: a structure as well as the financial aspects. Pyramid then began to develop
Private Company shopping centers in upstate New York, the first property opening in 1973. By
Incorporated: 1968 1976 the company developed 22 shopping centers, as well as a few office
Employees: 400 buildings and a project for Syracuse University. At this point the partners
Sales: $30 million (2002 est.) split, with Congel looking to focus on the development of shopping malls and
NAIC: 233320 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction his partners more interested in the office market. All three men became
leading developers in the upstate New York area.
Key Dates: Over the next dozen years Congel and Pyramid built a dozen malls in New York
1968: Pyramid Companies is established by Robert J. Congel and partners. and Massachusetts. According to a 1988 Boston Globe profile of the company,
1973: The first shopping center opens. "Along the way, the Pyramid Companies established a reputation not only as
1985: Pyramid is embroiled in Poughkeepsie elections. the biggest and fastest-growing builder of shopping malls around, but also
1990: Carousel Center opens in Syracuse. as a corporate operator--aggressive, prolific and proud of it. One company
1998: Congel attempts to sell properties. executive referred to Pyramid's squadrons of young executives as 'the Green
2000: Congel is sued by eight minority partners. Berets of mall-building.'" Drawn from top colleges and recruited by
headhunters, Pyramid employed young lawyers and M.B.A.s willing to work
whatever hours were necessary to complete a project. While associates
Company History: operating out of the Syracuse headquarters were required to attend a daily
Pyramid Companies is the leading developer of shopping malls in the work meeting at 6:30 a.m., those in the field had to be on the construction
northeastern United States, concentrating on secondary markets. The company site at 5:30 a.m. in order to make their reports to the main office. It was
operates out of Syracuse, New York, birthplace of its charismatic and often an intense, fast-paced work environment that left little time for a social
controversial managing partner, Robert J. Congel. His personal worth is life, but generally it was only people who already possessed the necessary
estimated by Forbes magazine to be $700 million, making him the 364th devotion and drive who were hired by Pyramid. Legions of Pyramid-trained
wealthiest person in the country. Pyramid is known as an aggressive company lawyers and developers went on to establish their own companies around the
that operates within the letter but not necessarily the spirit of the law, country, most of whom professed gratitude to Congel for his crash course in
according to some critics. It also has become a breeding ground for aspiring business.
entrepreneurs and developers, a business boot camp of sorts that requires
young associates to attend daily 6:30 a.m. meetings and to work long hours Less enthusiastic about Congel, however, were many individuals in the

communities where Pyramid developed its malls, primarily environmentalists candidates for the Poughkeepsie Town Board in October 1985 to tell them that
and small business owners. Part of the Pyramid method was not only to target the Republican State Committee was going to provide strong support for their
secondary markets where a new mall could thrive but also to identify parcels campaigns because of the strategic importance of Poughkeepsie, situated
of inexpensive land on which to locate the structure. All too often that between New York City and the state capital of Albany. What he failed to
meant selecting environmentally sensitive land or brownfields. According to tell them was that he was also in the employ of Pyramid, which proceeded to
a 1998 Business West article describing the company's operations, "Pyramid pour about $700,000 into the coffers of the pro-mall candidates. Pyramid
brings to the table a sophisticated knowledge of land-use and zoning laws affiliates donated $301,000 to three political committees, which then
and a mastery of local political processes to achieve its ends. A common transferred virtually all of the funds to the Poughkeepsie slate of
tactic is to employ litigation as a means of forcing cities and towns, where candidates. Although it was permissible by state law for such committees to
tax assessment offices are often undermanned and poorly equipped to lower donate as much as $150,000 a year to a candidate, using them to get around a
tax obligations on Pyramid properties." Business West also noted that "the $1,000 limit on individual contributors was a felony. In addition, two
town supervisor from Watertown, N.Y., Ralph Dickinson, once referred to Pyramid affiliates spent another $475,967 on consulting firms, which among
Pyramid's actions as a 'con job.' He was rewarded with a libel suit. 'Where other services coached the candidates on how to best campaign door to door.
they might fail,' he wrote, 'they threaten legal action to attempt to
intimidate ... they file lawsuits based on distortions, half-truths and In the late 1980s Congel looked to build a mall in his own backyard,
falsehoods. They try to portray themselves as good corporate citizens by targeting the site of an old junkyard. Named the Carousel Center, it opened
throwing a few nickels and dimes around for PR purposes. Greed is their in 1990 and served not only as a flagship center for Pyramid but also a
motivation, and only greed. I would never trust anything they say. They are prototype for the future malls. Also in 1990 Pyramid attempted to become
the worst kind of corporate citizen.'" directly involved in retailing when it paid $20 million to acquire the
venerable Bonwit Teller department store chain from its bankrupt corporate
Despite criticism of its methods, Pyramid was in many ways the envy in its parent, after an earlier attempt at acquiring B. Altman had failed. For
field. Whereas the industry average sale level for mall tenants was $170 per Pyramid, the acquisition assured that a Bonwit Teller store continued to
square foot, Pyramid boasted an average of $250 per square foot, due in serve as an anchor in its Walden Galleria mall in Cheektowaga, New York.
large part to hard-nosed bargaining of leases that allowed Pyramid to remove Moreover, Pyramid hoped to use Bonwit Teller department stores as anchors at
underperforming tenants. The company also was able to build its projects in its new malls, as well as to open a new flagship operation on Fifth Avenue
half the time as other developers, needing only six to nine months from in Manhattan. Efforts to revitalize Bonwit Teller failed, however, and
groundbreaking to completion. To achieve this end, Pyramid again skirted the Pyramid returned its focus to leasing rather than retail.
edge of acceptable business practices. According to a 1988 Forbes article,
"In Pittsfield, Massachusetts, recently, Pyramid and a subcontractor paid Pyramid became the subject of more adverse publicity in the late 1990s when
over $240,000 in fines for filling in a swamp, relocating a stream, and even the Cheektowaga mall's policy of banning Buffalo's public transit buses from
laying drinking water and sewage pipes in the same trench. Still, the stopping on its property was accused of being racially motivated. Buffalo
100-store mall opened recently to more than 120,000 shoppers over the first riders, many of them inner-city blacks, faced a difficult task in using the
five days." No matter how vehement the community protests leveled at Pyramid nearest Metro Bus stop. According to the Buffalo News, "They step off the
during the developmental stage of a project, the mall always proved to be bus along a muddy, unsheltered patch of Walden Avenue without sidewalks. The
highly trafficked. The Forbes profile conceded that "for all his roughshod stop consists of a metal pole and Metro flag shoved in the mud along the
tactics, Congel invariably leaves behind malls that enhance the local curb of Walden Avenue. They then must scramble across seven lanes of
economy and are much appreciated by the townfolk. 'I declared war on fast-moving traffic on Walden Avenue or walk 20 yards to the nearest traffic
Pyramid,' admits Thacam N.Y.'s former mayor, Edward Conley, who also took to light at the intersection of Duke Road. But even the intersection--where
visiting city after city in the Northeast to warn others about Pyramid. He drivers are more concerned about making right turns than watching for
now says, 'In retrospect I have to admit that Pyramid helped us rejuvenate pedestrians--does not have a pedestrian crosswalk." The situation came to a
our community by offering us competition, making the whole county a vibrant head in December 1995 when a 17-year-old black woman named Cynthia N.
retail market.'" Wiggins, employed at the mall's food court, attempted to cross the seven
lanes of Walden Avenue on her way to work. She safely negotiated six lanes,
Involvement in 1985 Election Flap then was struck and killed by a dump truck. With a newborn child left
motherless, cries of racism, and the involvement of Johnnie Cochran, famous
One of the most notorious episodes in Pyramid's history occurred in for his involvement in the O.J. Simpson murder case, a trial was certain to
Poughkeepsie, New York, in 1985 when the company became involved in a local receive a great deal of media coverage. While the civil suit made its way
election to influence a change in zoning laws in order to build a mall in through the court system, the mall changed its bus policy in reaction to
the area. An election ethics panel, the New York State Commission on boycott threats from area civil rights groups as well as the Buffalo
Government Integrity, looked into the matter and some five years after the teachers' union. Only days after the trial opened in November 1999, however,
events concluded that Pyramid used a Republican Party official among others lawyers for both sides of the dispute reached an agreement. Pyramid admitted
to circumvent state election laws. According to the panel's findings, no wrongdoing and paid $2 million of the $2.55 million settlement.
Republican Party election-law specialist Tom Spargo met with six Republican
Attempt to Sell Pyramid in 1998 was not yet complete, however. In July Congel announced that he wanted to
transform central New York into the Silicon Valley of clean-energy sciences
In addition to the ill-fated purchase of Bonwit Teller, Pyramid also by building a $500 million, 300-acre technology park adjacent to the mall
experienced financial pressure in the 1990s from major cost overruns in the complex, a project that a local newspaper headline immediately dubbed
construction of the Carousel Center and Palisades Centers in Rockland "Destiny's Child." In the meantime, a U.S. District judge ruled that the
County, New York. Chase Manhattan loaned the company $200 million to federal lawsuit claiming that Congel and his companies defrauded eight
complete Palisades as well as to help Congel prepare Pyramid properties for minority partners could go to trial. The outcome of the litigation, as well
sale. In April 1998 Congel announced that he was interested in selling as the fate of DestiNY USA, would go a long way in determining how the aging
Pyramid's 31 properties (including 29 malls), which he portrayed as a family Robert Congel, one of the country's wealthiest people, would be remembered.
decision. With five children, he preferred to avoid family conflict by
selling the assets, then allowing his heirs "to do their own thing." The Principal Competitors: Simon Property Group, Inc.; The Rouse Company;
fact that a number of competing Real Estate Investment Trusts had recently Wilmorite Inc.
paid high prices for mall operations, according to Congel, "only made what
was inevitable much better." When the real estate market soon cooled,
however, he elected to sell off the Pyramid malls individually. But this
strategy also failed to produce the kind of return for which Congel had
hoped, and the properties were pulled from the market. In the aftermath of
this decision, Congel was sued in federal court in May 2000 by eight
partners in individual New York and Massachusetts malls who claimed that he
had drawn millions of dollars from their partnerships in order to acquire
Bonwit Teller and complete Carousel Center. Pyramid attorneys maintained
that such actions were proper and normal operating procedure for the
company. Pyramid officials also called the suit "sour grapes," caused by the
company's failure to sell the malls.
Despite facing racketeering charges, Congel carried on with plans to

transform Carousel Center into a much grander edifice that would not only
serve as a legacy to himself but also as a gift to Syracuse: the DestiNY USA
complex. In November 1997 Pyramid announced that it planned to nearly double
the size of Carousel Center, work it hoped to complete by 2000. That
timetable was delayed initially by a necessary cleanup of the oil-soaked
property on which much of the construction was to take place. The project
was further delayed as the Carousel Center expansion fired Congel's
imagination, and the outlines of a giant mall-and-entertainment complex
began to take shape. In April 2000 Pyramid announced plans for a $900
million expansion that would now triple the size of Carousel Center and
include hotels, skating rinks, and an aquarium. In order for it to operate
such an enterprise, however, Pyramid insisted that it required a 30-year tax
break from local governments, which it ultimately received. Pyramid then
announced in October 2001 that the expanded Carousel Center would become
known as DestiNY USA and that its projected cost now stood at $1.3 billion.
Further concessions were sought from local officials as the project
continued to grow. By December 2001 the projected cost reached $1.7 billion
as plans for the top floor of DestiNY USA now called for grassy fields and
brooks, a nine-hole golf course and driving range, a 15,000-seat concert
amphitheater, a botanical garden, and even an indoor mountain that offered
water slides during the winter and toboggan runs during the summer. As
Pyramid pressed for more government concessions it also revealed that it was
shopping for alternative sites for the project in Pennsylvania and
Massachusetts. In January 2002 Pyramid was successful in obtaining
additional tax breaks from both the county and city.
Congel's vision for Syracuse and DestiNY USA, now budgeted at $2.2 billion,

NYT EDITORIAL 12.31.09 Failed State - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 3 NYT EDITORIAL 12.31.09 Failed State - Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of 3
NYT EDITORIAL 12.31.09 Failed State Thursday, December 31, 2009 1:23 PM
Albany operates. Mr. Bruno ran his private consulting firm out of his posh, taxpayer-financed
From: "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> Capitol office. His Senate secretary, other staff, phones, cars and copy machines were all used
To: "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com> to get business and campaign contributions from private clients, some of whom came to him
for help in writing and passing legislation.
Worst of all, it took federal prosecutors to uncover these abuses because there was no explicit
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/opinion/31thu1.html
New York State law forbidding them.
December 31, 2009 We don’t want to prolong the pain, but let’s not forget the Republican coup in June, abetted by
EDITORIAL two of the least-qualified Democrats: Senators Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram
Failed State Monserrate of Queens. Never mind that Mr. Espada was — and is — being investigated for
allegedly living outside his district and failing to report campaign contributions. And Mr.
New Yorkers should be appalled at their failed state government, particularly their corrupt and Monserrate already had been indicted for assaulting his girlfriend, who had been slashed —
clueless Legislature. Scandal and irresponsibility have been Albany’s creed for decades. This somehow — in his apartment by a broken glass.
year, the gang added another outrage to the list: complete fiscal incompetence. Nothing got done for more than a month until these two switched back to the Democratic side.
The only solace is this: The entire Legislature is up for re-election in 2010. And unless there is Mr. Espada negotiated another title and salary bonus and more money for his district. He
a sudden turnaround — and, so far, we see few signs of it — New Yorkers have no choice but to failed, after wide protest, to slip his son into a $120,000-a-year state job.
vote out all the lawmakers and start over. As for Mr. Monserrate, he was convicted of assaulting his girlfriend after dragging her through
If there is any doubt left, here are just a few reminders of this year’s worst of the worst: his apartment lobby and then driving her past several emergency rooms to find a hospital
WHAT, US WORRY? New York has been on the brink of economic collapse, but the where he would not be recognized. His fellow senators are expected to decide next month
Legislature blithely ignored the problem for months. When the deficit reached a truly alarming whether to oust him. If they have any shame left, they must. He is clearly not qualified to
$3.2 billion, the lawmakers grudgingly agreed to last-minute fixes while carefully protecting represent New Yorkers.
their political buddies and donors. That meant rich school districts on Long Island kept their O.K., MAYBE A TOUCH UP So do any of them get it? Not many. After all this sleaze and
money (until Gov. David Paterson imposed a temporary, across-the-board reduction), but incompetence, John Sampson, who leads the Democratic majority in the Senate, suggested
500,000 schoolchildren in New York City — many of whom can’t afford it — will now have to this week that legislators might need a public relations “makeover.” No superficial paint job
pay to ride the subway to class. can cover such a rotten core. What is needed is a sweeping top-to-bottom reform.
Even after draining state savings accounts and using federal stimulus dollars that were Democratic leaders say they are considering changes, including an ethics reform package that,
supposed to be spent next year, they still fell $500 million short. Next year is now a few hours with more muscle, might make it possible to rein in some of Albany’s worst abuses. There is
away. The state is already in the red, and it could be facing a $9 billion deficit by March. Yet talk about taming the state’s anything-goes campaign finance system, but it will take more
there is no sign that legislative leaders have spent much time thinking about how to address than talk and press releases this time.
this disaster. Almost no one is focusing on two other major problems: the gerrymandering that allows so
SCANDALS “R” THEM There were so many legislative scandals this year that we’re not sure many undeserving incumbents to hold on to power and Albany’s relentless greed and
where to start. influence-peddling.
First, there were the revelations — surfacing only after the Democrats took control in January Lawmakers must create a nonpartisan commission for fair redistricting before the maps are
— about how Senate Republicans had abused their 40-year majority and secretly used state redrawn in 2011. Without it, the state will go another decade with no real political competition.
money to pursue party business. Among the discoveries: a secret plant, with 75 employees, to They must establish a small, expert financial board to advise the state comptroller on
print Republicans’ mail to constituents; a Republican-only television studio; secret Republican pensions, one unswayed by political pressure or favoritism. And they must enact tough new
Party research staff. The Democrats have closed a few of these scandalous operations, but they disclosure laws that require lawmakers to fully, accurately and publicly report the sources of
have not been energetic about scaling back their own perks now that they’re in charge. all their outside income.
The Republicans’ longtime Senate leader, Joseph Bruno, stepped down in 2008 before he was New Yorkers have waited in vain for these reforms. Every year lawmakers promise to do
indicted on eight counts of exploiting his office for personal gain. Earlier this month, Mr. better. And every year Albany has gotten worse. Legislators can either start doing the public’s
Bruno was convicted on two felony counts involving “theft of honest services.” work now, or voters should turn them out. The election is less than a year away.
The trial offered more instructive and stomach-turning details about the sleazy way that •
http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?pSize=25&sMid=32&fid=Inbox&mid=1_9179466_AF... 1/1/2010 http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?pSize=25&sMid=32&fid=Inbox&mid=1_9179466_AF... 1/1/2010
NYT EDITORIAL 12.31.09 Failed State - Yahoo! Mail Page 3 of 3 New York Times Says Every New York State Legislator Should Be Defeated in 2010 BAN - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 1
This article is part of a series examining the political and structural crisis in the New York
State government. This series can be read at nytimes.com/editorials. New York Times Says Every New York State Legislator Should Be Defeated in
2010 BAN
Thursday, December 31, 2009 1:32 PM
From: "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>
To: IPNY@yahoogroups.com
New York Times Says Every New York State Legislator Should Be Defeated in 2010
December 31st, 2009
The New York Times has this editorial in its December 31 issue, recommending that voters in 2010 defeat every
single New York state legislator. Unlike most states, New York State Senators only have two-year terms, so all of
them are up in 2010, along with all the New York Assemblymembers as well.
The editorial also calls on the legislature to create a nonpartisan commission to draw the district boundaries of the
legislative districts, but the editorial points out that many voices have been saying this in New York for many years,
and no legislator is even talking about the idea.
The New York Times ought to be consistent and call for the statewide initiative to be implemented in New York,
because so many of the reforms that the newspaper advocates have no chance without the initiative process.
http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?pSize=25&sMid=32&fid=Inbox&mid=1_9179466_AF... 1/1/2010 http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=31&filterBy=&.rand=511543518&midIndex=6... 1/1/2010

New York State Has First Deficit in General Fund NYT - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 2 New York State Has First Deficit in General Fund NYT - Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of 2
about $2.7 billion worth of savings, the Democratic-controlled State Senate has resisted any
New York State Has First Deficit in General Fund NYT Friday, January 1, 2010 10:59 AM

more cuts to schools and health care.
To: "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com> The Paterson administration has raised the possibility of layoffs, furloughs and the partial
shutdown of state government if the stalemate with lawmakers persists. And the situation will
grow more serious next year when the budget deficit is expected to be even higher.
December 31, 2009 Months ago, state budget officials said that without significant cuts, spending out of the
general fund was projected to grow 37 percent through the 2013 fiscal year, while revenue was
New York State Has First Deficit in General Fund expected to grow only 3.4 percent. “I’ve never seen it this bad,” said Thomas Mahoney, an
official in Mr. DiNapoli’s office, whose official title is director of state accounting operations
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
ALBANY — New York is about to achieve a dubious milestone: For the first time in history, the but who is unofficially known as New York’s accountant. “We’ve had difficult times, but
state’s main bank account is poised to end the year in the red. nothing like this.”
After months of plunging revenues and weeks of budget battles, New York had a negative While the general fund does not account for all the state’s money — it does not include billions
balance of $174 million in its general fund on Wednesday, with nearly $1 billion in bills owed of dollars in transfers from the federal government, for example — it is the only portion of the
by day’s end. Every sign pointed to the account’s still being in the hole when 2010 begins. To total budget that must by law be balanced.
fill the gap, New York will be forced to rely on its own version of overdraft protection by In fact, until this year, the general fund had to be balanced at the end of each calendar month,
raiding its short-term investment pool — a kind of statewide checking account. But that even if it dipped into the red on any given day. But a provision quietly slipped into the budget
account itself is dangerously low, with only about $800 million on hand, compared with a in the spring gave officials a far longer grace period, allowing the general fund to run in the red
balance in more flush years of as much as $16 billion. for as long as four months or until the end of the fiscal year, whichever is shorter.
And the lower the short-term balance falls, the harder it is for the state to cover its day-to-day The deficit, analysts said, was a barometer not only of the New York’s fiscal peril, but of the
bills and the closer New York moves toward a previously unimaginable eventuality: A political stalemate in Albany that has left the state spending more money than it can afford for
government check that bounces. months.
“New York State is officially living paycheck to paycheck,” said Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state “You basically start depleting your last cushion,“ said Edmund J. McMahon, director of the
comptroller, whose responsibilities include managing New York’s finances. “The state is Empire Center for New York State Policy, a research group that favors reduced government
starting the new year by scrambling to make payments and juggle money.” spending. “And the less cushion you have, the riskier and scarier it gets if there is an
While New York’s fiscal year does not end until March 31, its cash shortage could force it to unanticipated further downturn. You are cutting away what’s left of your safety net.”
borrow more money to pay for its daily operations, adding to the interest on loans that already
costs $1 billion a year. And the financial problems will raise alarms among rating agencies that
are already keeping a close eye on New York’s credit-worthiness, with the risk of a lower credit
rating — and higher interest payments to future bondholders — already looming.
Emily Raimes, an analyst at Moody’s Investors Service, said, “We will be closely monitoring
the following things: actions the state takes to preserve cash; actions the state takes to close
budget gaps and their effect on structural balance; and whether personal income tax receipts
come in above or below state forecasts.”
Unpaid bills are already piling up. In September, the shrinking general fund balance forced
Gov. David A. Paterson to delay a billion-dollar payment into the state’s pension system. This
month, he delayed $750 million in payments to school districts and local governments in the
hopes that revenues start rebounding enough in January, when Wall Street bonuses start
arriving, to restore the payments.
Mr. Paterson has been warning for months of the state’s depleted accounts, including those
outside the general fund, to try to compel the Legislature to address the state’s $3.2 billion
budget deficit. But while the governor and the Legislature reached agreement this month on
http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?pSize=25&sMid=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_9200813_AG... 1/1/2010 http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?pSize=25&sMid=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_9200813_AG... 1/1/2010
On the Road: Should New York State Be Split? NYT - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 2 On the Road: Should New York State Be Split? NYT - Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of 2
densely packed suburbs of Long Island and the Hudson Valley (another four million-plus, give
On the Road: Should New York State Be Split? NYT Friday, January 1, 2010 10:57 AM

or take), which together represent nearly two-thirds of the state’s population of 19.5 million
To: "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com> and often seem to get most of the spotlight.
The last governor who was not from either New York City or the Hudson Valley was Nathan L.
Miller, of Syracuse, who served from 1921 to 1922. (Interestingly, no Long Islander has been
DECEMBER 30, 2009, 11:38 AM
governor since Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1899 to 1900. He lived in Oyster Bay, in
On the Road: Should New York State Be Split? Nassau County.)
By SEWELL CHAN
When Gov. David A. Paterson, who lives in Manhattan, had to appoint a replacement for
On the Road
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (residence: Westchester County) this year, geographic
The City Room bureau chief, Sewell Chan, will be filing dispatches from some of New York
balance played an important role. Mr. Paterson selected Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a
State’s other cities this week.
congresswoman from the Albany area, to fill the seat.
x Read All Dispatches »
For now, Mr. Robach, who was said to be unavailable for an interview because of the holiday
ROCHESTER — Forget all that business about a shared history. season, seems to be enjoying the attention paid to his proposal, which has gotten considerable
Forget the fact that New York State’s boundaries have been largely unchanged since the local attention.
Constitution was ratified. That only two states have been admitted to the Union by splitting off Asked whether Mr. Robach really expected the legislation to go anywhere, Kirk Morris, a
from other states (Maine from Massachusetts in 1820, and West Virginia from Virginia in spokesman, replied: “He has spoken to legislators in both parties who have expressed interest
1863). And that if the United States were to add a 51st state, the likeliest candidate would be in the concept and will continue to work with both sides on this issue in the upcoming year.”
Puerto Rico, or even the District of Columbia — not New York.
Sewell Chan, the bureau chief of the City Room blog and a native of New York City, is on the
State Senator Joseph E. Robach, a Republican who represents part of Rochester, has proposed road this week, filing dispatches from some of New York State’s other cities.
legislation that would allow each of New York State’s 62 counties to hold a referendum in 2010
to ask voters this question: “Do you support the division of New York into two separate
states?”
The referendum – if it is even legal – would be nonbinding.
Four Republican senators — William J. Larkin Jr., Michael H. Ranzenhofer, James L. Seward
and Dale M. Volker — joined Mr. Robach in introducing the bill this year.
The proposal has little chance of becoming reality, in a state where Democrats control the
governor’s mansion and hold a narrow majority in the Senate and a commanding majority in
the Assembly.
Nonetheless, the proposal – which states that “there is a large degree of apparent support for
dividing New York into two separate states, so as to separate the distinct social and political
concerns between upstate and downstate New York” – reflects longstanding
misunderstanding, even animosity, between the various parts of the state.
After all, the state’s rural southern tier, the northern Adirondack reaches and the economically
struggling cities of western and central New York don’t always seem even to have much in
common with each other.
Add to that the global metropolis of New York City (some eight million-plus people) and the
http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=1&filterBy=&.rand=607852857&midIndex=1&... 1/1/2010 http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=1&filterBy=&.rand=607852857&midIndex=1&... 1/1/2010

History of the Society of Jesus Page 29 of 36 History of the Society of Jesus Page 30 of 36
1864 11/20 In St. Peter's, Rome, the beatification of Peter Canisius by 1881 05/04 The Society was expelled from the Republic of Nicaragua.
Pope Pius IX. 1881 06/26 Eighty-three Jesuits were banished by the Republic of
1866 07/17 Gerard Manley Hopkins decided to become catholic. Nicaragua.
1867 07/07 The beatification of the 205 Japanese Martyrs, 33 of them 1883 09/16 General Congregation 23 convened and choose as Vicar
members of the Society of Jesus. with right of succession the Swiss Jesuit Anton Anderley.
1868 08/10 The Society was expelled from Mexico and all its In its Decree 46 the Congregation dedicated the Society of
property confiscated. Jesus to promoting devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
1870 12/04 The Roman College, appropriated by the Piedmontese 1886 12/29 Publication of the beatification decree of the English
government, was reopened as a lyceum. The monogram of martyrs.
the Society over the main entrance was removed. 1887 03/05 The funeral of Father General Peter Beckx, 22nd superior
1871 08/12 The Society was expelled from Guatemala. general of the Society, who served his brothers in that
office for 34 years.
1872 07/20 In Roma gangs of miscreants paraded the streets crying
out: “Death to the Friars! Death to the Jesuits!” 1889 06/08 The death of the jesuit poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins in
Dublin at the age of 45.
1872 08/22 Jesuits were expelled from Germany during Bismarck's
Kulturkampf. 1890 02/08 At Rome in the Palazzo Barberini, the death of Cardinal
Joseph Pecci who left the Society of Jesus in 1847 but was
1873 04/04 In Mexico a law to expel the Society was proposed in
readmitted 40 years later at the request of his brother,
Parliament.
Pope Leo XIII.
1873 05/01 In Rome the Italian Parliament passed a law declaring
1892 01/18 The death at Fiesole of Father General Anthony
religious orders non-existent in Italy, and ownership of all
Anderledy, 23rd superior general of the Society.
their properties passed to the state.
1900 06/17 The martyrdom at Wuyi, China, of Blessed Modeste
1873 06/19 In Rome, Victor Emmanuel and his parliament explicitly
Andlauer and Blessed Rémy Aroré, slain during the Boxer
exclude the general of the Society from any pension.
Rebellion.
1873 10/20 At Rome all of the Society's houses, including the Gesù
1900 07/20 The death in China of Sts. Paul Denn and Leo Mangin,
and the Curia, were appropriated by the government.
martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion; the Church celebrates
1874 05/23 The death in St. Louis, Missouri, of Peter De Smet, their feast on Feb. 4
intrepid Belgian missionary, who founded the Rocky
1909 04/17 In the United States, America Magazine began
Mountain Missions in the western United States and
publication.
crossed the Atlantic 19 times in search of economic
resources and vocations to staff the growing church. 1909 05/15 The death in Quito, Ecuador, of Italian Jesuit Luis Sodiro,
a key scientific figure in Latin America, who developed a
1879 08/04 Pope Leo XIII published his encyclical Aeterni Patris
botanic collection that formed the base for the National
affirming the importance of the philosophy of St. Thomas
Botanical Garden in Quito.
Aquinas.
1909 06/29 St. Pius X entrusted the Pontifical Biblical Institute to the
1879 08/07 The New York Province was established.
Society.
1880 03/16 The French Parliament passed a bill sponsored by Jules
1909 09/07 Father General Franz Wernz established the province of
Ferry's for the closing of all the Society's houses and
Austria.
colleges in France.
http://www.sjweb.info/jesuits/chronShow.cfm 1/1/2010 http://www.sjweb.info/jesuits/chronShow.cfm 1/1/2010
1913 04/09 Pope St. Pius X spoke his praises of the Apostleship of 1936 08/23 The death of Servants of God Martin Santaella, Alphonsus
Prayer which counted 25 million members. The periodical Payán, and Emmanuel Luque, martyrs of the Spanish
The Messenger of the Sacred Heart appears in 42 editions Civil War. They were imprisoned in a prison ship in the
in more than 20 languages. harbor at Almerí, in southern Spain. Fathers Alphonsus
1914 08/19 The death of Father General Francis Xavier Wernz, thirty- Payán and Emmanuel Luque were taken off the ship along
fifth superior general. A noted canonist, he devoted with a large number of others and shot. Fr. Santaella was
himself to the internal life of the Society. beaten and suffocated in a coal bunker on another ship.
1915 02/11 Wlodimir Ledochowski was elected 26th superior general 1936 08/24 The death of S.G. Andrew Carrió, martyr of the Spanish
of the Society. Civil War who remained in Spain ministering to people
after the Society was suppressed.
1915 03/01 At the 26th General Congregation, the American
Assistancy of the Society was established, consisting of 1936 09/08 The death Servant of God Richard Tena, martyr of the
the provinces then existent in the United States: Spanish Civil War, who was too old and infirm to leave
Maryland-New York, Missouri, New Orleans and Spain as many other Jesuits had done. Despite his age, he
California. Thomas Gannon was named the first American was arrested and shot.
Assistant. 1936 09/12 Servant of God Emmanuel González (1889-1936), Martyr
1924 05/05 The Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius XI to Father General, of the Spanish Civil War. Accused of supporting the
recalling the distinguished merits of the Gregorian nationalist movement against the communists, he was
University and deciding to build a grand edifice. taken from prison in the middle of the night and executed.
1926 09/26 The death at the leprosarium in Culión, the Philippines, of 1936 09/24 The death of Servant of God Ignatius de Velasco and six
Father Felipe Millán, known as the "Father of Lepers" Companions, martyrs of the Spanish Civil War.
after a life heroically dedicated to caring for the sick. 1936 11/04 The death in Tortosa, Spain, of Servants of God Francis
1927 10/04 The death in Mexico City of Servant of God Salvador Audí, John Rovira and Joseph Llatje, martyrs of the
Garcidueñas, pastor and guardian of the Shrine of Our Spanish Civil War
Lady of the Angels 1937 06/04 Chile was established as an independent vice-province.
1928 02/09 Edward Garesche founded the Catholic Medical Mission 1942 11/19 The death of Servant of God Joseph Mark Figueroa, a
Board in New York City. brother who served as porter of the Jesuit college in Santa
1930 05/27 The death of José María Algué, one of the great Fe, Argentina, for 54 years; his profound love of God
meteorologists in the history of the world. He invented a touched the whole city.
machine to measure barometric pressure that saved many 1944 07/20 An abortive plot against Hitler by General Claus von
lives in the Far East. Stauffenberg and his assistants resulted in the arrest of the
1934 10/07 The deaths of Servants of God Emile Martínez and John Jesuit, Alfred Delp.
Baptist Arconada, martyrs of Spain. 1946 08/31 The death of S.G. Joseph Picco, faithful and humble
1936 07/24 The death of S.G. Braulio Martínez and Lawrence Isla, minister. Despite his frail health Fr. Joseph Picco devoted
martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. himself to a variety of ordinary jobs over a long life of
priestly service. He wanted to be a missionary in Alaska,
1936 08/14 The deaths of Servants of God Joachim Valentí, Louis
but his mission was to assist others: an elderly Jesuit who
Boguñá, and Joseph Vergés, martyrs of the Spanish Civil
needed health care during his final months, students at the
War, killed by machine gun fire the day after their arrests.
major seminary in Turin where he was confessor, and

retreatants in Gozzano. Colombia, to take part in the conference of Latin

1946 09/06 General Congregation XXIX convened to elect a new American bishops that proved to be a pivotal moment in
superior general; nine days later it chose the Belgian the Church's recognition of the central role of the option
Jesuit, John Baptist Janssens. for justice.
1947 07/21 The death of Servant of God John Baptist Reus, a German 1969 10/08 The death of Louis Twomey, an advocate of interracial
who worked in Southern Brazil and is noted for his justice and labor relations in the United States.
mystical prayer. 1972 08/20 The death of Pío Buck, a Swiss Jesuit known as the
1948 10/01 The death in Portugal of Servant of God Francis apostle of prisoners in Brasil; he was also famous as an
Rodrigues da Cruz, famed as a confessor of the poor. entomologist.
1948 10/21 A novitiate was established in the Belgian Congo for 1975 01/26 The death of Josef Jungmann, whose studies of liturgical
African Jesuits, with four novice scholastics. history contributed to the reform of the liturgy.
1952 05/14 The inauguration in Bogotá, Colombia, of Casa de 1976 10/12 The murder in rural Brazil of Joao Bosco Burnier who
Ejercicios de Jesús Redentor, for workers and rural was shot and killed by soldiers for protesting the torture of
farmers. two poor women.
1952 08/18 The death of Alberto Hurtado, writer, retreat director, 1977 03/12 Salvador Rutilio Grande, pastor and champion of
trade unionist and founder of "El Hogar de Christo," a campesinos, was assassinated on his way to celebrate
movement to help the homeless in Chile. Mass.
1955 01/15 The death of Daniel Lord, popular writer, U.S. director of 1978 06/27 The murder of Bernard Lisson, a mechanic, and Gregor
the Sodality, founder of the Summer School of Catholic Richert, a parish priest, shot to death at St Rupert's
Action, and editor of The Queen's Work. Mission, Sinoia, Zimbabwe.
1955 04/10 The death of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, paleontologist 1979 07/14 The assassination in Guyana of Brnard Darke, a
and theologian. photographer for the Catholic Standard, a diocesan
newspaper.
1956 10/28 In La Vega, Republicnican Republic, the inauguration of
Radio Santa María, a station founded by the Jesuits to 1979 12/14 The death of Riccardo Lombardi, founder of the Better
provide popular or basic education throughout that World Movement.
country. 1980 03/07 Matthew Mannaparambil, a parish priest at Sasaram in
1956 11/01 The Society of Jesus was allowed into Norway. Patna/Bihar, India, was assassinated.
1957 02/28 The Jesuit Volunteer Corps was founded in the United 1981 04/13 The death of Godofredo Alingal, who was shot and killed
States. in his rectory in Kibawe, Philippines, for defending the
rights of poor farmers.
1963 04/01 The death of Gerald Ellard, liturgist and one of the
founders of the National Liturgical Conference. 1981 08/02 Carlos Perez Alonso, chaplain at a military hospital in
Guatemala, disappeared and is presumed to have been
1963 11/24 The death of John LaFarge, pioneer advocate of racial
killed during a period of repression.
justice in the United States.
1983 09/02 General Congregation 33 began in Rome with 220
1965 05/22 Pedro Arrupe was elected the 28th superior general of the
delegates representing 26,000 Jesuits.
Society of Jesus.
1983 11/14 Father General Peter-Hans Kolvenbach decreed that all
1968 08/21 Father General Pedro Arrupe arrived in Medellín,
independent vice-provinces in the Society should become

provinces.
1983 12/28 The death in a Chinese labor camp of Francis Xavier Chu, home | © 2010 Society of Jesus | contact us
a Jesuit born in Shanghai.
1984 12/08 The death of Walter Ciszek, prisoner in Russia from 1939
to 1963.
1985 10/30 In Mozambique the brutal assasination of Joao de Deus
and Silvio Moreira, Portuguese Jesuits who were
missionaries dedicated to the good of the people.
1987 06/02 The death of Anthony de Mello, author and retreat master.
1989 06/01 The death of Sergio Restrepo, whose defense of the rights
of the powerless and of the environment made him a
threat to the interests of the economic and political powers
in Tierralta, Colombia.
1989 11/16 The assassination in San Salvador, El Salvador, of Ignacio
Ellacuría, Ignacio Martín-Baró, Segundo Mondes, Joaquín
López, Juan Ramón Moreno, and Amando López, along
with their cook, Elba Julia Ramos, and her daughter
Celina Maricet Ramos.
1991 02/05 At Rome, the death of Pedro Arrupe, 28th superior
general of the Society of Jesus.
1991 08/27 In Bogotá, Colombia, the first meeting for those in charge
of pastoral work in the Latin American universities of the
Society of Jesus.
1992 05/31 The canonization of Claude de la Colombiere by Pope
John Paul II, 63 years after he was beatified by Pius XI.
1994 07/12 "Symposium on the Vocation and Mission of the Jesuit
Brother" opened in Loyola and functioned as a
commission to prepare for the 34th General Congregation.
1996 10/27 Christophe Munzihirwa Mwene Ngabo SJ, archbishop of
Bukavu in the Democratic Republic murderedo, was
murdred. He had denounced the political and economic
exploitation of hundreds of thousands of Rwandan
refugees who sought refuge in Kivu.
St. Ignatius 07/31 The "Pilgrim" loved his vagabond years searching for God
of Loyola after a dramatic conversion yet became famous as the
SJ founder of the Society of Jesus.

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins Page 1 of 18 Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins Page 2 of 18
{ Israel
{ Babylon
{ The Antichrist
z Tech
Posts | Comments | E-mail / z Radio
Friday, January 01, 2010 z Mail
Search in site... Submit Query
z Religion
{ Islam
{ Romanism
Vatican Assassins: Wounded In The House Of My Friends
z US
{ Intelligence
{ George Washington
{ Majority Savage Blacks
{ Minority Civil Blacks
{ White Fascism
{ Criminal Federal Courts
z Resources
{ Gallery
{ Videos
{ Book Reviews
{ Movie Reviews
z Store
z About VA.org
z Eric Jon Phelps
ConCon Presentation Latest Edition Over 650 Slides z VA III
{ Introduction
z Home { The Purpose
z News z Eric On Radio

z Jesuits z VA YouTube
{ The Black Pope z The Plan
{ SMOM z Store
{ Coadjutors z Links
{ Freemasonry z Archive
{ Quotations of Note z Contact Us
z World
{ EU Obama’s White Papal Masters
{ China/Japan
{ USSR/Russia
Posted by admin on Aug 5th, 2009 and filed under Gallery, News, The Black Pope.
z NWO You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a
http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 1/1/2010 http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 1/1/2010
response or trackback to this entry
The most comprehensive list of the Chain of Command leading and controlling Obama
and his administration. See who really runs the show from the top to the bottom (Obama).
Read their credentials and connections.
Obama’s White Papal Masters:

Chain of Command
“The White Pope”

The Evil Emperor
“The Black Pope”

Darth Vader
Masters of “The Matrix”

Adolfo Nicolas
30th Superior General, Society of Jesus
“The Black Pope”
Pope Benedict XVI

Vicar of Christ/Vicar of Horus
“The White Pope”
James E. Grummer, S.J.
American Assistant to General Nicolas
Borgo di Santo Spirito #5, Rome
Master of US Jesuit Conference

Master of American Jesuit University Presidents

Master of 10 American Provincials
Master of New York Provincial
Thomas H. Smolich. S.J.

President, US Jesuit Conference
Former California Provincial Joseph M. McShane, S.J.
Former Master of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger President, Jesuit Fordham University
Conspirator: Present Chinese-Mexican Invasion Bronx, New York
Conspirator: Future Sino-Soviet-Muslim Invasion “Penholder for Cardinal Egan”
Notice: Equilateral Triangle Pendant
Masonic symbol for the Risen Horus
THE COMING RISEN POPE/”The Beast”
David S. Ciancimino, S.J.

New York Provincial
Overseer of Archbishop of New York City
Occult Overseer of New York City
Wall Street, Federal Reserve, NYSE
Pope Benedict the XVI
Roman Papal Caesar
Egyptian Osiris
Vicar of Christ/Vicar of Horus
Edward Cardinal Egan
“Prince of the Pope’s Church”
Roman Papal Senator
Joseph A. O’Hare, S.J.

President Emeritus, Jesuit Fordham University
Bronx, New York
Edward Cardinal Egan Member: Knights of Malta
Archbishop of New York City Presider: Council on Foreign Relations
“Archbishop of the Capital of the World” Advisor to Knight of Malta David Rockefeller, CFR
“The American Pope” Advisor to Knight of Malta Henry Kissinger, CFR
Head: American Branch of the Knights of Malta Advisor to Michael Bloomberg
Head: Knights of Columbus Mayor, New York City
Papal Knight of the Vatican’s Revived
Occult Master of:
“Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem“—Israel
Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree
American Scottish-Rite Freemasonry
Council On Foreign Relations
B’nai B’rith/Anti-Defamation League
Central Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Office of Naval Intelligence
The Pentagon
John J. DeGioia
President Jesuit Georgetown University
Member: Knights of Malta
Member: Council On Foreign Relations
Adminstrator: “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem“—Israel

Recruiter of Barry Soetoro, 1981

Creator of “Barack Hussein Obama”
Richard N. Haass
Chairman: Council on Foreign Relations
New York City
Servant of Edward Cardinal Egan
Overseer of AIPAC: George Soros
American Israel Public Affairs Committee Member: Council on Foreign Relations
Freemasonic Jewish Labor Zionist Member: Carlyle Group
Court Jew for the Pope Multi-billionaire
Adminstrator: “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem“—Israel Major Stockholder: Halliburton
Hungarian Jew: Socialist-Communist
Financial Backer of Barack Hussein Obama
Friend of Rupert Murdoch
Freemasonic Jewish Labor Zionist
“Court Jew for the Pope”
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Member: Knights of Malta
Member: Bilderberg Group
Member: Council On Foreign Relations
Member: Trilaterial Commission
Advisor: Jesuit Georgetown University
Polish Roman Catholic Socialist-Communist
Professor: Columbia University, New York Rupert Murdoch
Member: Council on Foreign Relations
Member: Knights of St. Gregory

International Media Mogul
Owner: Fox News Network
Friend of George Soros
Occult Protector of Barack Hussein Obama
Bill O’Reilly – The O’Reilly Factor
Sean Hannity – Hannity & Combes
Barry Davis
“Barack Hussein Obama”
32nd Degree Prince Hall Freemason
President of Rome’s “Holy Roman,”
14th Amendment American Empire
Joseph R. Biden
Sunni Moslem, Pretended Protestant Christian
Papal Knight; Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor
Mulatto: Mulatto Father, White Mother
Vice President: Rome’s “Holy Roman”
Father: Frank Marshall Davis, Jr.
14th Amendment American Empire
Wife: Michelle, Member: Chicago CFR
Alter Ego: Jesuit Advisor to
Obama: CFR-Controlled and CFR Spokesperson
President Barry Davis Obama
Obama: Promoted by the late William F. Buckley, Jr.
Promoter: Council on Foreign Relations
Buckley: Knight of Malta, Bonesman, Bilderberger, CFR Member
Honorary Degrees:
Buckley: Promoter of Reverse Discrimination against Whites
Jesuit University of Scranton, Scranton, PA
Buckley: Promoter of a Coming Black President
Jesuit St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA
Obama: Trained in Romanism, Islam and Apostate Protestantism
Obama: “Nimrod”; Pretended Unifier of Whites and Blacks
Obama: Promoter of the Papal Crusade against Shia Islam
Obama: Promoter of Bush’s Papal Inquisition
Against Protestant American Liberties
Obama: Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor
Promotor of the Black Pope’s Counter-Reformation
Barry Davis: “Boy” of Pope Benedict XVI

[...] In this authors opinion only one group fits the description, and that is the last
option offered as number ten, the Vatican. John Kennedy, as the first Roman
Catholic president ever elected, was warning the public about the sinister role of the
Jesuit Order under the umbrella of the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church as the
enemy of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. the Jesuits have been
involved in orchestrating most wars and political assassinations and have been
kicked out of 73 countries for their duplicity. The Jesuits are a military order
created under Pope Paul III by the first Jesuit Supreme General, Ignatius Loyola or
the Black Pope in 1534 to counter the Protestant Reformation. The Jesuits are an
order that requires its leaders to take a blood secrecy oath (revealing their secret
plans or actions result in taking their blood or death). The current chain of command
and titles of the “latest puppet” US President Barack Obama under the Black Pope
Adolfo Nicolas are pictured on Eric Phelps web site here: VaticanAssassins.org. [...]
4. Ron Paul Scores Big... TWICE - Page 8 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums says:
September 19, 2009 at 11:18 am
[...] Originally Posted by Gotti McCarran If the CFR has not nearly as much power
Categories: Gallery, News, The Black Pope as I attribute to them, then why do these 5000 people RUN EVERYTHING? The
Tags: Jesuits, Obama, The Black Pope CFR is the ruling elite of the US.Who themselves answer to higher authority:
Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins [...]
5 Responses for “Obama’s White Papal Masters”
5. The Papal masters of Obama « seeker401 says:
1. Vox Populi » Best of Vatican Assassins’ Georgetown conspiracy theories from 2009 September 18, 2009 at 5:33 pm
says:
December 31, 2009 at 2:10 pm [...] http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 [...]
[...] Georgetown President John DeGioia is 9th in the chain of command of You must be logged in to post a comment Login
President Obama’s “White Papal [...]
2. itisnosecretwhatgodcando says:
October 18, 2009 at 12:44 pm
And to think these goofy sociopaths get all the girls.

They got my whole family.
I will say it is easier to live knowing these are the goofy turds in charge.
Personally lost many rights and priviliges over Protesting Henry Kissinger to my
own Mother. Your own family will resist you to hold up these men.
3. “Monolithic and Ruthless Conspiracy…” « High Sierra Gold says: Advertisement

October 4, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Recently Commented
z EJP Responds to a "Disappointed Negro"
z Exiled Dutch Statesman Geert Wilders Warns Against Islam Part 1 z Tom Cruise’s Son to Star in Red Dawn Remake
z Biden-Advised Obama: Generating White Right-Wing Jesuit Fascism
z Bin Laden, CIA Contract Agent, Dead since December 13, 2001
z More Than 500 Sex Abuse Cases Filed Against the Jesuits
z United Nations to Rebuild Ancient Babylon z Health Care Reform Bill – Download
z Jesuit Temporal Coajdutor Alex Jones' "The Fall of the Republic"
z Black Muslims of America Military Training Camps: Race War
z EJP Replies to Brother Michael, an Honorably Retired Portland Police Officer z Where Did That Bank Bailout Go? Watchdogs Aren’t Entirely Sure
z Brief Chronology of Jesuit History Authored by the Company
Archives by Tag
z White House Snitch Program
African Union American Revolution Anglican Church Antichrist Appearing of Christ Black-on-White crime Calvin cfr CIA
Coadjutors Communism council on foreign relations Cromwell Daniel England EU Freemasonry George Washington
Gunpowder Plot H1N1 Health Inquisition Iraq Israel Jesuits Knights of Malta Latino Alien Ivasion Luther Militarization of Space
News Obama Pope Prophecy of 70 Weeks Radio Reformation Religion Savage Black Crime Socialism Temporal Power The z Diaz: Ambassador to the Vatican
Black Pope USSR/Russia Vatican Video Videos world government
Recent Entries
z Obermann on Blackwater
z December 31, 2009: From “the Appearing” to the Second Coming, Part 4 of 5
z December 28, 2009: From “the Appearing” to Second Coming, Part 1 of 5
z December 25, 2009: White Protestant American Revolution, Part 10 of 10
z EJP Replies to Troy as to the Biblical Timeline of “the Appearing,” Part 4 of 5
z Merry Mass-of-Christ: Woman Knocks Pope Benedict XVI to Vatican Floor!
z EJP Replies to Troy as to the Biblical Timeline of the “Appearing,” Part 3 of 5
Photo Gallery
z Vatican Assassins’ Store

z The Plan
z Store
z Links
z Archive
z Contact Us
z RSS
Log in / Advanced NewsPaper by Gabfire Themes
z News
z Jesuits
z World
z NWO
z Tech
z Radio
z Mail
z Religion
z US
z Resources
z Store
z About VA.org
z Eric Jon Phelps
z VA III
z Eric On Radio
z VA YouTube

2nd Circuit Case 08-4323 APPENDIX

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2nd Circuit Case 08-4323 APPENDIX

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

08-4323

United States Court Of Appeals

Ronald G. Loeber, et al.

H. William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher Earl Strunk,

Thomas J. Spargo, et al.

THE AD HOC NYS CITIZENS FOR Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

10/2/2008 126 SECOND AMENDED ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to

9/18/2008 USCA Case Number is 08-4323-cv for 118 Notice of Appeal

9/11/2008 122 AMENDED ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court

9/10/2008 121 ORDER denying 115 Motion for Reconsideration re 109

12/29/2009 Current District Docket for 04-cv-1193 ….A-36

3/31/2008 96 ORDER TO STRIKE 95 Letter Motion from Christopher

Index Page iii

4/7/2006 77 ORDER granting 76 Letter Request and directing the

3/9/2006 70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 First MOTION to

2/27/2006 66 CROSS-MOTION to Change Venue by Roy-Pierre Detiege-

12/16/2005 46 REPLY DECLARATION to Response to Motion re: 33

11/29/2005 33 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for Preliminary Injunction and

Index Page vii

9/22/2005 20 ORDER. Amended Pleadings ddl (for filing of amended

12/30/09 Times Union Article re: Thomas J. Spargo role in Election of

Index Page viii

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

vs. Civil/Criminal No: 04-cv-1193

This case is 100% Electronic.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

Lawrence K. Baerman, Clerk

By: Britney Norton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

vs. Civil/Criminal No: 1:04-cv-1193

This case is 100% Electronic

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

Lawrence K. Baerman, Clerk

By: Britney Norton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

vs. Civil/Criminal No: 1:04-cv-1193

This case is 100% Electronic. FILING FEE PAID 9/8/08.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

Lawrence K. Baerman, Clerk

By: Britney Norton

ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF APPEAL

Dear Sir or Madam,

By: Britney Norton

For Court Use Only:

CASE TITLE: Ronald G. Loeber, et al. v. Thomas J. Spargo, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 1:04-cv-1193 LEK/RFT

NOTICE OF APPEAL - Docket # 118

Document being Appealed:

Final Judgement: Docket # 109, 110

FEE STATUS: Paid Due X Waived (IFP/CJA)

IFP revoked Application Attached IFP pending before USDJ

COUNSEL: CJA RETAINED PRO SE X

TIME STATUS: Timely X Out of Time

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Granted Denied

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY: Granted Denied N/A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RONALD G. LOEBER, et al.,

Dkt. No. 19.

Assembly and State Senate.

is necessary to convene a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a).

As the Supreme Court has recently explained:

Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 528, n. 17 (1983)).

(2d Cir. 2007).

B. Three judge panel

T h e C a p i t o l , Albany, N Y 12224-0341 (518) 474-2913 Fax (518) 473-1572