Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 2:23:33 PM Case Query

Subject: Court of Appeals Docket #: 10-822 Forjone v. The State of California

10-822 Forjone v. The State of California
General Docket
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Associated Case Short Title Type Start End Status

Court of Appeals Docket #: 10-822 Docketed: 03/09/2010 Originating Lead Execution Originating Court
Nature of Suit: 3440 CIVIL RIGHTS-Other Filed Judgment NOA
Case Case Date Judge Reporter
Forjone v. The State of California
Kahn,
Appeal From: NDNY (SYRACUSE) 06-cv-1002 08/17/2006 02/19/2010 03/08/2010
Lawrence E.
Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information: Terminated

1) Civil Party Party Type Attorney
from Case
2) Private
3) - Plaintiff-
Forjone, John-Joseph
Appellant
Mack, Wayne Plaintiff-
Originating Court Information:
District: 0206-5 : 06-cv-1002 DelPlato, Dan Jr. Plaintiff-
Trial Judge: Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge Razzano, Gabriel Plaintiff-
Trial Judge: Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Date Filed: 08/17/2006 Person, Edward M. Jr. Plaintiff-
Date Order/Judgment: Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA: Plaintiff-
Strunk, Christopher Earl
02/19/2010 03/08/2010 03/09/2010 Appellant
AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and
Intrastate/Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Plaintiff-
07/16/2010 37 DISTRICT COURT ORDER, dated 07/14/2010, RECEIVED.[76980] [10-822] Equity Nationwide

07/16/2010 38 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL, with copy of district court docket, on behalf of Defendant-
The State of California
Appellant Christopher Earl Strunk, FILED.[76982] [10-822] Appellee

07/16/2010 39 SUPPLEMENTAL ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED.[76985] [10-822] Defendant-

The State of Oregon
Appellee
07/16/2010 44 FORM D, on behalf of Appellant Christopher Earl Strunk, deemed FILED. Service
Defendant-
date 07/27/2010 by CM/ECF.[77100] [10-822] The State of Nevada
Appellee
07/27/2010 42 CAPTION, to reflect Christopher Earl Strunk as Appellant, AMENDED.[77000] [10- Defendant-
822] The State of Arizona
Appellee
07/27/2010 45 ORDER, vacating dismissal order dated 06/09/2010, FILED.[77358] [10-822] Defendant-
The State of New Mexico Chavez,Francine A.
07/29/2010 50 NEW CASE MANAGER, Ahronda Crossman, ASSIGNED.[78534] [10-822] Appellee
Defendant- Cochran-
07/29/2010 51 INSTRUCTIONAL FORMS, to Pro Se litigant, SENT.[78537] [10-822] The State of Texas
Appellee McCall,Amanda
08/23/2010 52 UNDELIVERABLE MAIL, to USCA from USPS, RECEIVED.[93032] [10-822] The United States Election Assistance Defendant-
10/18/2010 55 SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellant John-Joseph Commission by Thomas R. Wilkey Appellee
Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk: Brief due on 11/29/2010, and Brief due on The United States Department of Justice by the Defendant-
11/17/2010, FILED.[125980] [10-822] Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. Appellee
Defendant- Dvorin,Jeffrey M.
The Secretary of the State of New York
Appellee Ayers,Andrew B.
New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012 Defendant- Dvorin,Jeffrey M.
Appellee Ayers,Andrew B.

Defendant- Defendant-
The New York State Board of Elections County of Cortland
Appellee Appellee
Defendant- Defendant-
County of Erie Sleight,David J. County of Columbia Sorrels,Stephen M.
Appellee Appellee
Defendant- Stark,Corey S. Defendant-
County of Monroe County of Tioga Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee Stark,Howard Alvin Appellee
Defendant- Defendant-
County of Onondaga McCarthy,Michael P. County of Tompkins
Appellee Appellee
Defendant- Defendant-
County of Albany Colby,Jeremy A County of Schuyler Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee Appellee
Defendant- Defendant-
County of Dutchess County of Steuben Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee Appellee
Defendant- Marcus,Aaron J.
County of Orange Defendant-
Appellee County of Broome Gibson,William
Appellee
Lawrence Jr.
Defendant-
County of Rockland
Appellee Defendant-
County of Livingston Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant- Gleeson,Martin
County of Westchester
Appellee Gerard Defendant-
County of Ontario
Appellee
Defendant- Kloss,David W.
City of New York
Appellee Ayers,Andrew B. Defendant-
County of Yates Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Nassau
Appellee Defendant-
County of Seneca Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Suffolk
Appellee Defendant-
County of Wayne
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Niagara
Appellee Defendant-
County of Oswego Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Orleans Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee Defendant-
County of Jefferson Paulsen,David John
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Genesse Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee Defendant- Peterman,Alan
County of Lewis
Appellee Robert
Defendant-
County of Wyoming
Appellee Wayland-Smith,Tina
Defendant-
County of Madison M.
Defendant- Appellee
County of Allegany Colby,Jeremy A Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant-
Defendant- County of Herkimer Colby,Jeremy A
County of Chautauqua Appellee
Appellee
Defendant-
Defendant- County of Otsego Colby,Jeremy A
County of Cattaraugus Appellee
Appellee
Defendant-
Defendant- County of St. Lawrence Colby,Jeremy A
County of Cayuga Colby,Jeremy A Appellee
Appellee
Defendant-
Defendant- County of Franklin Colby,Jeremy A
County of Chemung Colby,Jeremy A Appellee
Appellee
Defendant-
Defendant- County of Clinton Colby,Jeremy A
County of Oneida Colby,Jeremy A Appellee
Appellee
 Defendant- Dvorin, Jeffrey M. Defendant-Appellee 04/05/2010
County of Essex Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Chavez, Francine A. Defendant-Appellee
Defendant-
County of Montgomery Colby,Jeremy A McCarthy, Michael P. Defendant-Appellee
Appellee
Kloss, David W. Defendant-Appellee 04/05/2010
Defendant-
County of Warren Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee Kloss, David W. Defendant-Appellee 04/21/2010
Defendant- Sorrels, Stephen M. Defendant-Appellee
County of Saratoga Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Marcus, Aaron J. Defendant-Appellee
Defendant-
County of Washington Colby,Jeremy A Paulsen, David John Defendant-Appellee
Appellee
Defendant- Wayland-Smith, Tina M. Defendant-Appellee 04/19/2010
County of Rensselaer
Appellee Gibson, William Lawrence Jr. Defendant-Appellee
Defendant- Sleight, David J. Defendant-Appellee
County of Greene
Appellee
Cochran-McCall, Amanda Defendant-Appellee
Defendant-
County of Ulster Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Delaware Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Putnam Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Hamilton
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Fulton Colby,Jeremy A
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Schenectady
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Schoharie
Appellee
Defendant-
County of Sullivan Cawley,Thomas J
Appellee
Defendant- Kloss,David W.
Markowitz, Marty
Appellee Ng,Fay Sue

Attorney Party Type(s) Represented Representation End

Stark, Corey S. Defendant-Appellee 04/02/2010
Ng, Fay Sue Defendant-Appellee
Gleeson, Martin Gerard Defendant-Appellee
Ayers, Andrew B. Defendant-Appellee
Colby, Jeremy A Defendant-Appellee
Peterman, Alan Robert Defendant-Appellee
Stark, Howard Alvin Defendant-Appellee
Cawley, Thomas J Defendant-Appellee
Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 139 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 139 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 139 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 3
 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 5 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S.C. § 15301). The complaint also appeared to allege that New York and its counties
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
have failed to meet the mandates of HAVA, and have unlawfully apportioned their

JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, et al., congressional, legislative and judicial districts.

Plaintiffs, In response to the complaint, various defendants moved to dismiss the

DECISION AND ORDER complaint or, in the alternative, for transfer of venue to the Northern District of New
v. 06-CV-080A
York, where there is pending a similar action previously filed by some of the same
UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE
COMMISSION BY THOMAS R. WILKE, et al., plaintiffs in this case. See Loeber v. Spargo, 04-CV-1193 (N.D.N.Y.).

The Northern District initially granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the

Defendants.
Loeber action and plaintiffs appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated

part of plaintiffs' claims and remanded the action to the Northern District with the

INTRODUCTION direction that plaintiffs be allowed to file an amended complaint. The amended

complaint was filed on November 21, 2005, and to the Court's knowledge, is presently
Plaintiffs John Joseph Forjone, Wayne Mack, Dan Delplato, Jr., Gabriel
pending.
Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr., and Christopher Earl Strunk, all appearing pro se,
On February 27, 2006, almost immediately after commencement of the
commenced the instant action on February 6, 2006. The original complaint named
instant action, the Loeber plaintiffs moved in the Norther District for a change of venue
approximately 70 defendants, including the United States Election Assistance
to this District. Plaintiffs’ motion was based, at least in part, on their dissatisfaction with
Commission, the United States Department of Justice, the States of New York,
the progress in the Loeber action.
California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the New York State
On March 28, 2006, this Court issued a Decision and Order which, inter
Secretary of State, the New York State Attorney General, the New York State Board of
alia, ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and to show cause why this action
Elections, 57 counties in the State of New York and their respective boards of elections,
should not be dismissed or, in the alternative, transferred to the Northern District of New
the City of New York, and the Borough President of Brooklyn.
York. On May 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed their response to the Court's March 28th Order,
Although unintelligible, the original complaint appeared to complain about

the manner in which New York and other states are implementing the Help America to

Vote Act (“HAVA”), Pub. L. No. 107-252, Title III, § 302, 116 Stat. 1706 (codified at 42
2

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 3 of 5 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 4 of 5

which included a proposed amended complaint.1 Thereafter, various defendants although denominated differently in some instances, the defendants in the two actions

moved to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, for transfer of venue. are virtually identical. The plaintiffs, at least impliedly, recognized the substantial

After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court hereby grants similarity between the two actions when they moved to transfer the Loeber case to this

defendants’ motion to transfer the instant action to the Northern District of New York. District.

Because the two actions are basically the same, under the Second

DISCUSSION Circuit’s “first-to-file” rule, the Loeber action, which was the first action filed, should be

The Second Circuit has held that where two competing lawsuits have given priority. The Loeber case has been pending significantly longer and has already

been filed in different jurisdictions, the first action filed is given priority and the second been appealed to and remanded by the Second Circuit. The transfer of the instant

action may be suspended or transferred in the interests of judicial economy. First City case to the Northern District will conserve judicial resources and reduce, if not

Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Simmons, 878 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1989). The Supreme Court eliminate, the risk of inconsistent results. In addition, in their motion to transfer the

has articulated the test to be "wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation Loeber case to this District, the Loeber plaintiffs indicated that the instant action was

of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation . . . ." Kerotest Mfg. Co. filed because they were dissatisfied with the progress of the Loeber case. Such an

v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952). attempt to forum shop cannot be countenanced. Plaintiffs chose the Northern District

Although the original complaint and the amended complaint in the instant as the venue in which to file their lawsuit. They cannot now seek a new venue simply

action, and the complaint in the Loeber action, are all difficult if not impossible to because they are unhappy with their first choice.

understand, it appears that the two actions are substantially similar, if not identical.

Four of the plaintiffs in the Loeber case are plaintiffs in this case. The claims asserted CONCLUSION

in the Loeber action, like the claims in this action, involve voting in New York and For the reasons stated, the Court grants defendants’ motion to transfer

HAVA. In fact, the twelve claims of injury contained in the complaint in this case are the instant action to the Northern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is hereby

identical to the twelve claims of injury in the Loeber amended complaint. Further, ordered to take all steps necessary to transfer the case to the Northern District.

1
The proposed amended complaint appears to assert the same or similar claims
as those asserted in the original complaint, and names the same defendants. The amended
complaint did, however, drop Wayne Mack as a plaintiff.

3 4
 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 5 of 5 Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 10

IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
/s/ Richard J. Arcara _________________________________________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
CHIEF JUDGE JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et al.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs,
DATED: August 14 , 2006
v. 1:06-CV-1002 (LEK/RFT)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DECISION and ORDER

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) in the Western District of New York asserting

various constitutional violations and other claims arising out of the National Voter Registration Act, 42

U.S.C. §1973gg, et seq., and the Help America Vote Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq. (“HAVA”).

Among other things, Plaintiffs appear to claim that at least some of the Defendants wrongfully counted

the voting age population (“VAP”) (including illegal aliens and deceased persons), rather than using

the citizen voting age population (“CVAP”), and thereby used imprecise numbers in redistricting and

determining eligibility for funds under the HAVA. Plaintiffs also appear to assert a violation of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and the False

Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 26) at ¶ 1. Plaintiffs request a three

judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284.

I BACKGROUND

In ruling upon certain motions before it, the Western District of New York noted that the

Complaint:
5

Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 10 Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 3 of 10

can only be described as, inter alia, disjointed, unintelligible, convoluted, confusing and prolix. venue for Loeber to this Court is because they are not pleased with the manner in which the
It is presented in such a manner that the Court, and the defendants . . . simply cannot determine Loeber1 case is proceeding.
what the plaintiffs are alleging. . . . The Complaint names approximately 70 defendants,
including what appears to be most of the counties in New York State and the States of New Because the Loeber case was similar to, and filed prior to this case, the Western District transferred the
York, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, . . . and Oregon, and, at its heart
appears to complain about the manner in which New York and other States are implementing case to this Court. See Dkt. No. 100.
[HAVA] . . . . The complaint also appears to raise concerns about how New York and its
counties have failed to meet the mandates of HAVA and how the State has drawn its On August 17, 2006, Plaintiffs responded to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 26.
congressional, legislative and judicial districts. . . . [B]ecause of the manner in which the
complaint is pled the Court can make little sense, if any, of what the defendants are alleged to Attached thereto as Exhibit B was a proposed Amended Complaint. The proposed Amended
have done or what they have failed to do in relation to HAVA or how those actions or failures
to act are actionable. Complaint is 57 pages long (nearly twice as long as the original complaint) and continues to be

Dkt. No. 24 at 1-2. “disjointed, unintelligible, convoluted, confusing and prolix.” Plaintiffs did not file the proposed

Plaintiffs were ordered to “show cause, in writing, no later than May 1, 2006, why this Amended Complaint. It similarly appears that Plaintiffs did not serve the Amended Complaint on

action should not be dismissed or transferred . . . and why sanctions should not be imposed against Defendants. See, e.g., Mem. by N.Y. State Att’y General and NY State Sec’y of State in Supp. of Mot.

them. . . .” Id. at 7. The Order also directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that “simply and to Dismiss (Dkt. No 29) at 3.

concisely informs the Court and the defendants in plain terms what they are alleging the defendants did The First Cause of Action of the proposed Amended Complaint alleges a failure to enforce the

or did not do . . . and how those actions or inactions are a violation of HAVA or some other federal or National Voter Registration Act. In sum, this claim alleges that various states have failed to prevent

state statute, law or constitutional provision.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs were warned that “failure to file an non-citizens from voting in elections. Plaintiffs contend that, by allowing non-citizens to vote, their

amended complaint that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10 and sets forth in a comprehensible votes have been effectively diluted. The Second Cause of Action claims that the Election Assistance

manner claims upon which relief can be granted, will lead to the dismissal of this action.” Plaintiffs Commission (“EAC”) and the Department of Justice have improperly certified false state HAVA

also were instructed that, because they are proceeding pro se, they must delete references to any submissions. The Third Cause of Action contends that the EAC has intentionally promoted, facilitated,

associations or organizations on whose behalf they claimed to be suing. The Western District’s Order aided and abetted illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona and certain other States.

further noted that: The Fourth Cause of Action alleges that the New York State Board of Elections intentionally and

at least five of the plaintiffs in this matter had filed in 2004 a very similar action in the United maliciously failed to maintain a statewide central database that would enable municipalities to verify
States District Court for the Northern District of New York . . . Loeber v. Spargo, 04-cv-1193.
. . . [A] number of the plaintiffs filed declarations or affidavits which clearly intimate that the inactive voters. According to Plaintiffs, this causes various municipalities to receive a disproportionate
two actions are similar and that a reason for filing the instant action and to seek a change of

1
By Orders dated January 8, 2008 and July 31, 2008, this Court dismissed the claims in the
Loeber case. The matter is currently on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
- 2 - - 3 -
 Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 4 of 10
share of election-related funding and allows people to register in more than one location. In the Fifth
Cause of Action, Plaintiffs allege that the “Defendant New York State Municipal subdivisions . . .
intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal by
municipal bases as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and New York State Election Law.”
Plaintiffs allege that, if other states properly claimed HAVA funds, more funds would be available to
the State of New York and, as a result, New York municipalities would not have to increase property
taxes to cover election-related expenses. The Sixth Cause of Action alleges that the States of
California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states “intentionally fail to
maintain an accurate voter registration database” as required by federal and state law.
Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, “voting is being rapidly undermined by
illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens,” the strength of their votes is being diluted, their right to
free speech and freedom of association is being infringed, their “suffrage rights” are being
“disenfranchise[d] . . . by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs [sic] proprietary
tangible suffrage property,” they are suffering “reverse discrimination,” they are being deprived of a
republican form of government, they are being denied substantive due process and are being subjected
to a taking of property for the “unfunded mandate as done under the Medicaid tax levy without notice
and segregation of the election costs on real property tax levy,” and they are being deprived of
“Homerule autonomy” and equal protection of the law against false HAVA claims.
Presently before the Court are various Motions to dismiss the Complaint and Amended Complaint.
Although Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an enlarged, consolidated brief in opposition to the
motions, they have failed to do so.
- 4 -
Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 6 of 10
failed to comply with the Court’s prior order by filing an amended complaint this action must be
DISMISSED.
b. Failure to Comply with Rules 8 and 10
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” As noted, Plaintiff’s
were directed by the Court to submit an amended pleading that complies with the requirements of
Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiffs were specifically advised of the deficiencies in their Complaint, instructed
how to remedy the deficiencies, and given the opportunity to remedy the defects. Plaintiffs also were
warned of the consequences of failing to file a proper complaint. Notwithstanding the numerous
motions attacking the original Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint as failing to comply with
Rule 8 and the Court’s prior admonition, to date (several years later), Plaintiffs have made no effort to
submit a coherent, streamlined complaint. Rather than adhering to the Court’s warning and the dictates
of Rule 8(a)(2), Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Amended Complaint that is even longer and more
convoluted than the original filing. It continues to contain an abundance of irrelevant and otherwise
immaterial matters and unnecessary detail, including lengthy excerpts from articles and references to
irrelevant treaties. In most instances the proposed Amended Complaint fails to allege how the named
Defendants harmed them. Further, the length and prolixity of the proposed Amended Complaint places
an unnecessary and unjustified burden on the Court and the numerous Defendants who have to respond
to it. See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). For these reasons, all Motions to
dismiss are GRANTED and this matter DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
c. Standing
- 6 -
Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 5 of 10
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)). When considering a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must accept the factual allegations made by the non-moving
party as true and “draw all inferences in the light most favorable” to the non-moving party. In re
NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, 503 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2007). “The movant's burden is very
substantial, as ‘[t]he issue is not whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail ultimately, but whether the
claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.’” Log On America, Inc. v. Promethean
Asset Mgmt. L.L.C., 223 F. Supp. 2d 435, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of
Educ., 69 F.3d 669, 673 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citations omitted)). With this standard
in mind, the Court will address the pending Motions to dismiss.
III. DISCUSSION
a. Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order
By Order dated March 28, 2006, the Western District of New York directed Plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint complying with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 on or before May 1,
2006. See Dkt. No. 24. The March 28 Order specifically warned that “in the event plaintiffs fail to file
an amended complaint as directed above by May 1, 2006, the complaint shall be dismissed with
prejudice without further order of the Court.” Id. To date, despite having ample time to do so,
Plaintiffs have neither filed the requisite amended complaint nor served it on Defendants. Plaintiffs
were warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. Because Plaintiffs have
- 5 -
Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 7 of 10
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint on the
ground that Plaintiffs lack standing.2 Article III, § 2, cl. 1 of the Constitution extends the judicial
power only to actual “cases” or “controversies.” The doctrine of standing preforms a critical role in
assuring the limits to judicial power imposed by this case-or-controversy requirement. See Allen v.
Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). “‘In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is
entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.’” Id. at 750-51
(quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).
Three elements form the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). These are:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”- an invasion of a legally protected interest
which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or
‘hypothetical.’” Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of - the injury has to be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant,
and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third,
it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a
favorable decision.”
Id. at 560-61 (internal citations omitted). In applying these conditions, the Supreme Court has noted
that where a plaintiff is challenging government action or inaction, and “the plaintiff is not himself the
object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily
‘substantially more difficult’ to establish.” Id. at 562 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 758).
The allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint consistently fail to allege any
concrete harm personally suffered by Plaintiffs or explain how such harm could be traceable to the
Defendants. Throughout their twelve causes of action, Plaintiffs allege non-particularized injuries and
2
The remaining discussion assumes, arguendo, that the Complaint and/or proposed
Amended Complaint comply with the Court’s prior Order and Rules 8 and 10.
- 7 -
 Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 8 of 10 Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 9 of 10

generalized grievances, and, furthermore, leave unclear how any of the alleged harms could be also fails to articulate how these Defendants’ actions have harmed Plaintiffs or how any claimed injury

redressed by a favorable result in the courts. Where, as in the Ninth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs appear could be redressed by a favorable judgment. Accordingly, this provides another basis for dismissing

to specify a concrete injury, the taking of their property through real property taxes collected to cover the Complaint as to the New York State Attorney General and Secretary of State.

the costs of HAVA, their claim still fails. Plaintiffs do not allege that property taxes have increased 2. Counties of Lewis, Erie, Genessee, Allegany, Cayuga, Chemung,
Clinton, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston,
because of the need to cover a shortfall in HAVA funding, that there is a shortfall in HAVA funding, or Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Putnam, Saratoga, Seneca,
St. Lawrence, Steuben, Tioga, Ulster, Warren, Washington, Yates,
that there could be any such a shortfall because, as explained in Loeber, HAVA requires states to adopt Columbia, Jefferson, Madison, Sullivan, and Onondaga and the City
of New York
certain voting requirements regardless of any federal funding. 2008 WL 111172, at *4.
Defendants Counties of Lewis, Erie, Genessee, Allegany, Cayuga, Chemung, Clinton,
In short, Plaintiffs lack standing because they fail to allege any concrete injury. Moreover,
Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston, Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego,
for the reasons stated by this Court in Loeber, Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the
Putnam, Saratoga, Seneca, St. Lawrence, Steuben, Tioga, Ulster, Warren, Washington, Yates,
requirements of the NVRA or Titles I or II of the HAVA. 2008 WL 111172, at *4-5; see also Kalsson
Columbia, Jefferson, Madison, Sullivan, and Onondaga and Defendant City of New York also move to
v. U.S. Federal Election Com’n, 356 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (plaintiff did not have standing
dismiss on the ground that the Amended Complaint fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them.
despite his allegation that his vote was diluted because the NVRA results in more people registering to
Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action broadly speaks to the “Defendant New York State Municipal
vote than otherwise would be the case), aff’d, 159 Fed. Appx. 326 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Amalfitano
subdivisions . . . intentional[] fail[ure] to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a
v. United States, 2001 WL 103437 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2001), aff’d, 21 Fed. Appx. 67 (2d Cir. 2001). In
municipal by municipal bases as required under color of NVRA and HAVA.” Out of all the named
any event, the NVRA imposes obligations upon states; not counties. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a). For the
Defendant counties, Plaintiffs reside in only two - Erie and Genessee. Inasmuch as none of the
foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs lack standing, thereby providing another basis for dismissal.
Plaintiffs reside in any of the other Counties, the Amended Complaint fails to explain how any actions
d. Failure to State a Claim
by these other Counties or the City of New York caused harm to them. Moreover, neither the NVRA
1. New York Attorney General and New York Secretary of State
nor the HAVA impose any obligations upon counties or the City of New York. See 42 U.S.C. §
The New York Attorney General and Secretary of State move to dismiss the Amended
1973gg (imposing certain requirements on “each State”). Accordingly, this provides another basis for
Complaint against them on the ground that it fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them. The
dismissal of the Complaint and/or proposed Amended Complaint as to all the County Defendants and
Amended Complaint makes little reference to these Defendants and does not allege any acts
the City of New York.
attributable to these Defendants or any other personal involvement by them. The Amended Complaint

- 8 - - 9 -

Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 133 Filed 02/19/10 Page 10 of 10

3. States of Texas, California, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, and New

Mexico

The States of Texas and New Mexico move to dismiss for failure to state a claim against

them. As with the claims against the various New York State Counties, and bearing in mind that

Plaintiffs do not have standing concerning the distribution of funds under HAVA, Plaintiffs do not

allege any conduct by these States that caused harm to them. None of the Plaintiffs reside in any of

these States. Plaintiffs similarly fail to assert a basis for personal jurisdiction over these States. The

same reasoning applies to the claims against the States of Oregon, California, Nevada, and Arizona.

This provides another ground for dismissal of the Complaint as to all the Defendant States.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that all pending motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the Complaint and

proposed Amended Complaint are DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 19, 2010

Albany, New York

- 10 -
1:06-cv-00080-RJA The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act Matter effecting the statewide 516-223-6883
distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People's Email: captgabel@yahoo.com
equity in Bottom-up suffr et al v. The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, A PRO SE
Richard J. Arcara, presiding
Date filed: 02/06/2006
Date terminated: 08/14/2006 Plaintiff
Date of last filing: 08/14/2006
Edward M. Person, Jr.
CLOSED_2006
U.S. DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff
U.S. District Court, Western District of New York (Buffalo)
Christopher Earl Strunk
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act Matter Date Filed: 02/06/2006 Plaintiff
effecting the statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring Date Terminated: 08/14/2006 The AD HOC NYS People for
a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal Jury Demand: Defendant Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate
People's equity in Bottom-up suffr et al v. The States of: Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
California, Oregon, Nevada, A Jurisdiction: U.S. Government
Assigned to: Hon. Richard J. Arcara Defendant Plaintiff
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution
Equity Nationwide
Plaintiff
John Joseph Forjone : The 42 USC represented by John Joseph Forjone : The 42 USC
1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act V.
matter effecting the statewide matter effecting the statewide
Defendant
distribution of HAVA funds distribution of HAVA funds
requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel The United States Election Assistance
effecting New York Municipal effecting New York Municipal Commission by Thomas R. Wilkey
People's equity in Botto People's equity in Botto
tax levy P.O. Box 28
5367 Upper Holly Rd. Defendant
Clarendon, NY 14429 the United States Department of represented by Mary Pat Fleming
PRO SE Justice by the Attorney General U.S. Attorney's Office
Alberto Gonzalez Federal Centre
138 Delaware Avenue
Plaintiff Buffalo, NY 14202
Wayne Mack 716-843-5867
Fax: 716-551-3196
Email: mary.pat.fleming@usdoj.gov
Plaintiff ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Delplato, Jr.
Defendant
Plaintiff The Secretary of the State of New represented by Peter B. Sullivan
Gabriel Razzano represented by Gabriel Razzano York New York State Attorney General
135 Gordon Place 107 Delaware Avenue
Freeport, NY 11520 Fourth Floor

1 2

Buffalo, NY 14202 County of Cayuga represented by Jeremy A. Colby

(716) 853-8473 The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
Fax: 716-853-8428 each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
Email: Peter.Sullivan@oag.state.ny.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
County of Clinton represented by Jeremy A. Colby
Defendant The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
New York State Attorney General represented by Peter B. Sullivan each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
per CPLR 1012 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
County of Essex represented by Jeremy A. Colby
Defendant The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
The New York State Board of each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
Elections by its coounsel and every ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Municipal Board of Elections within
58 Municipalities
Defendant
County of Fulton represented by Jeremy A. Colby
Defendant The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
The duly elected Borough President represented by David W. Kloss each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz Kloss & Stenger ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
69 Delaware Avenue
Suite 1003
Buffalo, NY 14202 Defendant
716-847-2923 County of Herkimer represented by Jeremy A. Colby
Fax: 716-847-2924 The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
Email: dwkloss@klosslaw.com each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Defendant
County of Livingston represented by Jeremy A. Colby
County of Allegany represented by Jeremy A. Colby The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
The New York state municipalities by Webster Szanyi, LLP each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
each corporation counsel 1400 Liberty Building ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Buffalo, NY 14202
716-842-2800
Fax: 716-845-6709 Defendant
Email: jcolby@websterszanyi.com County of Montgomery represented by Jeremy A. Colby
LEAD ATTORNEY The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant

3 4
Defendant
County of Oneida
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Orleans
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Oswego
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Putnam
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Tioga
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Warren
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Erie
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
County of Orange
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Rockland
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Westchester
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
The City of New York
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Nassau
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Suffolk
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph F. Reina
Erie County Department of Law
95 Franklin Street
16th Floor
5 6
represented by Thomas Simeti
County of Rockland Department of Law
11 New Hempstead Road
New City, NY 10956
(845) 638-5468
Fax: (845) 638-5676
Email: simetit@co.rockland.ny.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Fumanti Arcuri
Office of the Westchester County
Attorney
148 Martine Avenue
6th Floor - Room 600
White Plains, NY 10601
914-995-2696
Fax: 914-995-3132
Email: cfa1@westchestergov.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Kloss
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
7 8
Buffalo, NY 14202
716-858-2200
Fax: 716-858-2281
Email: reinaj@erie.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
County of Monroe represented by Michael E. Davis
The New York state municipalities by Monroe County Department of Law
each corporation counsel of 39 West Main Street
Room 307
Rochester, NY 14614
585-753-1407
Fax: 585-324-4238
Email: mdavis@monroecounty.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
County of Onondaga represented by Kathleen M. Dougherty
The New York state municipalities by Onondaga County of Department of
each corporation counsel of Law
John H. Mulroy Civic Center
421 Montgomery Street
10th Floor
Syracuse, NY 13202
315-435-2170
Fax: 315-435-5729
Email: kdougherty@ongov.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
County of Albany
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Dutchess
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
Defendant
County of Niagara
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Genesee represented by Jeremy A. Colby
The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
County of Wyoming
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Chautauqua
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Cattaraugus
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Chemung represented by Jeremy A. Colby
The New York state municipalities by (See above for address)
each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
County of Cortland
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Chenango
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Columbia
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Tompkins
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Schuyler
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Steuben
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Broome
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
County of Lewis
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Madison
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Otsego
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of St. Lawrence
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Franklin
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Saratoga
The New York state municipalities by
represented by Stephen M. Sorrels
Feldman, Kiefer & Herman, LLP
110 Pearl Street
Suite 400
Buffalo, NY 14202
716-852-5875, x226
Fax: 716-852-4253
Email: ssorrels@fkhattys.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Marcus
Broome County Attorney's Office
44 Hawley Street
P.O. Box 1766
Binghamton, NY 13902
607-778-2117
Fax: 607-778-6122
Email: amarcus@co.broome.ny.us
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
9 10
represented by Alan R. Peterman
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP
One Park Place
300 South State Street
P.O. Box 4878
Syracuse, NY 13221-4878
315-425-2775
Fax: 315-425-8575
Email: apeterman@hiscockbarclay.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Tina M. Wayland-Smith
Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC
60 East State Street
Sherrill, NY 13461
315-363-0585
Fax: 316-363-1952
Email: twslaw@twcny.rr.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
11
Defendant
County of Ontario
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Yates
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Seneca
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Wayne
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Jefferson
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Washington
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Rensselaer
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Greene
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Ulster
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Delaware
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Hamilton
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
Defendant
County of Schenectady
The New York state municipalities by
each corporation counsel of
represented by Michael G. Reinhardt
Ontario County Attorney's Office
27 North Main Street
4th Floor
Canandaigua, NY 14424-1447
585-396-4410
Fax: 585-396-4481
Email:
michael.reinhardt@co.ontario.ny.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John V. Hartzell
Jefferson County Attorney's Office
175 Arsenal Street
Watertown, NY 13601
315-785-3088
Fax: 315-785-5178
Email: JohnH@co.jefferson.ny.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy A. Colby
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
12
 LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

County of Schoharie
The New York state municipalities by Defendant
each corporation counsel of State of New Mexico represented by Francine A. Chavez
each by the Secretary of State and NM Attorney General's Office
Defendant Attorney General respectively P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Counrty of Sullivan represented by Thomas J. Cawley (505) 827-6920
The New York state municipalities by Sullivan County Department of Law LEAD ATTORNEY
each corporation counsel of County Government Center ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
100 North Street
P.O. Box 5012
Monticello, NY 12701 Defendant
845-794-3000 ext. 3565 State of Texas represented by Wylie E. Kumler
Fax: 845-794-4924 each by the Secretary of State and Office of the Attorney General of Texas
LEAD ATTORNEY Attorney General respectively 300 W. 15th Street
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
Defendant 516-463-2120
Fax: 512-320-0667
State of California Email: wylie.kumler@oag.state.tx.us
each by the Secretary of State and LEAD ATTORNEY
Attorney General respectively ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
State of Oregon Date Filed # Docket Text
each by the Secretary of State and
Attorney General respectively 02/06/2006 1 COMPLAINT against The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas, The United States Election Assistance Commission by Thomas
R. Wilkey, the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General
Defendant Alberto Gonzalez, The Secretary of the State of New York, The New York
State of Nevada State Board of Elections by its coounsel and every Municipal Board of
each by the Secretary of State and Elections within 58 Municipalities, The New York State municipalities by each
Attorney General respectively corporation counsel of: Erie, Monroe, Onondaga, Albany, Dutchess, Orange,
Rockland, Westchester, The City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Niagara,
Orleans, Gene, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty
Defendant Markowitz (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 19792), filed by The 42 USC 1983
State of Arizona represented by Diana L. Varela / Bivens / False Claims Act Matter effecting the statewide distribution of
each by the Secretary of State and Office of the Attorney General HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal
Attorney General respectively State of Arizona People's equity in Bottom-up suffr, Wayne Mack, Dan Delplato, Jr, Gabriel
1275 West Washington Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr, Christopher Earl Strunk, The AD HOC NYS
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926 People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate, Interstate HAVA Funds
602-542-7993 Distribution Equity Nationwide.(DLC) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
Fax: 602-542-8308 02/14/2006 Summons Issued as to The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New
Email: Diana.Varela@azag.gov

13 14

Mexico, Texas, The United States Election Assistance Commission by Thomas
R. Wilkey, the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General
Alberto Gonzalez, The Secretary of the State of New York, The New York
State Board of Elections by its coounsel and every Municipal Board of
Elections within 58 Municipalities, The New York State municipalities by each
corporation counsel of: Erie, Monroe, Onondaga, Albany, Dutchess, Orange,
Rockland, Westchester, The City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Niagara,
Orleans, Gene, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty
Markowitz. (DLC) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
02/21/2006 2 LETTER to serve the summons and complaint by fax by Christopher Earl
Strunk. Title of document changed from a Motion to a Letter pursuant to Pro Se
Dept (S). Modified on 2/28/2006 (DLC). (Entered: 02/23/2006)
Emergency Stay Motion Memorandum of Law in Support of County Defendants'
Emergency Stay Motion byCounty of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of
Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of
Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans,
County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren.
(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
03/17/2006 11 MOTION for Leave for Assistant Attorney General Francine A. Chavez,
attorney for State of New Mexico to Appear Admission Pro Hac Vice by The
States of: New Mexico.(DLC) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
03/17/2006 12 MOTION to Dismiss by The States of: New Mexico.(DLC) (Entered:
03/17/2006)

02/27/2006 3 Letter from Christopher Earl strunk, dated 2/17/06, to Chief Judge reference 03/17/2006 13 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 12 MOTION to Dismiss by The States of:
serving of summons and complaints. (DLC) (Entered: 02/28/2006) New Mexico. (DLC) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/13/2006 4 MOTION to Dismiss or change venue or order more definite statement by The 03/17/2006 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The States of: New Mexico re 13
Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per Memorandum in Support, 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Admission Pro
CPLR 1012.(Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2006) Hac Vice, 12 MOTION to Dismiss. (DLC) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/13/2006 5 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 4 MOTION to Dismiss or change venue or 03/20/2006
order more definite statement byThe Secretary of the State of New York, New
York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered:
03/13/2006) 03/21/2006
03/13/2006 6 DECLARATION signed by Peter B. Sullivan re 4 MOTION to Dismiss or
change venue or order more definite statement filed by The Secretary of the 03/21/2006
State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012.
(Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
03/22/2006
03/13/2006 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The Secretary of the State of New York, New
York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012 re 6 Declaration, 5 Memorandum
in Support, 4 MOTION to Dismiss or change venue or order more definite 03/24/2006
statement (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
03/13/2006 8 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint,,,, Emergency Stay Motion by County of 03/24/2006
Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of
Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery,
County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, 03/24/2006
County of Tioga, County of Warren.(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
03/13/2006 9 DECLARATION signed by Jeremy A. Colby re 8 MOTION to Stay re 1
Complaint,,,, Emergency Stay Motion filed by County of Allegany, County of 03/27/2006
Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of
Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida,
County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, 03/28/2006
County of Warren. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A - C# 2 Exhibit Exhibits
D - G# 3 Exhibit Exhibit H)(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
03/13/2006 10 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 8 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint,,,,
15 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit
Attorney Declaration# 2 Certificate of Service plaintiffs by mail# 3 Certificate
of Service co-defendants by ECF)(Davis, Michael) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
16 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Change Venue, MOTION for More Definite
Statement by County of Ontario.(Reinhardt, Michael) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
17 Verified ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by County of
Clinton.(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
18 MOTION to Change Venue, MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION for More Definite
Statement by County of Erie.(Reina, Joseph) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by David W. Kloss on behalf of The City of New York
(Kloss, David) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The City of New York re 19 Notice of
Appearance (Kloss, David) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by David W. Kloss on behalf of The duly elected
Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz (Attachments: # 1 Certificate
of Service)(Kloss, David) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
22 Letter from Andrew G. Tarantion, Jr., Assistant County Attorney for Suffolk
County, dated 3/20/06, to Clerk of Court rejecting attempted service. (DLC)
(Entered: 03/27/2006)
23 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Jefferson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum
in Support JVHmemorandum# 2 Certificate of Service # 3 Supplement Local
Rule 83.2 Motion# 4 Certificate of Service)(Hartzell, John) (Entered:
03/28/2006)

15 16
03/29/2006 24 ORDER, that plaintiffs' must file an amended complaint. Join Parties/Amend
Pleadings due by 5/1/2006. Further, that plaintiffs must show cause, in writing
why this action should not be dismissed or transferred to the Northern District
of NY, and why sanctions shoould not be imposed against them. Show Cause
Response due by 5/1/2006. FURTHER, that any and all further proceedings in
this action, including, but not limited to, the pending motions filed by certain
defendants, any further responses to the complaint by defendants, and service of
the summons and complaint on any defendants who have not been served to
date, are STAYED pending further order or directions from the Court.Signed
by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 3/28/06. (DLC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
04/03/2006 25 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pto Hac Vice by State of Texas for Wylie E.
Kumler.(DLC) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
05/02/2006 26 RESPONSE to 24 Order to Show Cause filed by John Joseph Forjone : The 42
USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide
distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New
York Municipal People's equity in Botto, Christopher Earl Strunk.
(Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5(DLC) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
05/04/2006 27 TEXT ORDER - defendants shall file a reply to plaintiff's response to the order
to show cause on or before June 1, 2006 . Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on
5/4/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
05/08/2006 28 MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint by The Secretary of the State of New
York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012.(Sullivan, Peter)
(Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/08/2006 29 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 28 MOTION to Dismiss amended
complaint with certificate of service byThe Secretary of the State of New York,
New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered:
05/08/2006)
05/11/2006 30 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan R. Peterman on behalf of County of Lewis
(Peterman, Alan) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
05/11/2006 31 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by County of Lewis.
(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Alan R. Peterman, Esq.# 2 Memorandum in
Support of Lewis County's Motion to Dismiss# 3 Certificate of
Service)(Peterman, Alan) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
05/11/2006 32 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen M. Dougherty on behalf of County of
Onondaga (Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
05/11/2006 33 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Onondaga. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit
Declaration in support of motion# 2 Certificate of Service# 3 Appendix Letter
of 3-33-06# 4 Appendix Letter of 5-11-06)(Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered:
05/11/2006)
05/12/2006 34 NOTICE of Appearance by Tina M. Wayland-Smith on behalf of County of
Madison (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wayland-Smith, Tina)
17
05/26/2006 48 Certificate of Service re Motion by County of Jefferson.(Hartzell, John)
Modified on 5/30/2006 (DLC). (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 49 First MOTION waiver of retention of local counsel pursuant to local rule 83.2
by County of Broome. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Aaron J. Marcus# 2
Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 50 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron J. Marcus on behalf of County of Broome
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 51 DECLARATION signed by Aaron J. Marcus filed by County of Broome,
County of Broome Declaration as reply of County of Broome to Plaintiff's
response filed by County of Broome, County of Broome. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/30/2006 E-Filing Notification: Document 48 filed as a Motion to Dismiss is really a
Certificate of Service. Title of document changed to Certificate of Service and
motion terminated. (DLC) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 E-Filing Notification: 50 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron J. Marcus on behalf
of County of Broome Is not signed. Document must be re-filed with signature.
(DLC) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 52 TEXT ORDER granting 49 defts. Motion to waive the retention of local counsel
requirement of Local Rule 83.2 . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on
5/30/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 53 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen M. Sorrels on behalf of County of
Columbia (Sorrels, Stephen) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 54 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Columbia. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in
Support of Motion to Dismiss# 2 Certificate of Service)(Sorrels, Stephen)
(Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 55 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 26 Response to the Order to Show Cause,
filed by State of New Mexico. (DLC) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 56 NOTICE of Appearance by Carol Fumanti Arcuri on behalf of County of
Westchester (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered:
05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 57 MOTION waiver of Local Rule 83.2 requiring retention of local counsel by
County of Westchester.(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 58 DECLARATION signed by Carol F. Arcuri re 57 MOTION waiver of Local
Rule 83.2 requiring retention of local counsel filed by County of Westchester,
County of Westchester filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Certificate of Service)(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered:
05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by County of Westchester re 57 MOTION
waiver of Local Rule 83.2 requiring retention of local counsel (Arcuri, Carol)
19
(Entered: 05/12/2006)
05/12/2006 35 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Madison. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2
Certificate of Service)(Wayland-Smith, Tina) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
05/16/2006 36 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Erie. (Attachments: # 1)(Reina, Joseph)
(Entered: 05/16/2006)
05/16/2006 E-Filing Notification: Document 36 was filed as a MOTION to Dismiss. This
document is titled as a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause.
The document also is not signed. This document must be re-filed as a Reply
Response and must be signed. (DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
05/17/2006 37 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 26 Reply/Response, filed by County of Erie. (Reina,
Joseph) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
05/17/2006 38 RESPONSE DECLARATION to 28 MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint
filed by John Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: #1
(Exhibits 1-7) #2 (Exhibits 8-10) #3 (Exhibits 11-12) #4 (Exhibits 13-
15).(DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
05/17/2006 39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Joseph Forjone and Chrisopher Earl
Strunk re 38 Response to Motion. (DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
05/17/2006 40 NOTICE of Appearance by Tina M. Wayland-Smith on behalf of County of
Madison. (DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
05/17/2006 41 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Judgment dismissing
the Amended Complaint by County of Madison.(DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
05/17/2006 42 AFFIDAVIT of Tina M. Wayland-Smith in support of 41 MOTION to Dismiss
the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by County of Madison. (DLC) (Entered:
05/17/2006)
05/19/2006 43 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 26 Reply/Response, filed by County of Onondaga.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered:
05/19/2006)
05/24/2006 44 MOTION to Dismiss with Memorandum of Law by County of Jefferson.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hartzell, John) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
05/24/2006 45 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by State of Texas.(DLC)
(Entered: 05/24/2006)
05/24/2006 46 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT re 45 MOTION to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint by State of Texas. (DLC) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
05/24/2006 47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Texas re 46 Memorandum in
Support, 45 MOTION to Dismiss. (DLC) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
05/24/2006 E-Filing Notification: 44 MOTION to Dismiss with Affidavit and
Memorandum of Law was filed without proof of service. Proof of service to be
provided. (DLC) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
18
(Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 60 DECLARATION signed by Carol F. Arcuri re 26 Reply/Response, filed by
County of Westchester, County of Westchester in reply to plaintiffs' response
filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A-Acknowledgement# 2 Exhibit B-plaintiffs' May 6 fax transmission# 3
Certificate of Service)(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006 61 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 26 Reply/Response, memorandum in support of
Westchester County's reply declaration filed by County of Westchester.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/31/2006 62 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron J. Marcus on behalf of County of Broome
(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
05/31/2006 63 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Dismiss by The City of New York,
The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kloss, David) Modified on 6/1/2006
(DLC). (Entered: 05/31/2006)
05/31/2006 64 MOTION to Dismiss by The City of New York, The duly elected Borough
President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of
Service noitce to dismiss)(Kloss, David) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
05/31/2006 65 Certificate of Service by The City of New York, The duly elected Borough
President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of
Service CORRECTED)(Kloss, David) Modified on 6/1/2006 (DLC, ). (Entered:
05/31/2006)
05/31/2006 E-Filing Notification: Both of these documents were filed as motions 65
MOTION to Amend/Correct Certificate of Service, and 63 MOTION to
Dismiss. The 63 document is an Affidavit in support of 64 Motion and the 65
document is a corrected Certificate of Service. Both documents have been re-
titled as to what they are and attorney is instructed to docket documents in
future as to the title on the document. (DLC) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
06/01/2006 66 MOTION to Dismiss by the United States Department of Justice by the
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.(Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
06/01/2006 67 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 26 Reply/Response, to Plaintiffs'
Response to this Court's Order to Show Cause by County of Genesee, County
of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of
St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington,
County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga,
County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer,
County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of
Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of
Warren. (Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
06/01/2006 68 MEMORANDUM in Support re 66 MOTION to Dismiss filed by the United
States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
20
 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
06/01/2006 69 DECLARATION re 66 MOTION to Dismiss, 68 Memorandum in Support of
Motion filed by the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney
General Alberto Gonzalez. (Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
06/01/2006 70 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy A. Colby on behalf of County of Genesee,
County of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca,
County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of
Washington, County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany,
County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton,
County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of
Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of
Tioga, County of Warren (Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
06/01/2006 71 MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice, MOTION to proceed without local
counsel by County of Rockland.(SG) Additional attachment(s) added on
6/2/2006 Attorney's Oath (SG, ). Modified on 6/2/2006 (SG, ). (Entered:
06/02/2006)
06/02/2006 E-Filing Notification: Attorney's Oath added to Motion 71 MOTION for Leave
to Appear pro hac vice (SG) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
06/06/2006 72 TEXT ORDER granting 71 Motion for Leave to Appear without local counsel .
Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/6/2006. (Baker, J.) Modified on
6/7/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 06/06/2006)
06/07/2006 E-Filing Notification: 72 TEXT ORDER granting 71 Motion for Leave to
Appear without local counsel. Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/6/2006.
(Baker, J.) Modified on 6/7/2006 (Baker, J.). (Baker, J.) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
06/09/2006 73 Plaintiffs Request for a Stay of Response to Motion of Several State Defendants
and for Consolidated Response to Motions of Municipal Defendants
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (JDK, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
06/12/2006 74 TEXT ORDER granting 25 Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice. Signed by
Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/12/2006. (Baker, J.) Modified on 6/12/2006
(Baker, J.). (Entered: 06/12/2006)
06/12/2006 75 TEXT ORDER Defts to file response to plaintiffs' motion, item number 73, on
or before 7/5/2006. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 6/12/2006. (Baker, J.)
Modified on 6/12/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 06/12/2006)
06/13/2006 78 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by Counrty of Sullivan.(DLC)
(Entered: 06/15/2006)
06/13/2006 79 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice and Request for Waiver of Fee by
Counrty of Sullivan.(DLC) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
06/14/2006 76 TEXT ORDER granting 57 Motion . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on
6/14/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
21
07/04/2006 87 TEXT ORDER granting 83 deft. State of Arizona's Motion for Leave to Appear
pro hac vice . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/30/2006. (Baker, J.)
Modified on 7/4/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 07/04/2006)
07/05/2006 88 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Remark filed by County of Onondaga.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered:
07/05/2006)
07/05/2006 89 DECLARATION signed by Carol F. Arcuri re 73 Remark filed by County of
Westchester, County of Westchester with attached Certificate of Service filed
by County of Westchester, County of Westchester. (Arcuri, Carol) (Entered:
07/05/2006)
07/05/2006 90 DECLARATION filed by County of Columbia, County of Columbia in
Response to Plaintiffs' Application filed by County of Columbia, County of
Columbia. (Sorrels, Stephen) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
07/05/2006 91 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Sepcial Master and for
Consolidation of Plaintiffs' Response filed by State of Arizona. (DLC) (Entered:
07/05/2006)
07/05/2006 92 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 73 Request for Appointment of a Special
Master and request for a Stay to Respond to each State and County through a
consolidated response pending determination of the parties filed by State of
New Mexico. (DLC) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
07/05/2006 93 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 75 Order, Set Deadlines RESPONSE BY FEDERAL
DEFENDANTS filed by the United States Department of Justice by the
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1)(Fleming, Mary)
(Entered: 07/05/2006)
07/05/2006 94 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Remark, 75 Order, Set Deadlines Motion to
Appoint Special Master filed by The City of New York, The duly elected
Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate
of Service)(Kloss, David) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
07/06/2006 95 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 75 Order, Set Deadlines Motion to Appoint Special
Master filed by State of Texas. (Kumler, Wylie) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
07/06/2006 96 DECLARATION re 73 Remark filed by County of Madison, County of
Madison Affidavit in Opposition filed by County of Madison, County of
Madison. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wayland-Smith, Tina)
(Entered: 07/06/2006)
07/17/2006 Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Diana Varela: $75.00, receipt number 21785. (DLC)
(Entered: 07/18/2006)
07/18/2006 97 MOTION for Leave to make a consolidated reply of expanded length with
exhibits by Christopher Earl Strunk.(DLC) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
07/18/2006 98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Christopher Earl Strunk re 97 MOTION for
Leave to make a consolidated reply of expanded length iwth exhibits. (DLC)
23
06/14/2006 77 DECLARATION signed by Peter B. Sullivan re 73 Remark filed by The
Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per
CPLR 1012, The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney
General per CPLR 1012 filed by The Secretary of the State of New York, New
York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012, The Secretary of the State of New
York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter)
(Entered: 06/14/2006)
06/16/2006 80 DECLARATION signed by Jeremy A. Colby re 8 MOTION to Stay re 1
Complaint,,,, Emergency Stay Motion filed by County of Genesee, County of
Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of
St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington,
County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga,
County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer,
County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of
Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of
Warren in Further Support of County Defendants' Request to Enjoin Plaintiffs
as Vexatious Litigators. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered:
06/16/2006)
06/22/2006 81 DECLARATION signed by Aaron J. Marcus filed by County of Broome,
County of Broome Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Stay (No.
73) filed by County of Broome, County of Broome. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
06/23/2006 82 AFFIDAVIT re 75 Order, Set Deadlines Affidavit of Alan R. Peterman, Esq. in
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Special Master by County
of Lewis. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Peterman, Alan) (Entered:
06/23/2006)
06/29/2006 83 MOTION for Diana L. Varela Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State of
Arizona.(DLC) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
06/29/2006 84 AFFIDAVIT re 75 Order, Set Deadlines Affidavit of Thomas Simeti, Esq. in
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Special Master and
Extension of Time by County of Rockland, County of Rockland filed by County
of Rockland, County of Rockland. (Simeti, Thomas) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
06/29/2006 85 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by County of Rockland re 84 Affidavit, (Simeti,
Thomas) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
06/30/2006 86 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 73 Remark to Plaintiffs' Letter Dated
May 31, 2006 by County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of Steuben,
County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of
Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County
of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton,
County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston,
County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of
Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren. (Colby,
Jeremy) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
22
(Entered: 07/18/2006)
07/31/2006 99 TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 Defendant County of
Sullivan's Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice. Deft shall be admitted pro
hac vice upon payment of fee. Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 7/31/2006.
(Baker, J.) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
08/08/2006 Pro Hac Vice Filing fee paid for Thomas Simeti: $ 75.00, receipt number 22084
(DLC) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
08/11/2006 Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Thomas Crawley: $ 75.00, receipt number 22113.
(DLC) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
08/14/2006 100 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Change Venue. Clerk of Court to transfer case
to Northern District of New York . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on
8/14/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
08/14/2006 Case transferred to District of Northern District of New York; Filed documents
on disk, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. (DLC) (Entered:
08/15/2006)
24
1:06-cv-00263-GLS United States of America v. New York State Board of Elections et al LEAD ATTORNEY
Gary L. Sharpe, presiding ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date filed: 03/01/2006
Date of last filing: 11/19/2010 Justin S. Weinstein-Tull
U.S. Department of Justice
ADR, APPEAL 1800 G Street NW
Room 7145
U.S. District Court Washington, DC 20006
Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE - Version 4.0.3] 202-353-0319
(Albany) Fax: 202-514-5331
Email: justin.weinstein-tull@usdoj.gov
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-00263-GLS ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

United States of America v. New York State Board of Date Filed: 03/01/2006
Elections et al Jury Demand: None V.
Assigned to: Judge Gary L. Sharpe Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Defendant
related Case: 1:10-cv-00229-GLS-RFT Voting
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff New York State Board of Elections represented by Kimberly A. Galvin
New York State Board of Elections
Case in other court: 2nd Circuit, '07-04211-cv'
40 Steuben Street
2nd Circuit, 06-01735-cv Albany, NY 12207-1650
2CCA, 06-03953-cv 518-474-6367
2nd Circuit, 10-02320-cv Fax: 518-486-4546
Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights Email: kgalvin@elections.state.ny.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff
Paul M. Collins
United States of America represented by Barbara D. Cottrell New York State Board of Elections
Office of United States Attorney - Albany Office of Special Counsel
445 Broadway 40 Steuben Street
218 James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse Albany, NY 12207-1650
Albany, NY 12207-2924 518-474-6367
518-431-0247 Fax: 518-486-4546
Fax: 518-431-0249 Email: pcollins@elections.state.ny.us
Email: barbara.cottrell@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison M. Carr
Brian F. Heffernan New York State Board of Elections
U.S. Dept. of Justice - Civil Division Office of Special Counsel
Voting Section 40 Steuben Street
1800 G. Street NW Albany, NY 12207-1650
Room 7260 518-474-6367
Washington, DC 20006 Fax: 518-486-4546
202-514-4755 Email: acarr@elections.state.ny.us
Fax: 202-307-3961 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Email: brian.f.heffernan@usdoj.gov

1 2

Patricia L. Murray LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Todd D. Valentine
Co-Executive Directors of the New
York State Board of Elections, in
their official capacities
Defendant
Stanley L. Zalen
co-Executive Directors of the New
York State Board of Elections, in
their official capacities
New York State Board of Elections ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Office of Special Counsel
40 Steuben Street Patricia L. Murray
Albany, NY 12207-1650 (See above for address)
518-474-6367 TERMINATED: 08/21/2007
Fax: 518-486-4546
Email: PMurray@Elections.state.ny.us Todd D. Valentine
TERMINATED: 08/21/2007 (See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd D. Valentine
New York State Board of Elections
Office of Special Counsel Defendant
40 Steuben Street State of New York represented by Jeffrey M. Dvorin
Albany, NY 12207-1650 Office of Attorney General - Albany
518-474-6236 Department of Law
Fax: 518-486-4068 The Capitol
Email: tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us Albany, NY 12224
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 518-474-4441
Fax: 518-473-1572
Email: jeffrey.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Kimberly A. Galvin ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY Bruce J. Boivin
Office of Attorney General - Albany
Paul M. Collins State of New York
(See above for address) The Capitol
LEAD ATTORNEY Albany, NY 12224
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 518-473-5093
Fax: 518-473-1572
Patricia L. Murray Email: bruce.boivin@oag.state.ny.us
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TERMINATED: 08/21/2007
Bruce Feldman
Todd D. Valentine New York State Dept. of Transportation
(See above for address) Office of Legal Affairs
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 50 Wolf Road
6th Floor
Albany, NY 12232
518-457-2411
represented by Kimberly A. Galvin Fax: 518-457-4021
(See above for address) Email: BFeldman@dot.state.ny.us
LEAD ATTORNEY TERMINATED: 04/16/2007
Paul M. Collins Douglas J. Goglia
(See above for address) New York State Attorney General -

3 4
 Albany Office Emery, Celli Law Firm
The Capitol 75 Rockefeller Plaza
Albany, NY 12224 20th Floor
518-474-6800 New York, NY 10019
Fax: 518-473-1572 212-763-5000
Email: douglas.goglia@ag.ny.gov Fax: 212-763-5001
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Email: remery@ecbalaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
The Catskill Center for represented by Emily Stern Ilann M. Maazel
Independence Proskauer, Rose Law Firm - New York Emery, Celli Law Firm
Office 75 Rockefeller Plaza
1585 Broadway 20th Floor
New York, NY 10036 New York, NY 10019
212-969-3000 212-763-5000
Fax: 212-969-2900 Fax: 212-763-5001
Email: estern@proskauer.com Email: imaazel@ecbalaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
Stephen R. Kaye Stephen DeWitt represented by Eric Hecker
Proskauer, Rose Law Firm - New York TERMINATED: 03/23/2006 (See above for address)
Office LEAD ATTORNEY
1585 Broadway ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
New York, NY 10036
212-969-3000 Richard D. Emery
Fax: 212-969-2900 (See above for address)
Email: skaye@proskauer.com LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Defendant
Larry Rockefeller
TERMINATED: 03/23/2006
Ilann M. Maazel
(See above for address)
represented by Eric Hecker Intervenor Defendant
Emery, Celli Law Firm
75 Rockefeller Plaza Henry J. Nicols represented by Eric Hecker
20th Floor TERMINATED: 03/23/2006 (See above for address)
New York, NY 10019 LEAD ATTORNEY
212-763-5025 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fax: 212-763-5001
Email: ehecker@ecbalaw.com Richard D. Emery
LEAD ATTORNEY (See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard D. Emery
Ilann M. Maazel

5 6

(See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant
Lionel Logan
TERMINATED: 03/23/2006
Intervenor Defendant
Bo Lipari
TERMINATED: 03/23/2006
represented by Eric Hecker
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard D. Emery
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ilann M. Maazel
(See above for address)
represented by Eric Hecker
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard D. Emery
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
The League of Women Voters of
New York State
TERMINATED: 03/23/2006
Intervenor Defendant
County of Suffolk
TERMINATED: 07/19/2007
represented by Eric Hecker
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard D. Emery
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ilann M. Maazel
(See above for address)
represented by Christopher A. Jeffreys
Suffolk County Attorney's Office
100 Veteran's Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
631-853-4049
Fax: 631-853-5833
Email:
christopher.jeffreys@suffolkcountyny.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ilann M. Maazel Leonard G. Kapsalis

Intervenor Defendant
New Yorkers for Verified Voting
TERMINATED: 03/23/2006
(See above for address) Suffolk County Attorney's Office
100 Veteran's Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
631-853-4851
Fax: 631-853-5306
represented by Eric Hecker
Email:
(See above for address)
leonard.kapsalis@suffolkcountyny.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard D. Emery
(See above for address) Intervenor Defendant
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Nassau County Board of Elections represented by John Ciampoli
Nassau County Board of Elections Nassau County Attorney's Office
Ilann M. Maazel and Nassau County Legislature 1 West Street
(See above for address) Mineola, NY 11501
518-571-3076

7 8

Amicus
Citizens Action New York
Amicus
Gary Bischoff
Ulster County Legislator
Amicus
Joel Tyner
Dutchess County Legislator
Amicus
Mark Crispin Miller
Professor of Media, Culture and
Communication at New York
University
Amicus
Steven Freeman
Ph.D., M.S. University of
Pennsylvania's Wharton School
Amicus
Harvery Wasserman
Free Press Senior Editor
Amicus
Robert J. Fitrakis
Ph.D.,J.D. Executive Director
Columbus Institute for
Contemporary Journalism
Amicus
Fax: 518-571-6604
Email: jciampoli@nassaucountyny.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter James Clines
Nassau County Attorney's Office
1 West Street
Mineola, NY 11501
516-571-3958
Fax: 516-571-6604
Email: pclines@nassaucountyny.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori A. Barrett
Nassau County Attorney's Office
1 West Street
Mineola, NY 11501
516-571-6145
Fax: 516-571-4332
Email: lbarrett@nassaucountyny.gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea T. Novick
Finder, Novick Law Firm
315 Park Avenue South
19th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-989-9100
Fax: 212-505-2839
Email: andinovick@aol.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geri S. Krauss
Krauss PLLC
1 North Broadway
White Plains, NY 10601
914-949-9100
Fax: 914-949-9109
Email: gsk@kraussny.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
9 10
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
11
Amicus
Where's The Paper, New York represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
New York Citizens for Clean represented by Andrea T. Novick
Elections (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Northeast Citizens for Responsible represented by Andrea T. Novick
Media, New York (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Shandaken Democrat Club, New represented by Andrea T. Novick
York (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
The Dutchess Peace Coalition, NY represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Connie Hogarth Center for Social represented by Andrea T. Novick
Action at Manhattanville College, (See above for address)
Purchase, New York LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Susan Zimet represented by Andrea T. Novick
Ulster County Legislator (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Abbe Waldman DeLozier represented by Andrea T. Novick
co-author and co-editor (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Pokey Anderson represented by Andrea T. Novick
journalist, broadcaster (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Election Defense Alliance represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
New Hampshire Fair Elections represented by Andrea T. Novick
Committee (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
AUDITAZ represented by Andrea T. Novick
(Americans United for Democracy (See above for address)
Integrity and Transparency in LEAD ATTORNEY
Elections, Arizona) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Voter Confidence Committee, represented by Andrea T. Novick
California (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Protect California Ballots represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
12

Amicus
Video the Vote, Florida represented by Andrea T. Novick
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Coalition for Voting Integrity, represented by Andrea T. Novick
Pennsylvania (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
J30 Coalition represented by Andrea T. Novick
Ohio election integrity coalition (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
New Yorkers for Verified Voting represented by Geri S. Krauss
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
League of Women Voters of New represented by Geri S. Krauss
York State, Inc. (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Citizen Action of New York represented by Geri S. Krauss
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
New York Public Interest represented by Geri S. Krauss
Research Group, Inc. (See above for address)
13
Emily Stern
Proskauer, Rose Law Firm - New York
Office
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
212-969-3000
Fax: 212-969-2900
Email: estern@proskauer.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Gresham
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
The Disabilities Network of NYC represented by Dennis R. Boyd
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/04/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Stern
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Gresham
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
The National Multiple Sclerosis represented by Dennis R. Boyd
Society Upstate New York Chapter (See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/04/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Stern
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Gresham
(See above for address)
15
Amicus
Election Commissioners
Association of New York
Amicus
The New York State Independent
Living Council
Amicus
Disabled in Action of Metropolitan
New York
Amicus
United Spinal Association
Amicus
American Council of the Blind of
New York
Amicus
The New York State Association of
Community and Residential
Agencies and Self Advocacy
Association of New York State
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey D. Wait
Saratoga Springs City Court
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866-3184
518-581-1797
Email: jdwait@yahoo.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis R. Boyd
New York Lawyers for the Public Interest
151 West 30th Street
11th Floor
New York, NY 10001
212-336-9307
Fax: 212-336-9307
Email: dboyd@nylpi.org
TERMINATED: 02/04/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Gresham
New York Lawyers For The Public
Interest
151 West 30th Street
11th Floor
New York, NY 10001-4007
212-244-4664
Fax: 212-244-4570
Email: johnagresham@verizon.net
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis R. Boyd
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/04/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
14
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis R. Boyd
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/04/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Stern
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Gresham
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis R. Boyd
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/04/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Stern
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Gresham
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis R. Boyd
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/04/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Stern
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
16
 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
John A. Gresham Cross Defendant
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED New York State Board of Elections represented by Paul M. Collins
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Amicus ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Avante International Technology, represented by James T. Potter
Inc. Hinman, Straub Law Firm Patricia L. Murray
121 State Street (See above for address)
Albany, NY 12207-1693 TERMINATED: 08/21/2007
518-436-0751
Fax: 518-436-4751 Todd D. Valentine
Email: jpotter@hinmanstraub.com (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Cross Defendant

Nassau County Board of Elections represented by John Ciampoli Todd D. Valentine represented by Paul M. Collins
TERMINATED: 07/19/2007 (See above for address) Co-Executive Directors of the New (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY York State Board of Elections, in LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED their official capacities ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter James Clines Patricia L. Murray

Cross Claimant
Nassau County Legislature
TERMINATED: 07/19/2007
Nassau County Attorney's Office (See above for address)
1 West Street TERMINATED: 08/21/2007
Mineola, NY 11501
516-571-3958 Todd D. Valentine
Fax: 516-571-6604 (See above for address)
Email: pclines@nassaucountyny.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Cross Defendant
Stanley L. Zalen represented by Paul M. Collins
co-Executive Directors of the New (See above for address)
represented by John Ciampoli York State Board of Elections, in LEAD ATTORNEY
(See above for address) their official capacities ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patricia L. Murray
(See above for address)
Peter James Clines TERMINATED: 08/21/2007
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY Todd D. Valentine
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED (See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

17 18

Cross Defendant 03/03/2006 10 First MOTION to Intervene Motion Hearing set for 4/6/2006 09:00 AM in
State of New York represented by Jeffrey M. Dvorin Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Response to Motion due by 3/20/2006
(See above for address) Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/27/2006. by Larry Rockefeller,
LEAD ATTORNEY Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State.
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law Memorandum of Law in Support of
Bruce Feldman Motion to Intervene)(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
(See above for address)
03/03/2006 11 AFFIDAVIT of Richard Emery in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry
TERMINATED: 04/16/2007
Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New
Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York
Douglas J. Goglia
State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 03/03/2006 12 AFFIDAVIT of Robert Marchiony in Support of Motion to Intervene by
Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo
Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of
New York State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
Date Filed # Docket Text
03/03/2006 13 AFFIDAVIT of Stephen DeWitt in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry
03/01/2006 1 COMPLAINT against New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New
Stanley L. Zalen, State of New York filed by United States of America.(ban) Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York
(Entered: 03/01/2006) State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
03/01/2006 Summons Issued as to New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, 03/03/2006 14 AFFIDAVIT of Henry J. Nicols in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry
Stanley L. Zalen, State of New York. (ban) (Entered: 03/01/2006) Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New
Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York
03/01/2006 2 G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED Initial Conference set for 6/21/2006 State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
11:30 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece. Civil
Case Management Plan due by 6/12/2006. (ban) (Entered: 03/01/2006) 03/03/2006 15 AFFIDAVIT of Lionel Logan in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry
Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New
03/03/2006 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Larry Rockefeller Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York
(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006) State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
03/03/2006 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Stephen DeWitt 03/03/2006 16 AFFIDAVIT of Larry Rockefeller in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry
(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006) Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New
03/03/2006 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Henry J. Nicols Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York
(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006) State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 to Larry Rockefeller
Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 2 to
03/03/2006 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Lionel Logan Rockefeller Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 3 Exhibit(s)
(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006) Exhibit 3 to Rockefeller Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 4
Exhibit(s) Exhibit 4 to Rockefeller Declaration in Support of Motion to
03/03/2006 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Bo Lipari (Maazel, Intervene# 5 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 5 to Rockefeller Declaration in Support of
Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006) Motion to Intervene)(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
03/03/2006 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of New Yorkers for 03/03/2006 17 AFFIDAVIT of Bo Lipari in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry
Verified Voting (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006) Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New
03/03/2006 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of The League of Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York
Women Voters of New York State (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006) State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A (Part I of II) to Bo Lipari
Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A (Part

19 20
 II of II) to Bo Lipari Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 3
Exhibit(s) Exhibit B to Bo Lipari Declaration in Support of Motion to
Intervene)(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
03/06/2006 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by United States of America.
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law # 2 Attachments# 3 Exhibit(s)
Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit(s) Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit(s)
Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit(s) Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit(s) Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit(s)
Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit(s) Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit(s) Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit(s)
Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit(s) Exhibit L# 14 certificate of service)(Cottrell,
Barbara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
03/07/2006 19 Exhibit C-1 by United States of America to the 18 Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C-2)(Cottrell, Barbara)
Modified on 3/9/2006 (jel, ). (Entered: 03/07/2006)
03/07/2006 20 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd D. Valentine on behalf of New York State
Board of Elections (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
03/07/2006 21 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd D. Valentine on behalf of Peter S. Kosinski
(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
03/07/2006 22 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd D. Valentine on behalf of Stanley L. Zalen
(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
03/07/2006 23 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia L. Murray on behalf of New York State
Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen (Murray, Patricia)
(Entered: 03/07/2006)
03/07/2006 TEXT ORDER- ORDERED, all parties shall personally appear before this
court on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 11:00 A.M., at the United States
Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Courtroom 6, Albany, New York for an in-court
conference to discuss the procedural framework of this case. The court
would appreciate a brief letter filed, by noon on Monday, March 13, 2006, in
advance of this conference articulating each party's position. It is further
ORDERED that the referral to Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece is
hereby RESCINDED, all further proceedings will be conducted by this court,
and the Clerk is directed to enter the recision on the docket and notify Judge
Treece. The court would like to clarify that this conference is not a hearing
on the Preliminary Injunction. In-Court Conference set for 3/14/2006 at
11:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Issued by Judge Gary L.
Sharpe on 3/7/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
03/07/2006 Emailed and Mailed a copy of the March 7, 2006 text order to Bruce
Feldman, Esq. (AAG), Jeffrey M. Dvorin, Esq., (AAG) and Todd Valentine,
Esq. (Entered: 03/07/2006)
03/09/2006 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this
matter o/b/o AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional
Legislative Redistricting, submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1
21
Intervenors inquire of service by fax. Court advises them to resolve that issue
outside of the bench. Court inquires of any remaining proposed intervenors.
Court concludes. (Court Reporter Stephanie Ragone) Time: 11:00-11:32 a.m.
(jel, ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
03/14/2006 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 10 First MOTION to Intervene, 24 Letter Motion
from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter for AD
HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting
submitted to Judge Sharpe. Response to Motion due by 3/20/2006 Reply to
Response to Motion due by 3/22/2006 by 5:00 p.m.. Motion Hearing set for
an oral return on 3/23/2006 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L.
Sharpe pursuant to the 29 Minute Entry. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
03/14/2006 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Response
to Motion due by 3/28/2006 by 5:00 p.m. Motion Hearing set for an oral
return on 3/30/2006 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.
(jel, ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
03/15/2006 30 Letter dated March 13, 2006 from John-Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl
Strunk to the court. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
03/15/2006 31 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of B. Deitz in Support re 24 Letter
Motion from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter for
AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
Redistricting submitted to Judge Sharpe, filed by AD HOC New York State
Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting. (Attachments: # 1
additional declaration of G. Razzano# 2 additional declaration of C. Strunk#
3 proof of service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
03/20/2006 32 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen
requestion intervention in this matter for AD HOC New York State Citizens
for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting submitted to Judge Sharpe, 10
First MOTION to Intervene of Rockefeller et al. filed by United States of
America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brian F. Heffernan#
2 Exhibit(s) Certificate of Service (Brian Heffernan)# 3 Exhibit(s) In Re
Auction Houses Case# 4 Exhibit(s) Palmer case# 5 Exhibit(s) Drongosky
case# 6 Exhibit(s) Envirco case)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
03/20/2006 33 RESPONSE to Motion re 10 First MOTION to Intervene filed by New York
State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
03/20/2006 34 RESPONSE to Motion re 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen
requestion intervention in this matter for AD HOC New York State Citizens
for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting submitted to Judge Sharpe, 10
First MOTION to Intervene filed by State of New York. (Dvorin, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 03/20/2006)
03/22/2006 35 REPLY to Response to Motion re 10 First MOTION to Intervene filed by
Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo
Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of
23
Affidavit w/attachments in support)(wjg, ) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
03/13/2006 25 LETTER BRIEF by United States of America. (Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered:
03/13/2006)
03/13/2006 26 LETTER BRIEF in Response to the Court's March 7th Order by Larry
Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New
Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York
State. (Hecker, Eric) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
03/13/2006 27 LETTER BRIEF by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd)
(Entered: 03/13/2006)
03/14/2006 28 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas J. Goglia on behalf of State of New
York (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service via CM/ECF)(Goglia,
Douglas) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
03/14/2006 29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John
Law; In Court Conference held on 3/14/2006; Appearances Made: Barbara
D. Cottrell and Brian F. Heffernan, Esqs., for the plaintiff, Todd D. Valentine
and Patricia L. Murray, Esqs., for the New York State Board of Election
defendants, Jeffrey M. Dvorin and Bruce D. Feldman, Esqs., for the State of
New York Defendants; Proposed Intervenors attended; Atty. Cottrell moves
for the pro hac vice admission of Brian F. Heffernan. Court GRANTS this
motion. Court discusses the appearance of the proposed intervenors; Court
discusses the complaint and pending motions to intervene. Court turns to
impact of motion for preliminary injunction on the proposed intervenors.
Court states need to set up schedule. Atty. Valentine states hearing necessary
for State to address position. Trying to resolve issues that the plaintiff has
raised in compliance with HAVA. Atty. Feldman hopes to have resolution
before the preliminary injunction. Atty. Heffernan states prepared to move
forward with hearing. States indisputable that NYS is in non-compliance
with HAVA. Meeting scheduled for today. Have come close to resolving
issues. Need to address quickly for election less than 6 months away.
Whether move forward with a resolution or hearing before the court to
remedy the violations. Court discusses return and deadlines on motions to
intervene. Court anticipates on doing oral return on return date. Court
inquires proposal from the plaintiff. Motions to Intervene are scheduled for
an oral return on March 23, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Response papers are due on or
before March 20, 2006. Any reply papers from the Intervenors are to be filed
by March 22, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. Court turns to the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. Motion for Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for an oral return
on March 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Response papers are due by March 28, 2006
at 5:00 p.m. Atty. Heffernan inquires on the court's availability for a
conference. Attorney for proposed intervenors states their position regarding
discussions. Court addresses issues and gives presumptions to parties and
proposed intervenors. Court gives pro se intervenors until March 15, 2006 at
5:00 p.m. to file any supplemental papers to their motion to intervene. Pro Se
22
New York State. (Hecker, Eric) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
03/22/2006 36 Letter Motion from United States of America for United States of America
requesting Entry of Proposed Order submitted to Judge Sharpe.
(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit(s)
Certificate of Service)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
03/22/2006 40 REPLY to Response to 24 Motion requesting intervention in this matter for
AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
Redistricting, filed by AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional
Legislative Redistricting. (Attachments: # 1 additional exhibits# 2 proof of
service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
03/23/2006 37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John
Law; Motion Hearing held on 3/23/2006 re 24 Letter Motion from H.
William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter for AD HOC New
York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting submitted to
Judge Sharpe filed by AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional
Legislative Redistricting and the 10 First MOTION to Intervene filed by
Henry J. Nicols,, Larry Rockefeller,, Stephen DeWitt,, Lionel Logan,, Bo
Lipari,, New Yorkers for Verified Voting,, The League of Women Voters of
New York State; Appearances Made: Brian Heffernan, Esq., for the plaintiff,
Todd Valentine, Esq., for the NYSBOE defendants, Bruce Feldman, AAG,
for the State of New York, Richard Emery, Esq., for the Proposed
Rockefeller Intervenor Defendants, Bill Van Allen, Christopher Strunk and
Burr Deitz. Court strikes appearances of Strunk and Deitz for motion to
intervene is only on behalf of Van Allen; Court states procedural history of
the case; Court states the legal standard to be applied. Court discusses
FRCvP 24(a) and (b). Court discusses substance of the complaint with
plaintiff. Atty. Heffernan states compliance with HAVA; asking to have
plan; currently no remedy; Court discusses example with plaintiff on voting
machines; Atty. Heffernan states plaintiff just seeking a plan for compliance
with HAVA; discusses HAVA compliance guidelines with the court; Court
turns the state defendants and their representations and their positions
regarding the proposed intervenors; Atty. Valentine states his position
regarding representation regarding the boards; Atty. Feldman states their
representation and the state's position regarding the proposed intervenors;
Atty. Feldman discusses views under HAVA; Court discusses remedy stage;
Court turns to Rockefeller intervenors and their papers; Atty. Emery
discusses representation and position; HAVA regulations; 2nd circuit rulings
on intervention; remedy. Court inquires on intervention seeking; Atty. Emery
states permissive intervention; Atty. Emery discusses right of representing
views that are not in this action; Court inquires on approach of issue; Atty.
Emery states they were approached; Atty. Emery presents argument to the
court; discusses remedy stage; mandatory intervention; discusses positions of
plaintiff and defendants; discusses return of money; chaotic elections;
defense of impossibility; discusses permissive and mandatory intervention;
Court turns to Van Allen's Motion to Intervene; Van Allen discusses issues
24
 why before the court; discusses centralized data base; Court advises two case
reviewed from CA and FL; Van Allen states gerrymandering of districts;
Court turns to plaintiff on arguments; Atty. Heffernan states has no authority
to ask for money back just asking for a plan to react to; Atty. Valentine states
no intention of chaotic election; Atty. Feldman responds to Atty. Emery's
distinction; Court DENIES Van Allen's Motion to Intervene under FRCvP
24(a) and (b); Court DENIES Rockefellers' Motion to Intervene under
FRCvP 24(a) and (b). Court discusses as to the Rockefellers that at some
point might permit to reconsider court's position and/or file an amicus brief
under 2nd circuits authority under FRAP 29. Court states would leave that to
Rockefellers to file a reconsideration or to file an amicus brief as to the plan;
Court states Van Allen motion denial is a different issue as to the Rockefeller
motion denial; Court states transcript is decision of the court; no written
order forthcoming. (Court Reporter Theresa Casal) Time: 9:00-10:15 a.m.
(jel, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
03/23/2006 Text Only Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe :
CRD: John Law; In Chambers Conference held on 3/23/2006; Appearances
Made: Brian Heffernan, Esq., for the plaintiff, Todd Valentine, Esq., for the
NYSBOE defendants and Bruce Feldman, Esq., for the State of New York;
Court discusses proposed order electronically filed with the parties; Parties
do not oppose; Court grants the proposed order; Court discusses issues in the
case; Atty. Valentine further discusses proposed order on stay of proceedings
and inquires if that encompasses the answer deadline; Atty. Heffernan states
did not consider at that point; parties advise court will work out that issue
among themselves. (Court Reporter None) Time: 10:15-10:35 a.m. (jel, )
(Entered: 03/23/2006)
03/23/2006 TEXT ONLY ORDER, that Van Allen's 24 Letter Request/Motion to
Intervene is DENIED and Rockefellers' 10 Motion to Intervene is DENIED.
Orally issued from the bench by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/23/2006. (jel, )
(Entered: 03/23/2006)
03/23/2006 38 ORDER, that the 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, to the
extent set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/23/2006.
(jel, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
03/23/2006 TEXT ONLY NOTICE, the motion hearing scheduled for March 30, 2006
has been adjourned. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
03/24/2006 39 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by AD HOC New York State Citizens for
Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt,
Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting,
The League of Women Voters of New York State for proceedings held on
March 23, 2006 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.. (tjc, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
03/31/2006 41 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen dd 3/30/06 requesting
reconsideration of 3/23/06 Order, filed on behalf of AD HOC New York
State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, submitted to Judge
25
Summary of County Board Responses to the State Board HAVA
Plan)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/20/2006 51 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Paul Dutka, Esq. .(wbl, )
on behalf of proposed Amici Curiae, Citizens Union of the City of New York
and Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York. Modified on
4/25/2006 (wbl, ). (Entered: 04/25/2006)
04/20/2006 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 51 Motion for Limited
Admission Pro Hac Vice of Paul Dutka, Esq. This Motion is on behalf of
proposed amici curiae Citizens Union of the City of New York and Citizens
Union Foundation of the City of New York. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
04/20/2006 52 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Cindy Y. Chen, Esq. on
behalf of proposed amici curiae Citizens Union of the City of New York and
Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York .(wbl, ) (Entered:
04/25/2006)
04/20/2006 Filing fee for PHV Admission of Paul Dutka, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt number
ALB002250 (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
04/20/2006 Filing fee for PHV Admission of Cindy Chen, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt number
ALB002251 (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
04/21/2006 50 Letter Motion from Brian F. Heffernan for United States of America
requesting Extension of time until April 28, 2006 for United States to
respond to SBOE HAVA compliance Plan submitted to Judge Sharpe.
(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
04/25/2006 53 LETTER REQUEST dated April 21, 2006 by Brian F. Heffernan, Esq., and
ORDER GRANTING request for an extension of time until April 28, 2006,
for the United States to respond to the SBOE's Plan for compliance with
HAVA. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/25/2006. (jel, ) (Entered:
04/25/2006)
04/26/2006 54 Letter dated April 25, 2006 by Stephen Kaye, Esq., received via fax to the
court. The court accepts this fascimile transmission. Please be advised
pursuant to Local Rule 5.1 - Filing by Facsimile. "The Clerk's Office shall
not accept any fascimile transmission unless the court gives prior approval."
Therefore, the court will not accept any further fascimile transmissions
unless prior approval is obtained. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on
4/26/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
04/26/2006 55 ORDER granting 51 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Paul
Dutka, Esq. . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/26/06. (wbl, ) (Entered:
04/28/2006)
04/26/2006 56 ORDER granting 52 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Cindy
Chen, Esq. . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/26/06. (wbl, ) (Entered:
04/28/2006)
27
Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A# 2 Exhibit(s) B# 3 Exhibit(s) C# 4
Exhibit(s) D# 5 Exhibit(s) E# 6 Exhibit(s) F# 7 Exhibit(s) G# 8 Exhibit(s)
H# 9 Proof of Service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
04/03/2006 TEXT-ONLY ORDER: H. William Van Allen pro se has filed an application
seeking reconsideration of his motion to intervene. The court acknowledges
that it has discretion to reconsider its previous decision. However, for the
reasons articulated during the hearing, Van Allen's application for
reconsideration is DENIED [notification served on filer VanAllen on 4/3/06]
(wjg, ). (Entered: 04/03/2006)
04/05/2006 42 RECORD of Proceedings: Oral Argument held on March 23, 2006 before
Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. IMPORTANT
NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal
identifier data from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of
Intent to Redact with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date.
The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the
court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no
Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the
court will assume redaction of personal data identifiers is not necessary and
the transcript will be made available on the web. Notice of Intent to Redact
due by 4/12/2006 (tjc, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
04/07/2006 43 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 3/23/06 Oral Order denying Van Allen's Letter
Request to Intervene. (amt, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
04/07/2006 44 IFP APPLICATION by William Van Allen re: 43 notice of appeal. (amt, )
(Entered: 04/10/2006)
04/10/2006 45 LETTER BRIEF Submitting the State Board of Elections HAVA
Implementation Plan by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit(s) SBOE HAVA Plan)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
04/11/2006 46 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re: Van Allen's 43
Notice of Appeal (amt, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
04/11/2006 47 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on
Appeal re: Van Allen's 43 Notice of Appeal (amt, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
04/13/2006 48 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Unredacted): Oral Argument held on March
23, 2006 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. (tjc,
) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
04/14/2006 62 ***Stricken pursuant 61 Order*** Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen
requesting reconsideration of 3/23/06 Order, filed on behalf of AD HOC
New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting.(jel, )
Additional attachment(s) added on 5/9/2006 (jel, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
04/20/2006 49 LETTER BRIEF with an addendum to the HAVA Plan previously submitted
by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix
26
04/28/2006 57 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America as to 45
LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of Elections, United States'
Response to New York's HAVA Remedial Plan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
Exhibit 1 - County Summary Chart# 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 2 - Lee
Declaration# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 3 - County Polling Places and Machines# 4
Declaration Declaration of Brian F. Heffernan# 5 Exhibit(s) Certificate of
Service)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
04/28/2006 74 MOTION for Leave to Appear Amici Curiae by Citizens Union of the City
of New York, Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York. Motion
Hearing set for 7/6/2006 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.
Response to Motion due by 6/19/2006, Reply to Response to Motion due by
6/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Motion# 2 Memorandum of Law # 3 Affidavit
/Declaration of Richard D. Dadey# 4 Proposed Order/Judgment)(wjg, )
(Entered: 06/01/2006)
05/01/2006 58 Letter dated April 28, 2006 from Brian F. Heffernan, Esq., regarding
scheduling a conference or a hearing. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
05/02/2006 TEXT ONLY NOTICE: In Chambers Conference set for 5/16/2006 at 01:00
PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
05/08/2006 59 Letter dated May 3, 2006 by Stephen Rackow Kaye, Esq., to the Court. So
Ordered. Please be advised that, absent prior approval by the court, no
further faxes will be accepted . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/8/2006.
(jel, ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/08/2006 60 Letter dated May 3, 2006 by Stephen Rackow Kaye, Esq., and AMENDED
ORDER, that the Intervenor motion shall be filed in accordance with Local
Rule 7.1(b)(2). Notifications will not be provided prior to becoming parties
in this action. No further faxes, absent court approval, will be permitted .
Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/8/2006. (jel, ) Modified on 5/9/2006
(jel, ). (Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/09/2006 61 ORDER, that the 44 application filed by Van Allen for leave to proceed with
his appeal in this matter in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 44) is denied; that Van
Allen's April 14 documents, which were previously filed March 31, are
REJECTED and the Clerk is directed to strike them from the docket; that the
Clerk should forward any future filings by Van Allen to this court in order to
determine if those filings are violative of this order; that the clerk serve a
copy of this order on the parties and H. William Van Allen. Signed by Judge
Gary L. Sharpe on 5/9/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
05/09/2006 Mailed copy of the 61 Order to H. William Van Allen. (jel, ) (Entered:
05/10/2006)
05/11/2006 63 Letter dated May 9, 2006 from Stephen Rackow Kaye, Esq. (jel, ) (Entered:
05/11/2006)
05/15/2006 64 AMENDED DOCUMENT by New York State Board of Elections, Peter S.
28
 Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen. Amendment to 49 LETTER BRIEF, 45 LETTER
BRIEF. (Murray, Patricia) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
05/16/2006 65 AMENDED DOCUMENT by New York State Board of Elections, Peter S.
Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen. Amendment to 49 LETTER BRIEF, 64
Amended Document, 45 LETTER BRIEF. (Murray, Patricia) (Entered:
05/16/2006)
05/16/2006 66 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Stanley L. Zalen. Amendment to 49 LETTER
BRIEF, 64 Amended Document, 45 LETTER BRIEF, 65 Amended
Document. (Murray, Patricia) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
05/16/2006 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John
Law; In Chambers Conference held on 5/16/2006; Atty. Heffernan states
NYS Board of Elections to file revised documents by today; will submit a
proposed remedial order by tomorrow morning; State will want to respond;
Atty. Feldman discusses the entity of the NYS Board of Elections with the
court; Court inquires about the County Board entitities; discusses substantive
issues in public forums; Atty. Heffernan discusses the interim plan and the
long term plan; Court advises parties have tried to keep the issues narrowly
focused; Atty. Heffernan discusses other lawsuits pending in the country;
Court directs plaintiff to file proposed remedial order by tomorrow; Court
directs the defendant State of New York has until Friday, May 19, 2006 at
5:00 p.m. to respond; Atty. Feldman discusses federal preclearance
requirements; Court discusses the issuance of an order. (jel, ) Time: 1:00-
1:30 p.m. (Entered: 05/16/2006)
05/16/2006 67 LETTER BRIEF by New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski,
Stanley L. Zalen. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Chart of Tasks and Dates
for Compliance# 2 Supplement Chart of County Compliance Plans# 3
Supplement NYC Compliance Plan Detailed)(Murray, Patricia) (Entered:
05/16/2006)
05/16/2006 Filing fee for PHV Admission of Brenda Wright, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt
number ALB002350 (wbl, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
05/17/2006 68 LETTER BRIEF Submitting Proposed Remedial Order by United States of
America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment United States'
Proposed Remedial Order# 2 Appendix Certificate of Service)(Heffernan,
Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
05/17/2006 70 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Brenda Wright, Esq. by
Steven Carbo, proposed plaintiff-intervenor.(wbl, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
05/18/2006 69 Letter from John Domurad, Chief Deputy to Judge Sharpe dd 5/17/06 re:
clarification of documents filed by Mr. Van Allen. (amt, ) (Entered:
05/18/2006)
05/18/2006 75 MOTION to Intervene by Steven Carbo, Sharon Shapiro, Barbara Linn,
Robert Gumson, Clifton Perez, Young Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng
29
06/06/2006)
06/07/2006 79 AFFIDAVIT re 78 Letter Motion from Proposed Amici Curiae Citizens
Union of the City of New York and Citizens Union Foundation of the City of
New York for Citizens Union of the City of New York by Citizens Union
Foundation of the City of New York. (Chen, Cindy) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
06/08/2006 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 75 MOTION to Intervene, 74
MOTION for Leave to Appear Amici Curiae scheduled for July 6, 2006 at
9:00 a.m. have been adjourned without date. (jel, ) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
06/09/2006 80 NOTICE of Appearance by Brenda Wright on behalf of Steven Carbo
(Wright, Brenda) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
06/12/2006 81 ORDER - On May 9, 2006, this court issued an order stating that Van Allen
was attempting to file duplicative documents and rejected those documents.
See Dkt. No. 61 . It now appears, as articulated by the letter filed by Chief
Deputy Clerk John Domurad, that Van Allen's prior duplicative filing was
erroneously before the court. See Dkt. No. 69 . Accordingly, the rejection of
those duplicative documents is rescinded, however, the order stands in all
other respects. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/12/2006. (jel, )
(Entered: 06/12/2006)
06/12/2006 Mailed copy of the 81 Order to all non cm/ecf parties. (jel, ) (Entered:
06/12/2006)
06/15/2006 82 LETTER dated June 6, 2006 by Cindy Y. Chen, Esq., and ORDER, that
Citizen Union's request for amicus curiae participation is denied as moot,
since their participation would provide no further assistance, given the recent
entry of this court's 77 remedial order. See Dkt. No. 77. Signed by Judge
Gary L. Sharpe on 6/15/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
06/15/2006 83 LETTER BRIEF in response to the June 2, 2006 Court order by New York
State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Plan B Ballot Marking
Device Details and Logistics)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
06/16/2006 84 LETTER BRIEF in response to the Courts June 2, 2006 order by New York
State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proposed Statewide
Database Regulations)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
06/16/2006 85 COURT NOTICE adjourning the Rule 16 conference w/out date and
directing the parties to file a status report by 6/21/06 (amt, ) (Entered:
06/16/2006)
06/19/2006 86 RESPONSE in Opposition re 75 MOTION to Intervene filed by United
States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Taylor v. Onorato# 2
Appendix Certificate of Service# 3 Declaration Heffernan
Declaration)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
06/21/2006 ORDER Cancelling Deadline: The Status Report Deadline set forth in
Docket Number 85 is hereby cancelled as it was issued in error. Signed by
31
Ying Jiang, The American Council of the Blind of New York, The New
York State Independent Living Council, The Catskill Center for
Independence, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Young Korean
American Service and Education Center, Inc., New York Public Interest
Research Group. Motion Hearing set for 7/6/2006 09:00 AM in Albany
before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Response to Motion due by 6/19/2006 Reply to
Response to Motion due by 6/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service# 2
Carbo Declaration# 3 Eng Declaration# 4 Godino Declaration# 5 Gumson
Declaration# 6 Jiang Declaration# 7 Lau Declaration# 8 Linn Declaration# 9
Mun Declaration# 10 Moon Declaration# 11 Perez Declaration# 12
Rosenstein Declaration# 13 Shapiro Declaration# 14 Williams Declaration#
15 Zachmeyer Declaration# 16 Kaye Declaration# 17 Exhibit(s) "A" to Kaye
Declaration# 18 Memorandum of Law # 19 Proof of Service of Memo# 20
Attachment #1 to Appendix# 21 Attachment 2 to Appendix# 22 Attachment
3 to Appendix (part 1)# 23 Attachment 3 to Appendix (part 3))(wjg, )
(Entered: 06/01/2006)
05/18/2006 76 NOTICES of Appearance by Stephen R. Kaye, Emily Stern on behalf of
Steven Carbo, Sharon Shapiro, Barbara Linn, Robert Gumson, Clifton Perez,
Young Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng Ying Jiang, The American
Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Independent Living
Council, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Young Korean American
Service and Education Center, Inc., New York Public Interest Research
Group (Attachments: # 1 Stern Notice of Appearnace)(wjg, ) (Entered:
06/02/2006)
05/19/2006 71 Letter Motion from Patricia Murray, First Deputy Counsel, SBOE and Bruce
D. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General for New York State Board of
Elections, State of New York requesting Adoption of Proposed Remedial
Order submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed
Remedial Order# 2 Supplement Red-lined Proposed Remedial Order# 3
Declaration of Service)(Goglia, Douglas) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
05/19/2006 73 ORDER granting 70 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Brenda
Wright, Esq.. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/19/06. (wbl, ) (Entered:
05/23/2006)
05/20/2006 72 RESPONSE to Motion re 71 Letter Motion from Patricia Murray, First
Deputy Counsel, SBOE and Bruce D. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General
for New York State Board of Elections, State of New York requesting
Adoption of Proposed Remedial Order submitted to Judge Sharpe filed by
United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 05/20/2006)
06/02/2006 77 REMEDIAL ORDER . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/2/2006. (jel, )
(Entered: 06/02/2006)
06/06/2006 78 Letter Motion from Proposed Amici Curiae Citizens Union of the City of
New York and Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York for
Citizens Union of the City of New York. (Chen, Cindy) (Entered:
30
Judge Randolph F. Treece on 6/21/06. (rlh) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
06/21/2006 USCA Case Number is 06-1735-cv for 43 Notice of Appeal. (cbm, )
(Entered: 06/21/2006)
06/26/2006 87 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn D. Magpantay on behalf of Young Ae
Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng Ying Jiang, Chinatown Voter Education
Alliance, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc.
(Attachments: # 1)(Magpantay, Glenn) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
06/26/2006 88 REPLY to Response to Motion re 75 MOTION to Intervene Proposed
Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of
Intervention filed by Steven Carbo, Sharon Shapiro, Barbara Linn, Robert
Gumson, Clifton Perez, Young Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng Ying
Jiang, The American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York
State Independent Living Council, The Catskill Center for Independence,
Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Young Korean American Service and
Education Center, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group.
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service of Emily Stern-Proposed
Plainitffs-Intervenors' Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of
Intervention)(Kaye, Stephen) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
06/30/2006 89 LETTER BRIEF Attaching Comments on Draft Database Regulations by
United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) June 30, 2006 Letter
to SBOE Counsel Commenting on Draft Database Regulations# 2 Appendix
Certificate of Service)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
07/03/2006 90 Letter dated June 27, 2006 from Stephen Rackow Kaye, Esq., requesting the
court to schedule a hearing date on the pending motion to intervene. (jel, )
(Entered: 07/03/2006)
07/21/2006 91 ORDER, that the 75 Motion to Intervene is DENIED. Signed by Judge Gary
L. Sharpe on 7/20/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
08/15/2006 92 LETTER BRIEF submitting the State Board's plan for voting machine
replacement and the final statewide database regulations by New York State
Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Plan for Voting Machine
Replacement# 2 Appendix Final Statewide Database Regulations)(Valentine,
Todd) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
08/17/2006 93 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 91 Order on Motion to Intervene by Steven
Carbo, Sharon Shapiro, Barbara Linn, Robert Gumson, Clifton Perez, Young
Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng Ying Jiang, The American Council of
the Blind of New York, The New York State Independent Living Council,
The Catskill Center for Independence, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance,
Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc., New York
Public Interest Research Group. (Stern, Emily) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
08/18/2006 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number ALB002704 re 93 Notice
of Appeal, filed by New York Public Interest Research Group,, Steven
32
 Carbo,, Sharon Shapiro,, Barbara Linn,, Robert Gumson,, Clifton Perez,,
Young Ae Moon,, Fun Mae Ching Eng,, Feng Ying Jiang,, The American
Council of the Blind of New York,, The New York State Independent Living
Council,, The Catskill Center for Independence,, Chinatown Voter Education
Alliance,, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc., (wbl,
) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
08/23/2006 94 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 93 Notice of
Appeal, (tm) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
08/25/2006 95 MANDATE of USCA denying the IFP application by Pro Se Van Allen and
dismissing the 43 Notice of Appeal (amt, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
09/05/2006 USCA Case Number is 06-3953-cv for 93 Notice of Appeal, filed by New
York Public Interest Research Group, et al. (cbm, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
09/07/2006 96 LETTER BRIEF filing the revised 2007 voting machine replacement plan by
New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Revised
Voting Machine Replacement Plan)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
09/22/2006 97 USCA Scheduling Order as to 93 Notice of Appeal, filed by New York
Public Interest Research Group,, Steven Carbo,, Sharon Shapiro,, Barbara
Linn,, Robert Gumson,, Clifton Perez,, Young Ae Moon,, Fun Mae Ching
Eng,, Feng Ying Jiang,, The American Council of the Blind of New York,,
The New York State Independent Living Council,, The Catskill Center for
Independence,, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance,, Young Korean
American Service and Education Center, Inc.,. USCA Case No. 06-3953-cv.
Appealed to: 2CCA. Certification of Appeal Record due by 10/16/2006.
(wjg, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
09/25/2006 98 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on
Appeal re 93 Notice of Appeal, (wjg, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
12/21/2006 99 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter James Clines on behalf of Nassau County
Board of Elections (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
12/21/2006 100 MOTION to Intervene by Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board
of Elections. Motion Hearing set for 2/1/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before
Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 1/16/2007 . (Attachments:
# 1 Declaration Declaration of Peter J. Clines# 2 Declaration Joint
Declaration in Support of Intervention) (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
12/21/2006 101 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 100 Motion to Intervene, 99 Notice of
Appearance filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County
Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
12/21/2006 102 ANSWER to Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against New York State Board of
Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen, State of New York by Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature.(Clines, Peter)
(Entered: 12/21/2006)
33
02/23/2007 110 LETTER REQUEST dated February 21, 2007 by Brian F. Heffernan,
AUSA, and ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 100 MOTION to Intervene :
On February 21, 2007, the parties filed a joint letter requesting the pending
motion to intervene be adjourned until May 3, 2007. (Dkt. No. 108). On
February 22, 2007, the proposed Defendants-Intervenors filed their letter
opposing this request. (Dkt. No. 109) The court notes the proposed
Defendants-Intervenors' objections and GRANTS the parties request.
Response to Motion due by 4/16/2007; Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2007 at
09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Signed by Judge Gary L.
Sharpe on 2/23/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
03/29/2007 Filing fee for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq.: $
30.00, receipt number ALB003394 (wbl, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
03/29/2007 112 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq.
by County of Suffolk. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
03/30/2007 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of Suffolk. Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2007
09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due
by 4/16/2007 by County of Suffolk. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of
Christopher A. Jeffreys in support of motion to intervene# 2 Exhibits to
Declaration# 3 Memorandum of law in support of motion to intervene)
(Jeffreys, Christopher) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
04/03/2007 113 ORDER granting 112 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of
Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq.. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/3/07. (wbl,
) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
04/16/2007 114 RESPONSE to Motion re 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of Suffolk.,
100 MOTION to Intervene filed by New York State Board of Elections.
(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
04/16/2007 115 RESPONSE in Opposition re 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of
Suffolk., 100 MOTION to Intervene Memorandum in Opposition to Motions
to Intervene of Nassau County and Suffolk County filed by United States of
America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brian Heffernan# 2
Appendix Appendix A# 3 Appendix Appendix B)(Heffernan, Brian)
(Entered: 04/16/2007)
04/16/2007 116 RESPONSE to Motion re 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of Suffolk.,
100 MOTION to Intervene filed by State of New York. (Dvorin, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 04/16/2007)
04/17/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 111 MOTION to Intervene by
County of Suffolk and the 100 MOTION to Intervene : Motion Hearing set
for 5/3/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe will be on
SUBMIT only. No personal appearances are needed.(jel, ) (Entered:
04/17/2007)
05/08/2007 117 NOTICE by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature
35
12/21/2006 103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Nassau County Board of Elections,
Nassau County Legislature re 102 Answer to Complaint, Crossclaim, 100
MOTION to Intervene, 101 Memorandum of Law, 99 Notice of Appearance
(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
12/27/2006 104 MANDATE of USCA/STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL
OF 93 APPEAL (dmf) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
01/09/2007 105 Letter Motion from Brian F. Heffernan for United States of America
requesting Adjournment of Hearing on Motion for Intervention submitted to
Judge Sharpe. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
01/10/2007 106 RESPONSE in Opposition re 105 Letter Motion from Brian F. Heffernan for
United States of America requesting Adjournment of Hearing on Motion for
Intervention submitted to Judge Sharpe filed by Nassau County Board of
Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
01/10/2007 107 LETTER REQUEST dated January 9, 2007 and ORDER regarding the 100
MOTION to Intervene : The court notes the 106 Proposed Intervenor
defendants objections to the parties 105 request for adjournment of the
motion intervene return date of February 1, 2007, however the court grants
the parties request and the motion to intervene is adjourned until March 15,
2007. Response to Motion due by 2/26/2007 Motion Hearing set for
3/15/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Signed by
Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/10/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
02/15/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing:In Chambers Conference set for
2/21/2007 AT 01:00 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, )
(Entered: 02/15/2007)
02/21/2007 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John
Law; In Chambers Conference held on 2/21/2007; Atty. Heffernan discusses
previous appeal, discusses state vendor issue, discusses current plan order in
place and discusses pending motion to intervene; discusses the issue of
certification and implementation; Counsel advise court are negotiating dates
for certification once resolved will set rest of scheduling plan for
implementation, training and etc. Court discusses the possibility of modified
order for certification and implementation; Atty. Valentine discusses
certification issues and the process of implementation. (Court Reporter None
GLS07-1) Time: 1:00-1:30 p.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
02/21/2007 108 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, USDOJ for United States of America
requesting Adjournment submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Cottrell, Barbara)
(Entered: 02/21/2007)
02/22/2007 109 RESPONSE to Motion re 108 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, USDOJ
for United States of America requesting Adjournment submitted to Judge
Sharpe Response filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County
Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
34
concerning recent decision in related matter (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
Decision in County of Suffolk v. New York State et al.)(Clines, Peter)
(Entered: 05/08/2007)
05/10/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 111 MOTION to Intervene by
County of Suffolk., 100 MOTION to Intervene : Motion Hearing has been set
for 7/5/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe on
SUBMIT only. No personal appearances are needed.(jel, ) (Entered:
05/10/2007)
07/19/2007 Text Only Order - On December 22, 2006, the Board of Elections and the
Legislature of Nassau County filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in
this case. Dkt. No. 100. On March 30, 2007, the County of Suffolk also filed
a motion to intervene as a defendant in this case. Dkt. No. 111. For the
reasons articled in the U.S. Governments memorandum of law, Dkt. No. 115,
this court declines to permit Nassau and Suffolk County to intervene.
Accordingly, the motions to intervene are DENIED. Issued by Judge Gary L.
Sharpe on 7/19/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/25/2007 118 MOTION to Intervene (with declaration of Anthony G. Scannapieco, Jr. and
Robert Bennett, and Memorandum of Law Attached) Motion Hearing set for
9/6/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to
Motion due by 8/20/2007 by Putnam County Board of Elections, The
Putnam County Legislature. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Michael G.
Santangelo in Support of Intervention) (ban) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
07/30/2007 119 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Michael G. Santangelo,
Esq. by Putnam County Board of Elections, and The Putnam County
Legislature (wbl, ). Modified on 7/31/2007 (wbl, ). (Entered: 07/31/2007)
07/30/2007 Filing fee for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael G. Santangelo, Esq.: $
30.00, receipt number ALB003687 (wbl, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
07/31/2007 Remark - Doc #119 was mistakenly entered as filed 7/31/07. Correction was
made on the docket indicating the file date of 7/30/07. (wbl, ) (Entered:
07/31/2007)
07/31/2007 Remark - The Putnam County Legislature was also added as a filer to the Pro
Hac Vice Motion of Michael G. Santangelo, Esq.. (wbl, ) (Entered:
07/31/2007)
07/31/2007 120 ORDER granting 119 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of
Michael G. Santangelo, Esq. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 7/31/07.
(tab) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
08/16/2007 121 RESPONSE in Opposition re 118 MOTION to Intervene filed by United
States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brian
Heffernan# 2 Appendix Appendix A - NYSBOE Status Reports# 3 Appendix
Appendix B - State Publication)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
36
08/16/2007 122 RESPONSE to Motion re 118 MOTION to Intervene filed by State of New
York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration certificate of service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 08/16/2007)
08/17/2007 123 RESPONSE to Motion re 118 MOTION to Intervene filed by New York
State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
08/17/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing: Upon the oral request of the plaintiff, an
In Chambers Conference set for 8/29/2007 at 01:00 PM in Albany before
Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
08/22/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 118 MOTION to Intervene :
Motion Hearing set for 9/6/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary
L. Sharpe will be on SUBMIT only. No personal appearances are
needed.(jel, ) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
08/22/2007 Mailed copy of the August 22, 2007 text only notice to all non cm/ecf parties
involved with the pending motion before the court. (jel, ) (Entered:
08/22/2007)
08/23/2007 TEXT ONLY ORDER - On July 25, 2007, Putnam County Board of
Elections and Putnam County Legislature filed a motion to intervene as a
defendant in this case. Dkt. No. 118. For the reasons articled in the U.S.
Governments response, see Dkt. No. 121, this court declines to permit
Putnam County Board of Elections and Putnam County Legislature to
intervene. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 8/23/2007. (jel, ) (Entered:
08/23/2007)
08/29/2007 124 STATUS REPORT for August 29, 2007 conference with the Court by New
York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
08/29/2007 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : In
Chambers Conference held on 8/29/2007; Appearances Made: Attorney
Heffernan, Esq., for the USA, Atty. Valentine for NYSBOEl, Atty. Dvorin
and Atty. Golia for NYS; Atty. Heffernan discusses impasse among the
parties; Court discusses enforcement of the order in place; Atty. Valentine
discusses letter filed with the court; discusses issues facing the defendants;
discusses impact on the counties; court discusses intervention and amicus;
Atty. Goglia discusses probable solution at some point on this issue; Atty.
Heffernan states needs implementation of process; Court discusses time to
submit something; Court gives the defendant (30) thirty days, September 28,
2007, to file implementation plan and does not set specific time for the
plaintiff to digest and review. Parties and Court discuss possible scenarios
based upon submission. (jel, ) Time: 1:00-1:45 p.m. (Entered: 08/29/2007)
09/13/2007 125 NOTICE by Nassau County Board of Elections Notice of Appeal (Clines,
Peter) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
09/13/2007 126 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order on Motion to Intervene,,,,, by Nassau
County Board of Elections. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number ALB003789.
37
U.S. Motion# 5 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B to U.S. Motion# 6 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C
to U.S. Motion# 7 Exhibit(s) Exhibit D to U.S. Motion# 8 Exhibit(s) Exhibit
E to U.S. Motion# 9 Exhibit(s) Exhibit F to U.S. Motion# 10 Exhibit(s)
Exhibit G to U.S. Motion# 11 Exhibit(s) Exhibit H to U.S. Motion# 12
Exhibit(s) Exhibit I to U.S. Motion# 13 Exhibit(s) Exhibit J to U.S. Motion#
14 Exhibit(s) Exhibit K to U.S. Motion# 15 Exhibit(s) Exhibit L to U.S.
Motion# 16 Exhibit(s) Exhibit M to U.S. Motion) (Heffernan, Brian)
(Entered: 11/05/2007)
11/07/2007 135 USCA Scheduling Order as to 126 Notice of Appeal filed by Nassau County
Board of Elections. USCA Case No. 07-4211-cv. Appeal Record due by
11/23/2007. (dmf) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
11/08/2007 136 LETTER BRIEF seeking adjournment of filing dates for motion by New
York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
11/08/2007 137 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America as to
136 LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of Elections.
(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
11/15/2007 138 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruce J. Boivin on behalf of State of New York
(Boivin, Bruce) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
11/15/2007 139 LETTER/ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 134 MOTION Enforcement of
June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA : Response to Motion due by Noon
on 12/14/2007; Motion Hearing has been reset for 12/20/2007 at 09:00 AM
in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. No further extensions will be
permitted. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/15/2007. (jel, ) (Entered:
11/15/2007)
11/15/2007 140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of New York re 138 Notice of
Appearance (Boivin, Bruce) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
11/21/2007 141 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on
Appeal re: 126 Notice of Appeal. (dmf) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
12/06/2007 142 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Andrea T. Novick, Esq.
by Citizens Action New York, Where's The Paper, New York, New York
Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New
York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition,
NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College,
Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin
Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe
Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New
Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence
Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida,
Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition. (wbl, ) (Entered:
12/07/2007)
12/06/2007 143 ORDER granting 142 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of
39
(wbl, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
09/17/2007 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 125 Notice (Other)of
Appeal filed by Nassau County Board of Elections. Appeal was incorrectly
filed as a Notice. Appeal will be filed again by the Clerk's Office. (wbl, )
(Entered: 09/17/2007)
09/28/2007 127 LETTER BRIEF seeking extension to file implementation plan from 9/28 to
10/2 by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered:
09/28/2007)
09/28/2007 128 LETTER dated September 28, 2007 by Todd D. Valentine, Esq., and
ORDER GRANTING request to extend the deadline for the State Board to
file its revised implementation plan with the Court on or before October 2,
2007. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 9/28/2007. (jel, ) (Entered:
09/28/2007)
09/28/2007 129 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 126 Notice of
Appeal filed by Nassau County Board of Elections. (cbm, ) (Entered:
09/28/2007)
10/02/2007 130 STATUS REPORT by Peter S. Kosinski. (Attachments: # 1 Kelleher and
Donohue Plan# 2 Exhibit(s) Ex A# 3 Exhibit(s) Ex B# 4 Exhibit(s) Ex C# 5
Exhibit(s) Ex D# 6 Exhibit(s) Ex E)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
10/02/2007 131 LETTER BRIEF re: SBOE Proposed Remedial Plans by State of New York.
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service via CM/ECF)(Goglia, Douglas)
(Entered: 10/02/2007)
10/02/2007 133 STATUS REPORT/PLAN by New York State Board of Elections, Stanley
L. Zalen, filed in response to Court's 8/29/07 Order. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A# 2 Exhibit(s) B# 3 Exhibit(s) C# 4 Exhibit(s) D# 5 Exhibit(s)
E)(wjg, ) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
10/03/2007 132 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul M. Collins on behalf of New York State
Board of Elections, Peter Koskinsi and Stanley Zalen (Collins, Paul)
Modified on 10/3/2007 (wjg, ). (Entered: 10/03/2007)
10/03/2007 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 132 Notice of
Appearance: Clerk corrected filing to correctly reflect that notice of
appearance is for defts NYSBOE, Kosinski and Zalen (counsel filed notice
of appearance and only selected NYSBOE for appearance). (wjg, ) (Entered:
10/03/2007)
11/05/2007 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA Motion
Hearing set for 12/6/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L.
Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 11/19/2007 by United States of America.
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of United States' Motion
to Enforce June 2, 2006 Remedial Order# 2 Declaration of Brian F.
Heffernan# 3 Declaration Certificate of Service# 4 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A to
38
Andrea T. Novick, Esq.. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 12/6/07. (wbl, )
Additional attachment(s) added on 12/7/2007 (wbl, ). (Entered: 12/07/2007)
12/07/2007 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY, neglected to link the
document to docket entry - re 143 Order on Motion for Limited Admission
Pro Hac Vice filed by Citizens Action New York, Where's The Paper, New
York, New York Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for
Responsible Media, New York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The
Dutchess Peace Coalition, NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at
Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff,
Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman,
Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election
Defense Alliance, New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ,
Voter Confidence Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video
the Vote, Florida, Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition
(wbl, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
12/07/2007 Remark - Counsel of record served by e-mail with Order in entry #143. Atty
Michael G. Santangelo served by 1st class mail. (wbl, ) (Entered:
12/07/2007)
12/13/2007 144 Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Deputy Nassau County Attorney for
Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County
Board of Elections requesting Renew Intervention Motion submitted to
Judge Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Court of Appeals Decision Order of the 2nd
Circuit COA 12/11/2007# 2 Declaration Declaration of Sciglibaglio and
DeGrace 12/13/07# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibits to Declaration)(Clines, Peter)
(Entered: 12/13/2007)
12/13/2007 145 RESPONSE to Motion re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006
Remedial Order and HAVA filed by Peter S. Kosinski. (Valentine, Todd)
(Entered: 12/13/2007)
12/13/2007 146 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of New
Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State,
Inc., Citizen Action of New York, New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc.. (Krauss, Geri) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
12/13/2007 147 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of New
Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State,
Inc., Citizen Action of New York, New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curae
brief)(Krauss, Geri) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
12/13/2007 148 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of New
Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State,
Inc., Citizen Action of New York, New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amici Curiae Brief)(Krauss, Geri)
40
 (Entered: 12/13/2007)
12/14/2007 149 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of New
Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State,
Inc., Citizen Action of New York, New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Bo LIipari# 2 Exhibit(s) A-1# 3
Exhibit(s) A-2# 4 Exhibit(s) B# 5 Exhibit(s) C# 6 Exhibit(s) D# 7 Exhibit(s)
E# 8 Exhibit(s) F# 9 Exhibit(s) G# 10 Exhibit(s) H# 11 Exhibit(s) I# 12
Exhibit(s) J# 13 Exhibit(s) K# 14 Exhibit(s) L# 15 Exhibit(s) M# 16
Exhibit(s) N# 17 Exhibit(s) O# 18 Exhibit(s) P)(Krauss, Geri) (Entered:
12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 150 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of
Citizens Action New York, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of
Women Voters of New York State, Inc., New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment)(Krauss, Geri)
(Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 151 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006
Remedial Order and HAVA filed by Stanley L. Zalen. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) # 2 Exhibit(s) # 3 Exhibit(s))(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 152 Proposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Motion Hearing set for
12/20/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to
Motion due by 12/3/2007 by Where's The Paper, New York, New York
Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New
York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition,
NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College,
Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin
Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe
Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New
Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence
Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida,
Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition. (Novick,
Andrea) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 153 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006
Remedial Order and HAVA Exhibit C to Zalen Affidavit filed by Stanley L.
Zalen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) # 2 Exhibit(s))(Collins, Paul) (Entered:
12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 154 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006
Remedial Order and HAVA Exhibit D to Zalen Affifavit filed by Stanley L.
Zalen. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 155 RESPONSE to Motion re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006
Remedial Order and HAVA filed by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1
Affirmation affirmation in opposition# 2 Exhibit(s) Electionline
report)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
41
Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe
Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New
Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence
Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida,
Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition (Novick, Andrea)
(Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Join County Boards of Election as
Party Defendants by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Order to Show Cause# 2 Affidavit
Kosinski-Zalen Affidavit# 3 Memorandum of Law # 4 Appendix Appendix
A: List of County Boards)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 161 RESPONSE to Motion re 144 Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Deputy
Nassau County Attorney for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau
County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County
Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections requesting Renew Interventi,
160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Join County Boards of Election
as Party Defendants Letter regarding scheduling filed by United States of
America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 162 Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Nassau County for Nassau County Board
of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections,
Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections requesting
postponement of hearing submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Clines, Peter) (Entered:
12/14/2007)
12/17/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE - The applications seeking permission to file amicus
curiae briefs will be on SUBMIT only. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
12/17/2007 163 MOTION leave to file amicus brief Motion Hearing set for 1/17/2008 09:00
AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by
1/4/2008 by Election Commissioners Association of New York.
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law # 2 Exhibit(s) # 3 Exhibit(s) # 4
Exhibit(s) # 5 Exhibit(s) # 6 Exhibit(s) # 7 Exhibit(s)) (Wait, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 12/17/2007)
12/17/2007 164 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Election Defense Alliance. Amendment to
158 Proposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration Amended Declaration of Dave Berman# 2 Supplement
Spreadsheet Supplement to Berman Declaration# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit H:
Handcount Manual)(Novick, Andrea) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
12/18/2007 165 RESPONSE to Motion re 163 MOTION leave to file amicus brief Letter
Response Indicating No Opposition to Amicus Filing filed by United States
of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
12/18/2007 166 RESPONSE in Opposition re 160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to
Join County Boards of Election as Party Defendants filed by United States
of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
43
12/14/2007 156 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006
Remedial Order and HAVA Zalen Exhibits E, F & G filed by Stanley L.
Zalen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) # 2 Exhibit(s))(Collins, Paul) (Entered:
12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 157 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006
Remedial Order and HAVA Zalen affidavit Exhibits H & I filed by Stanley
L. Zalen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 158 Proposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief Motion Hearing set for
12/20/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to
Motion due by 12/3/2007 by Where's The Paper, New York, New York
Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New
York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition,
NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College,
Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin
Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe
Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New
Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence
Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida,
Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition. (Attachments: #
1 Motion for Leave to File Amicus# 2 Order# 3 Memorandum of Law # 4
Exhibit A - Tech Reports# 5 Exhibit B - Vendor Non-Responsibility# 6
Exhibit C - Updated Procurement Vendor# 7 Exhibit D - 2006 Annual
Statistics# 8 Exhibit E-Forecast Hand Count Tool# 9 Exhibit "F" NY08
Registration&Turnout Projections# 10 Exhibit "G" Summary Estimate
HCNY# 11 Pokey Anderson Declaration# 12 Dennis Karius (ARISE)
Declaration# 13 Dick Stinson (Del4Change) Declaration# 14 Prof. Steve
Freeman Declaration# 15 Teresa Hommel (Where's the Paper) Declaration#
16 Irene Miller (NY for Clean Elections) Declaration# 17 Jeannie Dean
(Video the Vote) Declaration Declaration# 18 Julie McQuain (Ulster Cty
Dem Women) Declaration# 19 Vickie Karp (Coal.Visible Ballots)
Declaration# 20 Joanne Lukacher (Re-Media) Declaration# 21 Prof. Mark
Crispin Miller Declaration# 22 Nancy Tobi (NH Fair Elections) Declaration#
23 Dutchess Cty Leg. Joel Tyner Declaration# 24 Wayne Stinson
(PeaceMakers) Declaration# 25 Judy Alter (Protect Calif.Ballots)
Declaration# 26 Rady Ananda (J30Coaltion) Declaration# 27 Karen
Charman (Shandaken Dems) Declaration# 28 Jonathan Simon (Election
Defense Alliance) Declaration# 29 Ulster Cty. Leg Susan Zimet
Declaration# 30 Ulster Cty. Leg Gary Bischoff# 31 Dave Berman (Voter
Confid.Comm) Declaration# 32 Mary Ann Gould (Coal.Voting Integrity)
Declaration) (Novick, Andrea) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
12/14/2007 159 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Where's The Paper, New York, New York
Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New
York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition,
NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College,
Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin
42
12/18/2007 167 RESPONSE in Opposition re 162 Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Nassau
County for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature,
Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau
County Board of Elections requesting postponement of hearing submitte, 144
Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Deputy Nassau County Attorney for
Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County
Board of Elections requesting Renew Interventi Memorandum of Law in
Support of U.S. Opposition to Renewed Motion to Intervene of Nassau
County filed by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered:
12/18/2007)
12/18/2007 168 Letter Motion dated December 12, 2007 from Edward J. Stiles requesting
permission to file an amicus curiae brief submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe.
(jel, ) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
12/18/2007 169 Letter Motion dated December 13, 2007 from Sandra Galef, 90th A.D.,
Ginny Fields, th A.D., Jeffrey Dinowitz, 81st A.D., Barbara Lifton, 125th,
A.D., Fred Thiele, Jr., 2nd A.D. and Harvey Weisenberg, 20th A.D.
requesting permission to file an amicus curiae brief submitted to Judge Gary
L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
12/18/2007 170 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jonathan D. Simon on
behalf of all amici curiae Filing fee $30, receipt number 915969 by Election
Defense Alliance. (Altman, Richard) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
12/19/2007 171 RESPONSE to Motion re 160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Join
County Boards of Election as Party Defendants filed by State of New York.
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration Certificate of Service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 12/19/2007)
12/19/2007 172 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 134 MOTION Enforcement of
June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA, 160 MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction to Join County Boards of Election as Party Defendants, 144
Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Deputy Nassau County Attorney for
Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County
Board of Elections requesting Renew Interventi : Motion Hearing set for
12/20/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Oral
argument will be required.(jel, ) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
12/19/2007 173 Letter Motion dated December 18, 2007 from Keith H. Osborne and Marilyn
P. O'Mara, Commissioners, Chemung County Board of Elections, Marilyn J.
Cornell and Dexter J. Risedorph, Fulton County Board of Elections, Susan
Bahren and David C. Green, Commissioners, Orange County Board of
Elections, Brian L. Quail and Art Brassard, Commissioners, Schenectady
County Board of Elections, Thomas F. Turco and John Parete,
Commissioners, Ulster County Board of Elections and Patrica A. Haley and
Donna English, Washington County Board of Elections requesting
44
 permission to file amicus curiae submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, )
(Entered: 12/19/2007)
12/19/2007 174 Letter Motion dated December 19, 2007 by National Multiple Sclerosis
Society, Self Advocacy Association of New York, United Spina Association,
New York State Assoication of Community and Residential Agencies, New
York State Independent Living Council, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan
New York, Inc., American Council of the Blind of New York and
Disabilities Network of NYC requesting permission to file an amicus curiae
brief submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
12/20/2007 175 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : Motion
Hearing held on 12/20/2007; Appearances Made: Brian F. Heffernan, Esq.,
Paul Collins, Esq., Todd Valentine, Esq., Allison Carr, Esq., Jeffrey Dvorin,
Esq., Bruce Boivin, Esq., Peter Clines, Esq., and Lori Barrett, Esq.; Court
discusses procedural history of the case; Court gives analysis of the case.
Court discusses pending matters before the court; court discusses amicus
applications; Court grants all motions to file amicus brief; Court discusses
parameters of the amicus brief; Court will not accept any other motions
without brief; if motion filed with brief will take on submit; any in non-
compliance will be sua sponte denied; Court turns to the intervention motion
by Nassau County and lumps in the State Board of Elections motion. Atty.
Clines discusses position of Nassau. Court inquires of letter by other
counties. Atty. Clines discusses number of vote of their county regarding
other counties. Discusses compliance; Discusses causation. Court discusses
causation. Atty. Clines discusses legal duty. Court inquires why State Board
cant take Nassaus view into consideration. Atty. Clines discusses order and
right for a need to appeal. New York state cant thumb nose at HAVA;
discusses loss of money for boards; requires to hand up state transcript. Court
DENIES request and directs counsel to summarize. Atty. Clines summarizes
transcript for the court. Atty. Clines discusses standard met for automatic
intervention. Atty. Valentine discuss difference in counties; discusses why
counties should now be joined as parties in the litigation. Court states
counties must implement what the State Board tells them; need to pick
machine certified by State and then implement that discusses the control of
the money. Atty. Valentine states in control of the Comptroller; Discusses
need for the counties; discusses why their motion was brought at this time;
adopted standards. Court inquires of legal interest of county boards and need
to be parties. Atty. Valentine states mechanism in place for the state to
enforce the order of this court; expedient to bring in this action instead of
bringing a state court action; only tool is a judicial proceeding; other issues
to be resolved; Court discusses remedial order and have not complied. Cant
submit a plan. Atty. Valentine states has reiterated position to comply; there
have been steps backwards; tried to make explanation on what has
transpired; have set high standard for voting systems; time frames by
Congress was unrealistic. Court discusses 49 other states have complied.
Court discusses issue of New York. Atty. Valentine states enforcement is for
45
motion to an amicus brief for consideration. Need to move this process
forward. Court inquires of Zalen plan from the federal government. Atty.
Collins states Zalen plan has time frame for full compliance for 2009. Court
states State Board of Election to submit a plan by January 4, 2008. Court is
going to want position of the federal government and if further action is
going to be required by the court. Atty. Heffernan states would like to have a
conference. (Court Reporter Theresa Casal) Time: 9:00-11:45 a.m. (jel, )
(Entered: 12/20/2007)
12/21/2007 176 RECORD of Proceedings: Oral Argument held on December 20, 2007 before
Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. IMPORTANT
NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal
identifier data from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of
Intent to Redact with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date.
The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the
court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no
Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the
court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the
transcript will be made available on the web 90 days from today's date.
Notice of Intent to Redact due by 12/31/2007,Transcript due by 3/20/2008.
(tjc, ) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
12/27/2007 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY: Deleted document #177
(Amended Document) b/c it was filed incorrectly. It should have been filed
as a Notice of Appeal. Attorney Peter Clines will refile the Amended Appeal
as a Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
12/27/2007 177 NOTICE OF APPEAL Amended Notice of Appeal by Nassau County Board
of Elections. No fee paid. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
12/27/2007 178 AMENDED ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 126
Notice of Appeal, 177 Amended Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered:
12/27/2007)
01/02/2008 193 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Dennis Karius as to Declaration for
Amicus Brief upon US Attorney on 1-02-08 re : 158 Proposed MOTION for
Leave to File Amicus Brief (pta ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
01/04/2008 179 STATUS REPORT for HAVA Compliance Plan by New York State Board of
Elections. (Attachments: # 1 SBOE Plan# 2 Exhibit(s) Ex C Plan B# 3
Exhibit(s) Ex E Plan A)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
01/11/2008 180 STATUS REPORT filing a Revised Plan A Time Line by New York State
Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Summary of Revised Plan A Time
Line# 2 Revised Plan A Time Line)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
01/11/2008 181 LETTER BRIEF Responding to Revised Remedial Plans of Defendants by
United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment
Proposed Supplemental Remedial Order)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered:
01/11/2008)
47
basis of motion to join; each county is in a different position. Atty. Heffernan
discusses the motions to intervention and to join. Discusses case law that the
State Board oversees the County Boards; Counties are not necessary parties;
If all counties were added the case would be unmanageable. Discusses
federal money in the State account to comply with HAVA; it is state money
and not county money; Court states for reasons articulated by the federal
government, the motions to intervene and the motion to join is DENIED.
Court turns to the enforcement action; Court discusses State Board in regards
to prevention under State law; federal law preempts state law; Atty. Dvorin
discusses the remedial order; attempt to come up with solution and a plan;
discusses independent testing agency issues; Board has made tremendous
progress in recent months; process was expedited through other state
agencies; Board indicates compliance in 2009. Court states the State has to
resolve the law under HAVA; federal law preempts state law; Atty. Dvorin
discusses the purpose of the State Board of Elections. Court discusses states
position is to give time to implement. Atty. Dvorin states federal law
preempts in this area; Court inquires of State on what enforcement it has if
the State Board does not do its job. Atty. Dvorin discusses state board
election and appointing process; discusses compliance is not issue; it is when
to get in compliance. Court states compliance was January 1, 2006. Atty.
Dvorin discusses implementing HAVA; Court discusses compliance,
submitting plans and implementing plans. Atty. Dvorin discusses mindful of
implementing plan under HAVA; Court inquires who represents the
Comptroller. Atty. Dvorin states to an extent represents as through the State
as an official. Court inquires from legal standpoint where state board is
paralyzed under some obligation. Atty. Valentine discusses statute and
process with bipartisan board; statute has a default mechanism; open to an
enforcement action; in the process now; trying to meet federal standards first.
States none of the machines in US have been certified and meets federal
standards. Discusses plan b machine to start testing in 10-14 days; have a
testing agency; have bid for voting machines; ready to contract with vendors
in 1st quarter of 2008; began initial analysis to test the machines. Court takes
recess. Atty. Heffernan discusses HAVA non-compliance. Court discusses
issue raised regarding appointment of special master. Atty. Heffernan
discusses accessibility; Court discusses submission of plan; court inquires of
federal government in regards to enforcement. Atty. Heffernan states
government has been monitoring. Atty. Valentine states elements of steps not
issue but it is the dates. Court inquires of State Board if time requested to
submit a plan. Atty. Valentine discusses elements in Zalen plan; necessary
steps; only issue and will accept time to make sure dates are accurate; ask
until January 4, 2008 to comeback with details; time to assured accurate
dates on testing; delivery dates; when delivered to the counties; Atty. Collins
would urge the court to adopt Zalen plan with verification of dates by Atty.
Valentine Atty. Heffernan states does not have problem with January 4,
2008. Have the board come in with plan review for sufficiency. Discusses
letter from county board members yesterday. Focus on accessibility;
discusses HAVA compliant machines; Court will convert Nassau Countys
46
01/11/2008 182 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by State of New York as to 181
LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration Certificate of Service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
01/14/2008 Text Only Order - The court is in receipt of the plaintiffs proposed order. See
Dkt. No. 181. The defendants are directed to file a response, in regards to the
proposed order, on or before January 15, 2008 by 1:00 p.m. Issued by Judge
Gary L. Sharpe on 1/14/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
01/15/2008 183 LETTER BRIEF Responding to the United States Proposed Order of docket
# 181 by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 State Board
response to United States Proposed Order)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered:
01/15/2008)
01/15/2008 184 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by State of New York as to 181
LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration Certificate of Service# 2 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed
Supplemental Remedial Order# 3 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed
Supplemental Remedial Order (redlined))(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered:
01/15/2008)
01/15/2008 185 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by State of New York as to 181
LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) Corrected Letter Brief# 2 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed
Order)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
01/16/2008 186 ORIGNAL DECLARATION of Dennis Karius with signature duplicative of
declartion previously filed as [158-13]. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
01/16/2008 187 LETTER dated January 14, 2008 by Emily Stern, Esq., and ORDER
requesting the court to defer ruling is denied. Her application seeking amicus
curiae status is to be filed on or before January 18, 2008. Signed by Judge
Gary L. Sharpe on 1/16/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
01/16/2008 188 SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe
on 1/16/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
01/18/2008 189 STATUS REPORT for week of 1/14/08 to 1/18/08 by New York State Board
of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
01/18/2008 190 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Dennis R. Boyd on behalf of The
New York State Independent Living Council, Disabled in Action of
Metropolitan New York, The Disabilities Network of NYC, The National
Multiple Sclerosis Society Upstate New York Chapter, United Spinal
Association, American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York
State Association of Community and Residential Agencies and Self
Advocacy Association of New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of
Service)(Boyd, Dennis) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
01/18/2008 191 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Emily Stern on behalf of
48
 Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, The Disabilities Network of
NYC, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society Upstate New York Chapter,
United Spinal Association, American Council of the Blind of New York, The
New York State Association of Community and Residential Agencies and
Self Advocacy Association of New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate
of Service)(Stern, Emily) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
01/18/2008 192 LETTER BRIEF Brief Amicus Curiae by The New York State Independent
Living Council, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, The
Disabilities Network of NYC, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Upstate New York Chapter, United Spinal Association, American Council of
the Blind of New York, The New York State Association of Community and
Residential Agencies and Self Advocacy Association of New York State.
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law Brief Amicus Curiae# 2 Certificate
of Service)(Stern, Emily) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
01/25/2008 194 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: #
1 Status Report)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
02/01/2008 195 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul)
(Entered: 02/01/2008)
02/01/2008 196 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 02/01/2008)
02/07/2008 197 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, U.S. Counsel, Requesting Substitution
of Todd Valentine for Peter Kosinski as Defendant for United States of
America requesting Party Substitution submitted to Judge Sharpe.
(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
02/08/2008 198 LETTER dated February 7, 2008 by Brian F. Heffernan, Esq., and ORDER
granting 197 Letter Requesting Substitution of Todd Valentine for Peter
Kosinski. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/8/2008. (jel, ) (Entered:
02/08/2008)
02/08/2008 199 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 02/08/2008)
02/08/2008 200 MOTION to Intervene by order to show cause by Avante International
Technology, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation, # 2 Memorandum of Law)
(Potter, James) Modified on 2/11/2008 (jel, ). Modified on 2/11/2008 (jel, ).
(Entered: 02/08/2008)
02/11/2008 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY - Deleted document
number 200 for it was duplicative of the document filed in document number
201. Renumbered document number 201 to document number 200 to follow
in sequential order and terminated all deadlines associated with that entry.
(jel, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
02/11/2008 201 RESPONSE in Opposition re 200 MOTION to Intervene by order to show
49
02/21/2008 208 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of
Elections as to Order,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,, 206 Letter Request/Motion
filed by United States of America. (Carr, Allison) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
02/21/2008 Amended Text Only Order Requiring Response---SBOE and the State of
New York is hereby ordered to file a response to the letter filed by the U.S.
Government (dated 2/19/08) and to Show Cause as to why this court should
not hold SBOE in Contempt. Specifically, SBOE is hereby ordered to
respond to each and every alternative proposed by the U.S. Government as a
remedy to this court for noncompliance and/or file any response the SBOE
deems necessary. The response is due Thursday, February 21, 2008, by
4:00pm. Due to the omission State of New York from the original text only
order, the State of New York will be permitted to file a response prior to the
conference scheduled for February 22, 2008. Telephone conference is
scheduled for Friday, February 22, 2008 at 11:00am. Plaintiff's counsel is to
conference in all counsel and initiate the telephone conference call to
chambers at 518-257-1870. The parties they are to participate in this
conference are the plaintiff, the New York State Board of Elections and the
State of New York ( Telephone Conference set for 2/22/2008 at 11:00 AM in
Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.)Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on
2/21/2008. (jel, ) Modified on 2/21/2008 (jel, ). (Entered: 02/21/2008)
02/21/2008 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY - To correct the amended
text order to reflect that the court will permit the State of New York to file a
response prior to the telephone conference scheduled for February 22, 2008
due to the court's inadvertent omission of the State of New York from the
original text only order. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
02/22/2008 209 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by Election Commissioners
Association of New York as to 207 Amicus Curiae Appearance, filed by
Election Commissioners Association of New York, 206 Letter
Request/Motion filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1
Supplement letter clarifying Election Comm. Assoc. position re: SBOE/Erie
County non-compliance)(Wait, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
02/22/2008 210 LETTER BRIEF by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration
Certificate of Service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
02/22/2008 Text Only Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe:
Telephone Conference held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Appearances
Made: Brian Heffernan, Esq., Allison Carr, Esq., Paul Collins, Esq., Jeffrey
Dvorin, Esq., and Bruce Boivin, Esq.; Court discusses violation of the
remedial order Dkt. No. 188 ; Court discusses terms of that document;
Discusses Erie County; Discusses selection process; Atty. Carr clarified the
selection process; Atty. Collins discusses the situation of the 4th
Commissioner; Court inquires of mechanism by law to resolve in stalemate
in the SBOE; Atty. Carr discusses that there is no mechanism; Court
discusses paralyzation of New York State; Atty. Carr discusses Erie County
51
cause to be presented 2/11/08--response to motion as directed by court.
Ignore the following text in this box concerning motion return dates. filed by
United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
02/11/2008 TEXT ONLY ORDER-On February 8, 2008, Avante International
Technology, Inc., filed a motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 200). It is unclear
from the submissions whether the proposed intervenor is seeking
intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 (a) and/or (b) or seeks
amicus curiae status. In any event, to the extent the motion seeks the limited
relief of a change in date already established in this case, that motion appears
to seek Rule 24 intervention, and is denied. To the extent Avante seeks
amicus curiae status, this request is granted. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe
on 2/11/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
02/15/2008 202 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 02/15/2008)
02/15/2008 203 STATUS REPORT letter to Court re: Erie County by New York State Board
of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
02/15/2008 204 STATUS REPORT Attachment to Docket No. 202 by New York State Board
of Elections. (Carr, Allison) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
02/19/2008 205 STATUS REPORT Date Revision by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
02/20/2008 206 Letter Motion from Brian F. Heffernan for United States of America
requesting Remedial Action with Regard to Ballot Mrking Device Choice for
Erie County submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered:
02/20/2008)
02/21/2008 207 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Jeffrey D. Wait on behalf of
Election Commissioners Association of New York. (Attachments: # 1
Supplement letter from amicus Election Commissioners Association stating
position on Erie County/SBOA non-compliance)(Wait, Jeffrey) (Entered:
02/21/2008)
02/21/2008 Text Only Order Requiring Response---SBOE is hereby ordered to file a
response to the letter filed by the U.S. Government (dated 2/19/08) and to
Show Cause as to why this court should not hold SBOE in Contempt.
Specifically, SBOE is hereby ordered to respond to each and every
alternative proposed by the U.S. Government as a remedy to this court for
noncompliance and/or file any response the SBOE deems necessary. The
response is due Thursday, February 21, 2008, by 4:00pm. Telephone
conference is scheduled for Friday, February 22, 2008 at 11:00am. Plaintiff's
counsel is to conference in all counsel and initiate the telephone conference
call to chambers at 518-257-1870. ( Telephone Conference set for 2/22/2008
at 11:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.)Issued by Judge Gary
L. Sharpe on 2/21/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
50
Board meeting; Court inquires of the State as to the SBOE; Atty. Dvorin
states no authority constitutionally or statutory to intervene; Atty. Heffernan
discusses the power to remove commissioner; Atty. Dvorin states the State is
looking further into the issue; Court discusses recommendation to review
webcast; Court discusses the performation and actions of Commissioner
Kellner; Court discusses the violation of the SBOE in regards to the
supplemental remedial order; Court discusses 3 options proposed by the
federal government; Atty. Heffernan discusses the proposal of imposing
sanctions; cites 2nd circuit case law; discusses the State Board Hearing;
disputes characterization of the Board; Court discusses the imposition of
monetary penalty; Atty. Collins discusses another alternative with the court;
Atty. Dvorin states the State has laid out their position in the paper; agree
that court intervention is needed; Court discusses the substance of the ruling
to follow; Court states reviewed the webcast; Court discusses views; Court
summarizes machines and costs; Court discusses the majority rules; Court
selects on behalf of the SBOE to purchase the ES&S Automatic BMD for
Erie County basedon the SBOE majority vote, the presentation of argument
of the Erie County Board of Commissioners as well as the other factors
articulated by the court during the conference effective immediately today
with the proposed order to be reviewed and submitted by the parties for the
court's review and execution. (Court Reporter Theresa Casal) Time: 11:00-
11:40 a.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
02/22/2008 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held
on February 22, 2008 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.. (tjc, ) (Entered:
02/22/2008)
02/22/2008 211 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 02/22/2008)
02/22/2008 212 RECORD of Proceedings: Telephone Conference held on February 22, 2008
before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal.
IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to
remove personal identifier data from the transcript, a party must
electronically file a Notice of Intent to Redact with the Clerk's Office within
5 business days of this date. The policy governing the redaction of personal
information is located on the court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read
this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5
business days of this date, the court will assume redaction of personal
identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available on the
web 90 days from today's date. Notice of Intent to Redact due by 2/29/2008
Transcript due by 5/22/2008. (tjc, ) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
02/26/2008 213 ORDER, In accordance with the Supplemental Remedial Order of January
16, 2008, the State Board of Elections shall select for the Erie County Board
of Elections, the ES&S AutoMark as its ballot marking device. Signed by
Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/26/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
52
02/29/2008 214 STATUS REPORT and cover letter by New York State Board of Elections. 05/23/2008 228 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Attachments: # 1 Status Report)(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/29/2008) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
03/07/2008 215 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison) 05/30/2008 229 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 03/07/2008) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
03/14/2008 216 STATUS REPORT 3-14-2008 by New York State Board of Elections. 06/06/2008 230 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 03/14/2008) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
03/21/2008 217 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison) 06/09/2008 231 MANDATE of USCA, issued 6/6/08, as to 126 and 177 Appeals filed by
(Entered: 03/21/2008) Nassau County Board of Elections; AFFIRMING orders of the district court.
(cbm ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
03/28/2008 218 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 03/28/2008) 06/13/2008 232 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul)
(Entered: 06/13/2008)
04/04/2008 219 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 04/04/2008) 06/13/2008 233 STATUS REPORT Amended by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
04/11/2008 220 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 04/11/2008) 06/20/2008 234 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 06/20/2008)
04/15/2008 221 RECORD of Proceedings: Telephone Conference held on February 22, 2008
before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. 06/27/2008 235 LETTER BRIEF by Nassau County Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1
IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to Exhibit(s) Letter from Nassau BOE to State BOE and spreadsheet listing
remove personal identifier data from the transcript, a party must problems with BMDs)(Barrett, Lori) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
electronically file a Notice of Intent to Redact with the Clerk's Office within
5 business days of this date. The policy governing the redaction of personal 06/27/2008 236 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
information is located on the court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read (Entered: 06/27/2008)
this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 06/27/2008 237 Letter dated June 25, 2008 from Charlotte P. Koniuto, Commisioners of
business days of this date, the court will assume redaction of personal Elections, for the Otsego County Board of Elections to the Court. (jel, )
identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available on the (Entered: 06/27/2008)
web 90 days from today's date. Notice of Intent to Redact due by 4/22/2008
Transcript due by 7/14/2008. (tjc, ) (Entered: 04/15/2008) 07/01/2008 238 LETTER BRIEF by Nassau County Board of Elections. (Barrett, Lori)
(Entered: 07/01/2008)
04/18/2008 222 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 04/18/2008) 07/07/2008 239 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 07/07/2008)
04/25/2008 223 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 04/25/2008) 07/11/2008 240 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 07/11/2008)
05/02/2008 224 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul)
(Entered: 05/02/2008) 07/18/2008 241 STATUS REPORT July 18, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
05/09/2008 225 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 05/09/2008) 07/21/2008 242 Letter dated July 14, 2008 from Dave A. Byrd, President, for Premier
Election Solutions, Inc. to the Court. (jel, ) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
05/16/2008 226 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison)
(Entered: 05/16/2008) 07/25/2008 243 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul)
(Entered: 07/25/2008)
05/20/2008 227 NOTICE of Appearance by Allison M. Carr on behalf of New York State
Board of Elections (Carr, Allison) (Entered: 05/20/2008) 08/01/2008 244 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul)

53 54

(Entered: 08/01/2008) 11/07/2008 262 STATUS REPORT Weekly Status Report ending 11-07-08 by New York
State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
08/08/2008 245 STATUS REPORT August 8, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 08/08/2008) 11/14/2008 263 STATUS REPORT November 14, 2008 by New York State Board of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
08/11/2008 246 STATUS REPORT August 8, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 08/11/2008) 11/21/2008 264 STATUS REPORT November 21, 2008 by New York State Board of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
08/14/2008 247 STATUS REPORT August 14, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 08/14/2008) 12/05/2008 265 STATUS REPORT 12-05-08 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
08/21/2008 248 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly A. Galvin on behalf of New York
State Board of Elections (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/21/2008) 12/12/2008 266 STATUS REPORT December 12, 2008 by New York State Board of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
08/21/2008 249 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly A. Galvin on behalf of Todd D.
Valentine (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/21/2008) 12/18/2008 267 STATUS REPORT 12-18-08 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
08/21/2008 250 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly A. Galvin on behalf of Stanley L.
Zalen (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/21/2008) 01/08/2009 268 STATUS REPORT 01-08-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
08/22/2008 251 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin,
Kimberly) (Entered: 08/22/2008) 01/16/2009 269 STATUS REPORT 1-16-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
08/29/2008 252 STATUS REPORT August 29, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 08/29/2008) 01/23/2009 270 STATUS REPORT 1-23-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
09/05/2008 253 STATUS REPORT September 5, 2008 by New York State Board of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 09/05/2008) 01/30/2009 271 STATUS REPORT January 30, 2009 by New York State Board of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
09/12/2008 254 STATUS REPORT September 12, 2008 by Todd D. Valentine, Stanley L.
Zalen, New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 02/04/2009 272 NOTICE of Appearance by John A. Gresham on behalf of The New York
09/12/2008) State Independent Living Council, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New
York, The Disabilities Network of NYC, The National Multiple Sclerosis
09/19/2008 255 STATUS REPORT September 19, 2008 by New York State Board of Society Upstate New York Chapter, United Spinal Association, American
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 09/19/2008) Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Association of
09/26/2008 256 STATUS REPORT September 26, 2008 by New York State Board of Community and Residential Agencies and Self Advocacy Association of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 09/26/2008) New York State (Gresham, John) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

10/03/2008 257 STATUS REPORT 10-3-08 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 02/06/2009 273 STATUS REPORT 02-06-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
Paul) (Entered: 10/03/2008) (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

10/10/2008 258 STATUS REPORT 10-10-08 by New York State Board of Elections. 02/13/2009 274 STATUS REPORT 2-13-06 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/10/2008) Paul) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

10/17/2008 259 STATUS REPORT October 17, 2008 by New York State Board of 02/20/2009 275 NOTICE of Appearance by Lori A. Barrett on behalf of Nassau County
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/17/2008) Board of Elections (Barrett, Lori) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

10/24/2008 260 STATUS REPORT Weekly Report for 10/24/08 by New York State Board of 02/20/2009 276 STATUS REPORT 2-20-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/24/2008) Paul) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

10/31/2008 261 STATUS REPORT Week ending October 31, 2008 by New York State 02/27/2009 277 STATUS REPORT 2-27-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/31/2008) Paul) (Entered: 02/27/2009)

55 56
03/06/2009 278 STATUS REPORT 3-3-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
03/13/2009 279 STATUS REPORT 3-13-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
03/13/2009 280 STATUS REPORT Amended by New York State Board of Elections.
(Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
03/20/2009 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing: At the request of defense counsel, an In
Chambers Conference set for 3/27/2009 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge
Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
03/20/2009 281 STATUS REPORT March 20, 2009 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
03/25/2009 282 LETTER BRIEF Re: 3/27/2009 Conference by United States of America.
(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
03/25/2009 283 Conference Issues Letter Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York
State Board of Elections requesting Conference March 27 submitted to Judge
Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
03/25/2009 284 LETTER BRIEF by State of New York. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered:
03/25/2009)
03/27/2009 285 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by New York State Board of Elections for
proceedings held on March 27, 2009 before Judge Sharpe.. (Collins, Paul)
(Entered: 03/27/2009)
03/27/2009 Text Only Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe:
CRD: John Law. In Chambers Conference held on 3/27/2009. Appearances
Made: Brian Heffernan, Esq., for the plaintiff by phone, Jeffrey Dvorin,
AAG, for the State of New York, Kim Galvin and Paul Collins, Esq., for the
New York State Board of Elections. Court inquires of change in HAVA
legislation. Atty. Heffernan discusses the change and the defendants' letter on
this issue. Court summarizes content of the letter. Atty. Heffernan discusses
the letter with the court. Court discusses the testing protocol. Atty. Collins
states the State did not decertify Systest but the EAC did. Atty. Collins states
lost accredidation. Atty. Galvin discusses the issue further with the court.
Court discusses issue and states the overall problem is New York State is
obligated to comply with federal law. Non-compliance is not an option.
Court states action may be taken soon without compliance. Atty. Collins
states wrote letter for it was apparent that not to meet the deadlines. Advises
court of the potentional to make application to extend the deadlines. Atty.
Hefferenan states would be open to have a proposal submitted to him. Need
to have them move quickly. Atty. Galvin states would need some internal
discussions as well. Court directs the defendants to have proposal submitted
to the plaintiff by April 10, 2009. The plaintiff will response to the proposal
by April 24, 2009. Court advises if parties can't resolve the issues that the
defendants' motion is to be filed by May 8, 2009. The plaintiff's response
would be due by May 15, 2009. The defendants are directed that if they seek
to reply they need to seek permission of the court. (Court Reporter Bonnie
Buckley) Time: 9:00-9:30 a.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
03/27/2009 286 STATUS REPORT 3-27-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
04/03/2009 287 STATUS REPORT 4-03-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
04/10/2009 288 STATUS REPORT 4-10-09 Status Report by New York State Board of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
04/17/2009 289 STATUS REPORT 4-16-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
04/24/2009 290 STATUS REPORT 04-24-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
05/01/2009 291 STATUS REPORT 5-1-09 Status Report by New York State Board of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
05/08/2009 292 STATUS REPORT 05-08-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
05/15/2009 293 STATUS REPORT 5-15-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/18/2009 294 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: in chambers conference held on 3/27/09
before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Bonnie Buckley, Telephone
number: 518-257-1898. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF
TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal identifier data from the
transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request
Redaction with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date. The
policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court
website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no Notice
of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the court will
assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript
will be made available on the web 90 days from today's date. Transcript may
be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript
Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction
Request due 6/8/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/18/2009.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/17/2009. Notice of Intent to
Redact due by 5/26/2009 (bjb, ) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
05/22/2009 295 STATUS REPORT 05-22-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
05/29/2009 296 STATUS REPORT 5-29-09 Status Report by New York State Board of

57 58

Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 08/28/2009 313 STATUS REPORT 8-28-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
06/03/2009 297 Letter Motion from Joint Application-Paul M. Collins for New York State
Board of Elections requesting Revised Order by Consent submitted to Judge 09/04/2009 314 STATUS REPORT 9-4-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 06/03/2009) Paul) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
06/03/2009 298 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections 09/11/2009 315 STATUS REPORT 9-11-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
requesting Revised Proposed Order submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
Paul) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
09/18/2009 316 STATUS REPORT 9-18-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
06/04/2009 299 REVISED ORDER granting 297 Letter Request ; granting 298 Letter Paul) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
Request. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/4/09. (ban) (Entered:
06/04/2009) 09/25/2009 317 STATUS REPORT 09-25-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
06/04/2009 300 STATUS REPORT 6-4-09 Status Report by New York State Board of
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 10/02/2009 318 STATUS REPORT 10-2-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
06/12/2009 301 STATUS REPORT 6-12-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 06/12/2009) 10/09/2009 319 STATUS REPORT 10-9-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
06/18/2009 302 STATUS REPORT 6-18-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 06/18/2009) 10/15/2009 320 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections
requesting Expansion of Pilot Program submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Collins,
06/26/2009 303 STATUS REPORT 6-26-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
Paul) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
10/16/2009 321 STATUS REPORT 10-16-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
07/02/2009 304 STATUS REPORT 7-2-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
Paul) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
10/16/2009 322 ORDER granting 320 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York
07/10/2009 305 STATUS REPORT 7-10-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, State Board of Elections requesting Expansion of Pilot Program. Signed by
Paul) (Entered: 07/10/2009) Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 10/16/2009. (jel, ) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
07/17/2009 306 STATUS REPORT 7-17-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 10/23/2009 323 STATUS REPORT 10-23-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
Paul) (Entered: 07/17/2009) (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
07/24/2009 307 STATUS REPORT 7-24-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 10/30/2009 324 STATUS REPORT 10-30-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
Paul) (Entered: 07/24/2009) (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
07/24/2009 308 STATUS REPORT Amended status report 7-24-09 by State of New York. 11/06/2009 325 STATUS REPORT 11-6-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 07/24/2009) Paul) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
07/31/2009 309 STATUS REPORT 7-30-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 11/13/2009 326 STATUS REPORT 11-13-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
Paul) (Entered: 07/31/2009) (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
08/07/2009 310 STATUS REPORT 8-07-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 11/20/2009 327 STATUS REPORT 11-20-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
Paul) (Entered: 08/07/2009) (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
08/14/2009 311 STATUS REPORT 8-14-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 11/27/2009 328 STATUS REPORT 11-27-09 by New York State Board of Elections.
Paul) (Entered: 08/14/2009) (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/27/2009)
08/21/2009 312 STATUS REPORT 8-21-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 12/04/2009 329 STATUS REPORT 12-4-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 08/21/2009) Paul) (Entered: 12/04/2009)

59 60
12/11/2009 330 STATUS REPORT 12-11-09 by New York State Board of Elections. Paul) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
04/09/2010 348 STATUS REPORT 4-9-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
12/18/2009 331 STATUS REPORT 12-18-09 by New York State Board of Elections. Paul) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
04/16/2010 349 STATUS REPORT 4-16-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
12/31/2009 332 STATUS REPORT 12-31-09 by New York State Board of Elections. Paul) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
04/19/2010 350 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections
01/08/2010 333 STATUS REPORT 1-8-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, requesting Conference submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered:
Paul) (Entered: 01/08/2010) 04/19/2010)
01/15/2010 334 STATUS REPORT 1-15-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 04/20/2010 351 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, Esq. for United States for United States
Paul) (Entered: 01/15/2010) of America requesting Contempt and/or other relief submitted to Judge
Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) EAC Advisory)(Heffernan, Brian)
01/22/2010 335 STATUS REPORT 1-22-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, (Entered: 04/20/2010)
Paul) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
04/23/2010 352 STATUS REPORT 4-23-10 Status Report by New York State Board of
01/29/2010 336 STATUS REPORT 1-29-10 Status Report by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
04/26/2010 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication by
02/05/2010 337 STATUS REPORT 2-5-10 Status Report by New York State Board of New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/05/2010) Order/Judgment All Writs Act Application, # 2 Affidavit Kimberly A.
02/12/2010 338 STATUS REPORT 2-12-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Galvin Exhibits Separately Filed, # 3 Exhibit(s) To Galvin Affidavit, # 4
Paul) (Entered: 02/12/2010) Exhibit(s) To Galvin Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit(s) To Galvin Affdiavit, # 6
Memorandum of Law In Support of Application)(Collins, Paul) (Entered:
02/19/2010 339 STATUS REPORT 2-19-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 04/26/2010)
Paul) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
04/30/2010 354 STATUS REPORT 4-30-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
02/22/2010 340 STATUS REPORT regarding potential deviation from timetable set forth in Paul) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
the January 16, 2008 Supplemental Remedial Order by State of New York.
(Boivin, Bruce) (Entered: 02/22/2010) 04/30/2010 355 RESPONSE in Opposition re 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction All Writs Act Allpication, 351 Letter Motion from Brian
02/26/2010 341 STATUS REPORT 2-26-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Heffernan, Esq. for United States for United States of America requesting
Paul) (Entered: 02/26/2010) Contempt and/or other relief submitted to Judge Sharpe filed by Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau
03/05/2010 342 STATUS REPORT 3-05-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
Paul) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
05/04/2010 356 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of
03/12/2010 343 STATUS REPORT 3-12-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Elections as to 355 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Nassau
Paul) (Entered: 03/12/2010) County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature 5-4-10. (Collins,
03/19/2010 344 STATUS REPORT 3-18-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
Paul) (Entered: 03/19/2010) 05/04/2010 TEXT ONLY ORDER, that Nassau County's 355 letter requesting an
03/26/2010 345 STATUS REPORT 3-26-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, extension of time until May 20, 2010 to file a response to the NYSBOEl's
Paul) (Entered: 03/26/2010) 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act
Allpication is DENIED. Nassau County's response is to be filed by noon on
04/01/2010 346 STATUS REPORT concerning related state court litigation by State of New May 11, 2010. Response to Motion due by 5/11/2010. Signed by Judge Gary
York. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/01/2010) L. Sharpe on 5/4/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
04/02/2010 347 STATUS REPORT 4-2-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 05/04/2010 Faxed copy of the May 4, 2010 text only order to Nassau County Attorney

61 62

John Ciampoli per directive of chambers. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
05/05/2010 TEXT ONLY ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 353 Third Party
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication : Response to
Motion due by 12:00 p.m. on 5/11/2010. Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2010 at
03:00 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. All parties are directed to
appear in person at the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway,
Courtroom No. 6, Albany, New York 12207. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe
on 5/5/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/05/2010 Faxed copy of the May 5, 2010 text only order to Nassau County Attorney
John Ciampoli per directive of chambers. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/06/2010 357 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for State of New York requesting
granting application by the Defendant New York State Board of Elections for
an Order to Show Cause submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (Dvorin,
Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
05/07/2010 358 STATUS REPORT 5-5-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
05/11/2010 359 Letter Motion dated May 10, 2010 by Peter J. Clines, Esq., for Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Election Commissioners
requesting an extension of time until 10:00 a.m. on May 12, 2010 to respond
to the defendants application for an injunction against Nassau under the All
Writs Act submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
05/11/2010 360 ORDER, granting the 359 Letter Motion for Nassau County Board of
Elections, Nassau County Legislature requesting an extension of time until
10:00 a.m. on May 12, 2010 to respond to the defendants application for an
injunction against Nassau under the All Writs Act : Response to Motion due
by 10:00 a.m. on 5/12/2010. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/11/2010.
(jel, ) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
05/11/2010 361 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America as to
360 Order Setting Hearing on Motion, Terminate Motions,, Requesting
Extension until May 12, 2010 at 10 a.m. to Respond to SBOE Application.
(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
05/11/2010 362 ORDER, granting the plaintiff's 361 Letter Requesting Extension until May
12, 2010 at 10 a.m. to Respond to SBOE Application. Signed by Judge Gary
L. Sharpe on 5/11/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
05/12/2010 363 RESPONSE in Support re 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction All Writs Act Allpication filed by United States of America.
(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
05/12/2010 364 RESPONSE in Opposition re 357 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for
State of New York requesting granting application by the Defendant New
York State Board of Elections for an Order to Show Cause submitted to
Judge Gary L. Sharpe, 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
All Writs Act Allpication filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter)
(Entered: 05/12/2010)
05/12/2010 365 RESPONSE in Opposition re 357 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for
State of New York requesting granting application by the Defendant New
York State Board of Elections for an Order to Show Cause submitted to
Judge Gary L. Sharpe, 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
All Writs Act Allpication filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s))(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
05/12/2010 366 RESPONSE in Opposition re 357 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for
State of New York requesting granting application by the Defendant New
York State Board of Elections for an Order to Show Cause submitted to
Judge Gary L. Sharpe, 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
All Writs Act Allpication filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s))(Clines, Peter)
(Entered: 05/12/2010)
05/12/2010 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 353 Third Party MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication : Due to a conflict in the
court's calendar the Motion Hearing has been reset for 5/17/2010 at 04:30
PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. All parties are directed to appear
in person at the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Courtroom
No. 6, Albany, New York 12207. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
05/13/2010 367 Letter Motion from John Ciampoli for Nassau County Board of Elections,
Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections,
Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Legislature requesting
Adjournment of the scheduled hearing. submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe.
(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
05/13/2010 368 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America as to
367 Letter Request/Motion, filed by Nassau County Board of Elections,
Nassau County Legislature Opposing Motion for Adjournment. (Heffernan,
Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
05/13/2010 369 ORDER denying 367 Letter requesting Adjournment of the scheduled
hearing. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/13/2010. (jel, ) (Entered:
05/13/2010)
05/14/2010 370 STATUS REPORT 5-12-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
05/14/2010 371 NOTICE of Appearance by Justin S. Weinstein-Tull on behalf of United
States of America (Weinstein-Tull, Justin) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

63 64
05/17/2010 372 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe: CRD: John
Law. Motion Hearing held on 5/17/2010 re 353 Third Party MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Application filed by New York State
Board of Elections. Appearances Made: Barbara D. Cottrell, Brian F.
Heffernan and Justin S. Weinstein-Tull, Esqs., for the USA, Paul Collins and 05/21/2010
Kimberly A. Galvin, Esqs., for the New York State Board of Elections,
Jeffrey M. Dvorin and Bruce J. Boivin, Esqs., for New York State, Peter 05/24/2010
James Cline and John Ciampoli, Esqs., for Nassau County. Court turns to the
application for an order to show cause. Atty. Ciampoli argues point in
opposition to the application for an order to show cause. Court inquires on
authority under the all writs act. Atty. Ciampoli argues on this authority.
Court inquires on the points articulated in the application. Atty. Ciampoli 05/25/2010
discusses the points with the court. Atty. Collins addresses the court. Atty.
Boivin addresses the court. Atty. Heffernan addresses the court. Atty.
Ciampoli further addresses the court. Atty. Collins, Atty. Heffernan and Atty
Boivin states could have order in two days. Court grants the application for 05/25/2010
an order to show cause as articulated under the all writs act. The parties are
directed to submit the proposed order within two days. Atty. Ciampoli
request stay of the order. Court states submit authority but would deny stay.
(Court Reporter Bonnie Buckley) Time: 4:30-5:10 p.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/27/2010
05/18/2010)
05/18/2010 373 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau 06/03/2010
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature for proceedings held
on May 17, 2010 before Judge Sharpe.. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
06/03/2010
05/19/2010 374 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins/ Kimberly A. Galvin for New York State
Board of Elections requesting Execution of Order as Submitted submitted to
Judge Sharpe All Writs Act Application. (Collins, Paul) (Entered:
05/19/2010) 06/10/2010
05/20/2010 375 STATUS REPORT 5-19-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 05/20/2010) 06/11/2010
05/20/2010 376 ORDER granting 353 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge
Gary L. Sharpe on 5/20/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
06/15/2010
05/20/2010 377 RESPONSE to Motion re 374 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins/ Kimberly
A. Galvin for New York State Board of Elections requesting Execution of
Order as Submitted submitted to Judge Sharpe All Writs Act Application 06/17/2010
Letter filed by Nassau County Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) Nassau's Letter in Opposition to Proposed Order)(Clines, Peter)
06/22/2010
(Entered: 05/20/2010)
05/21/2010 378 LETTER BRIEF Schedule to the Court by New York State Board of
06/24/2010
Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
05/21/2010 Text Only Order - As evidenced by the May 17, 2010 hearing transcript, the
assertions contained in Nassau County's May 20, 2010 letter submitted to the 06/25/2010
court are inaccurate. Accordingly, the request for a stay is DENIED and the
Court declines to consider the County's proposals. Issued by Judge Gary L.
Sharpe on 5/21/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
379 LETTER BRIEF Responding to Compliance Schedule by Nassau County
Board of Elections. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
380 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of
Elections as to 379 LETTER BRIEF filed by Nassau County Board of
Elections May 24, 2010 SBOE Response to Nassau County. (Collins, Paul)
(Entered: 05/24/2010)
381 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held
on May 17, 2010 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.. (Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered:
05/25/2010)
382 ORDER granting the 380 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by New
York State Board of Elections as to 379 LETTER BRIEF filed by Nassau
County Board of Elections May 24, 2010 SBOE Response to Nassau County.
Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/25/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
383 STATUS REPORT 5-27-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
384 STATUS REPORT 6-3-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
385 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau
County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. Filing fee $ 455,
receipt number 0206-1585282. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
386 STATUS REPORT 6-10-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
387 ELECTRONIC NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION sent to US Court of
Appeals re Nassau County defts' 385 Notice of Appeal. (cbm ) (Entered:
06/11/2010)
388 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly A. Galvin on behalf of New York
State Board of Elections (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
389 STATUS REPORT 6-17-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
USCA Case Number is 10-2320-cv for 385 Appeal filed by Nassau County
defts. (cbm ) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
390 STATUS REPORT 6-24-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
391 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause held on 5/17/2010
before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Bonnie Buckley, Telephone

65 66

number: 518-257-1898. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 09/02/2010)

TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal identifier data from the
transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request 09/10/2010 404 STATUS REPORT 9-10-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Redaction with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date. The Paul) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court 09/17/2010 405 STATUS REPORT 9-16-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no Notice Paul) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the court will
assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript 09/24/2010 406 STATUS REPORT 9-24-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
will be made available on the web 90 days from today's date. Transcript may Paul) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript 10/01/2010 407 STATUS REPORT 10-1-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Paul) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. 10/08/2010 408 STATUS REPORT 10-8-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. Notice of Intent to Paul) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
Redact due by 6/30/2010 (bjb, ) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
10/08/2010 409 NOTICE of Appearance by John Ciampoli on behalf of Nassau County
07/02/2010 392 STATUS REPORT 7-1-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County
Paul) (Entered: 07/02/2010) Legislature (Ciampoli, John) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
07/09/2010 393 LETTER BRIEF 7-9-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 10/15/2010 410 STATUS REPORT 10-14-10 by New York State Board of Elections.
Paul) (Entered: 07/09/2010) (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
07/09/2010 394 STATUS REPORT 7-9-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, 10/22/2010 411 STATUS REPORT 10-21-10 by New York State Board of Elections.
Paul) (Entered: 07/09/2010) (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
07/12/2010 395 LETTER BRIEF to Judge Sharpe in response to SBOE's July 9, 2010 letter 10/29/2010 412 STATUS REPORT 10-29-10 by New York State Board of Elections.
by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
11/05/2010 413 STATUS REPORT 11-4-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
07/16/2010 396 STATUS REPORT 7-16-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
Paul) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
11/12/2010 414 STATUS REPORT 11-11-10 by New York State Board of Elections.
07/23/2010 397 STATUS REPORT 7-22-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
Paul) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
11/19/2010 415 STATUS REPORT 11-18-10 by New York State Board of Elections.
07/30/2010 398 STATUS REPORT 7-30-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
Paul) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
08/06/2010 399 STATUS REPORT 8-6-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
08/13/2010 400 STATUS REPORT 8-12-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
08/20/2010 401 STATUS REPORT 8-19-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
08/27/2010 402 STATUS REPORT 8-26-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,
Paul) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
09/02/2010 403 STATUS REPORT 9-2-2010 by New York State Board of Elections.

67 68
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 1 of 29 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 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 4 of 29
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 5 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 6 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 7 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 8 of 29
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 9 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 10 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 11 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 12 of 29
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 13 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 14 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 15 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 16 of 29
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 17 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 18 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 19 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 20 of 29
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 21 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 22 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 23 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 24 of 29
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 25 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 26 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 27 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 28 of 29
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 29 of 29
 1990 Percent 2004 Est. Est. 2005 Est. Percent Projected Total
STATE 1990 Projected 2000 2000 Est.
Percent of Change of Active Voters Percent of of HAVA HAVA Funds per
TOTAL TOTAL
1990 Census Percent of 2000 Census Total state percent of Percent of per state using State using New York
PERSONS PERSONS Total CVAP Total Active Funds per
Total Persons State EV Total Persons population Total State EV State EV New York Active Voters
INELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE TO per State Voters per State AV
per State per Total per state increase per Total per Total
TO VOTE VOTE (CVAP) Total State Total per Total
ABR. National EV from 1990 to National EV National EV 81.51% $221,000,000
Persons Persons AV STATE
2000
AK 550043 211926 338117 0.0020634 61.47% 628933 0.1434252 386,611 0.0020874 315,129 0.501053943 0.0020874 6,607,216 Alaska
AL 4040587 1175585 2865002 0.0174838 70.91% 4461130 0.1040797 3,163,190 0.0170791 2,578,336 0.577955747 0.0170791 54,059,134 Alabama
AR 2350725 724380 1626345 0.0099248 69.18% 2679733 0.1399602 1,853,969 0.0100102 1,511,181 0.563929705 0.0100102 31,684,446 Arkansas
AZ 3665228 1509563 2155665 0.0131550 58.81% 5140683 0.4025548 3,023,438 0.0163245 2,464,423 0.479395987 0.0163245 51,670,759 Arizona
EXHIBIT 15: CA 29760021 12987531 16772490 0.1023548 56.36% 33930798 0.1401470 19,123,104 0.1032520 15,587,358 0.45938671 0.1032520 326,815,104 California
CO 3294394 1165483 2128911 0.0129918 64.62% 3409535 0.0372421 2,208,196 0.0119228 1,799,914 0.527905996 0.0119228 37,738,216 Connecticut
CT 3287116 1026209 2260907 0.0137973 68.78% 4311882 0.3088544 2,959,198 0.0159777 2,412,060 0.559398476 0.0159777 50,572,889 Colorado
District of
DC 606900 162017 444883 0.0027149 73.30% 444,883 0.0024021 362,627 0.0024021 7,603,080
Columbia
DE 666168 214886 451282 0.0027540 67.74% 785068 0.1784835 531,828 0.0028715 433,497 0.552177064 0.0028715 9,088,982 Delaware
FL 12937926 4740400 8197526 0.0500257 63.36% 16028890 0.2389072 10,155,974 0.0548355 8,278,196 0.51645473 0.0548355 173,566,268 Florida
GA 6478216 2296734 4181482 0.0255177 64.55% 8206975 0.2668573 5,297,341 0.0286021 4,317,895 0.526124985 0.0286021 90,531,904 Georgia
HI 1108229 417418 690811 0.0042157 62.33% 1216642 0.0978254 758,390 0.0040948 618,168 0.50809375 0.0040948 12,960,933 Hawaii
IA 2776755 783875 1992880 0.0121616 71.77% 2931923 0.0558811 2,104,244 0.0113615 1,715,182 0.585002477 0.0113615 35,961,673 Iowa
ID 1006749 383188 623561 0.0038053 61.94% 1297274 0.2885774 803,507 0.0043384 654,943 0.504861039 0.0043384 13,731,981 Idaho
IL 11430602 3886528 7544074 0.0460380 66.00% 12439042 0.0882228 8,209,634 0.0443265 6,691,722 0.537961202 0.0443265 140,303,178 Illinois
IN 5544159 1683013 3861146 0.0235628 69.64% 6090782 0.0985944 4,241,833 0.0229031 3,457,544 0.56766833 0.0229031 72,493,212 Indiana
KS 2477574 754138 1723436 0.0105173 69.56% 2693824 0.0872830 1,873,863 0.0101176 1,527,397 0.566999459 0.0101176 32,024,435 Kansas
KY 3685296 1019824 2665472 0.0162661 72.33% 4049431 0.0988075 2,928,841 0.0158138 2,387,316 0.589543517 0.0158138 50,054,081 Kentucky
LA 4219973 1321248 2898725 0.0176896 68.69% 4480271 0.0616824 3,077,525 0.0166166 2,508,509 0.559901283 0.0166166 52,595,110 Louisiana
MA 6016425 1832393 4184032 0.0255332 69.54% 6355568 0.0563695 4,419,884 0.0238644 3,602,674 0.566853209 0.0238644 75,536,107 Massachusetts
MD 4781468 1552598 3228870 0.0197043 67.53% 5307886 0.1100955 3,584,354 0.0193531 2,921,629 0.550431685 0.0193531 61,256,846 Maryland
ME 1227928 332135 895793 0.0054666 72.95% 1277731 0.0405586 932,125 0.0050329 759,781 0.594632827 0.0050329 15,930,079 Maine
MI 9295297 2929762 6365535 0.0388459 68.48% 9955829 0.0710609 6,817,876 0.0368120 5,557,292 0.558194764 0.0368120 116,517,942 Michigan
MN 4375099 1420117 2954982 0.0180329 67.54% 4925670 0.1258420 3,326,843 0.0179627 2,711,730 0.550530107 0.0179627 56,855,961 Minnesota
MO 5117073 1543275 3573798 0.0218092 69.84% 5606260 0.0955990 3,915,449 0.0211408 3,191,507 0.569275519 0.0211408 66,915,290 Missouri
MS 2573216 802110 1771106 0.0108082 68.83% 2852927 0.1087009 1,963,627 0.0106023 1,600,564 0.561025279 0.0106023 33,558,513 Mississippi
MT 799065 247964 551101 0.0033631 68.97% 905316 0.1329692 624,380 0.0033712 508,936 0.562164232 0.0033712 10,670,703 Montana
NC 6628637 2102304 4526333 0.0276221 68.28% 8067673 0.2170938 5,508,972 0.0297448 4,490,396 0.556591262 0.0297448 94,148,692 North Carolina
ND 638800 177097 461703 0.0028176 72.28% 643756 0.0077583 465,285 0.0025122 379,257 0.589131044 0.0025122 7,951,752 North Dakota
NE 1578385 483414 1094971 0.0066821 69.37% 1715369 0.0867874 1,190,001 0.0064252 969,977 0.565462477 0.0064252 20,337,191 Nebraska
NH 1109252 329988 779264 0.0047555 70.25% 1238415 0.1164415 870,003 0.0046974 709,144 0.572622636 0.0046974 14,868,403 New Hampshire
NJ 7730188 2687308 5042880 0.0307744 65.24% 8424354 0.0897994 5,495,727 0.0296733 4,479,601 0.531744121 0.0296733 93,922,344 New Jersey
NM 1515069 562851 952218 0.0058109 62.85% 1823821 0.2037874 1,146,268 0.0061891 934,330 0.512292613 0.0061891 19,589,797 New Mexico
NV 1201833 523957 677876 0.0041368 56.40% 2002032 0.6658155 1,129,216 0.0060970 920,431 0.459748427 0.0060970 19,298,381 Nevada
NY 17990455 5749271 12241184 0.0747023 68.04% 19004973 0.0563920 12,931,489 0.0698214 10,540,535 0.554619836 0.0698214 221,000,000 New York
OH 10847115 3186456 7660659 0.0467495 70.62% 11374540 0.0486235 8,033,147 0.0433736 6,547,867 0.575659937 0.0433736 137,287,016 Ohio
OK 3145585 974724 2170861 0.0132478 69.01% 3458819 0.0995789 2,387,033 0.0128884 1,945,685 0.562528733 0.0128884 40,794,552 Oklahoma
OR 2842321 949756 1892565 0.0115495 66.59% 3428543 0.2062476 2,282,902 0.0123261 1,860,807 0.542739962 0.0123261 39,014,947 Oregon
PA 11881643 3254324 8627319 0.0526485 72.61% 12300670 0.0352668 8,931,577 0.0482246 7,280,182 0.591852486 0.0482246 152,641,232 Pennsylvania
RI 1003464 309982 693482 0.0042320 69.11% 1049662 0.0460385 725,409 0.0039167 591,285 0.563310071 0.0039167 12,397,286 Rhode Island
SC 3486703 1065612 2421091 0.0147748 69.44% 4025061 0.1544032 2,794,915 0.0150907 2,278,152 0.565991979 0.0150907 47,765,284 South Carolina
SD 696004 210883 485121 0.0029605 69.70% 756874 0.0874564 527,548 0.0028484 430,008 0.568136195 0.0028484 9,015,829 South Dakota
TN 4877185 1431347 3445838 0.0210284 70.65% 5700037 0.1687145 4,027,201 0.0217442 3,282,596 0.575890276 0.0217442 68,825,130 Tennessee
TX 16986510 7045837 9940673 0.0606633 58.52% 20903994 0.2306232 12,233,223 0.0660512 9,971,374 0.477008093 0.0660512 209,066,592 Texas
UT 1722850 738382 984468 0.0060078 57.14% 2236714 0.2982639 1,278,099 0.0069009 1,041,786 0.465766507 0.0069009 21,842,801 Utah
VA 6187358 1901286 4286072 0.0261559 69.27% 7100702 0.1476145 4,918,759 0.0265580 4,009,310 0.564635704 0.0265580 84,061,908 Virginia
VT 562758 167095 395663 0.0024145 70.31% 609890 0.0837518 428,800 0.0023152 349,518 0.573083469 0.0023152 7,328,229 Vermont
WA 4866692 1794757 3071935 0.0187466 63.12% 5908684 0.2141068 3,729,657 0.0201377 3,040,066 0.514508175 0.0201377 63,740,089 Washington
WI 4891769 1491201 3400568 0.0207521 69.52% 5371210 0.0980097 3,733,857 0.0201603 3,043,489 0.566630102 0.0201603 63,811,859 Wisconsin
2004 NEW YORK ACTIVE VOTERS and $221 Million Federal Dollars for New York

WV 1793477 437971 1355506 0.0082720 75.58% 1813077 0.0109285 1,370,320 0.0073988 1,116,956 0.616055376 0.0073988 23,418,853 West Virginia
CHART of HAVA FUNDS DISBURSEMENT Nationally projected based upon the First

WY 453588 143546 310042 0.0018920 68.35% 495304 0.0919689 338,556 0.0018280 275,959 0.557151228 0.0018280 5,785,948 Wyoming
Approximation of ACTIVE VOTERS IN EACH STATE using the ACTUAL December 31,

1990 ========= ======== ========= ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== =============
TOTALS 248709873 84843649 163,866,224 100% 65.89% 281424177 113% 185,208,072 100% 150,964,221 100% $3,165,218,155
 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 2 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 2 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 2 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 3 of 3
 Send Log Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages
Failed Fax S Rensselaer County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 3:02 PM Rensselaer County Board of Elections 26 Comp Fax S Orleans County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 11:32 PM Orleans County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Oneida County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 3:00 PM Oneida County Board of Elections 24 Comp Fax S Ontario County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 11:03 PM Ontario County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Orange County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:59 PM Orange County Board of Elections 18 Comp Fax S Onondaga County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 10:42 PM Onondaga County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Nassau County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:51 PM Nassau County Board of Elections 9 Comp Fax S Niagara County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 10:16 PM Niagara County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Livingston County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:50 PM Livingston County Board of Elections 9 Comp Fax S Montgomery County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 9:41 PM Montgomery County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Hamilton County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:46 PM Hamilton County Board of Elections 7 Comp Fax S Monroe County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 9:21 PM Monroe County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Fulton County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:41 PM Fulton County Board of Elections 6 Failed Fax S Madison County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 9:20 PM Madison County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Franklin County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:40 PM Franklin County Board of Elections 13 Comp Fax S Jefferson County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 8:47 PM Jefferson County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Delaware County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:33 PM Delaware County Board of Elections 6 Failed Fax S Herkimer County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 8:47 PM Herkimer County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Allegany County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:22 PM Allegany County Board of Elections 10 Comp Fax S Greene County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 8:13 PM Greene County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Count-Attorney Mon 2/13/2006 2:21 PM Orange County (County Attorney) 8 Comp Fax S Genesee County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 7:52 PM Genesee County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Attorney, (Broome County) Mon 2/13/2006 2:05 PM Broome County 22 Failed Fax S Essex County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 7:10 PM Essex County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Konstanty, James Mon 2/13/2006 2:04 PM Otsego County Attorney 13 Comp Fax S Erie County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 6:50 PM Erie County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Attorney-General Mon 2/13/2006 10:35 AM Nevada, State of 26 Comp Fax S Dutchess County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 6:29 PM Dutchess County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Secretary-of-State Sun 2/12/2006 5:53 PM Oregon State of 29 Comp Fax S Cortland County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 5:38 PM Cortland County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Attorney-General Sun 2/12/2006 5:50 PM Oregon State of 29 Comp Fax S Columbia County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 5:03 PM Columbia County Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Kings County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 1:25 PM Kings County Board of Elections 29 Failed Fax S Clinton County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 5:03 PM Clinton County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Kellner, Douglas Sun 2/12/2006 1:09 PM NYS-Bd of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Chenango County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 4:43 PM Chenango County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Graber, Joel Sun 2/12/2006 12:54 PM NYS-DOL OAG 29 Comp Fax S Chemung County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 4:20 PM Chemung County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Platkin, Richard Sun 2/12/2006 12:35 PM NYS Executive Office (Counsel to the ... 29 Comp Fax S Chautauqua County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 4:00 PM Chautauqua County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Pataki, George Sun 2/12/2006 12:16 PM NYS Executive Office 29 Comp Fax S Cayuga County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 3:44 PM Cayuga County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Sullivan, Peter Sun 2/12/2006 12:00 PM NYS DOL OAG Buffalo 29 Comp Fax S Cattaraugus County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 3:17 PM Cattaraugus County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Albany County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 11:39 AM Albany County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Broome County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 2:56 PM Broome County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Joyce, Amy Sun 2/12/2006 11:19 AM Albany County Department of Law 29 Comp Fax S Indelicato, Charlene Sat 2/11/2006 2:16 PM Westchester County (County Attorney-... 29
Comp Fax S Yates County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 10:53 AM Yates County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Warren County) Sat 2/11/2006 1:55 PM Warren County 29
Comp Fax S Westchester County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 10:35 AM Westchester County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Sullivan County) Sat 2/11/2006 1:35 PM Sullivan County 29
Comp Fax S Wayne County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 10:14 AM Wayne County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Malafi, Christine Sat 2/11/2006 1:16 PM Suffolk County (County Attorney) 29
Failed Fax S Washington County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 10:14 AM Washington County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Zugibe, Patricia Sat 2/11/2006 12:56 PM Rockland County (County Attorney) 29
Comp Fax S Tompkins County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 9:53 AM Tompkins County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Onondaga County) Sat 2/11/2006 12:35 PM Onondaga County 29
Comp Fax S Tioga County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 9:37 AM Tioga County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Goodman, Lorna Sat 2/11/2006 12:19 PM Nassau County (County Attorney) 29
Comp Fax S Sullivan County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 9:03 AM Sullivan County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Monroe County) Sat 2/11/2006 11:53 AM Monroe County 29
Comp Fax S New York City Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 8:47 AM New York City Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Hartzell, John Sat 2/11/2006 11:33 AM Jefferson County 29
Failed Fax S Goodman, Norman Sun 2/12/2006 8:33 AM New York County Clerk 29 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Erie County) Sat 2/11/2006 11:12 AM Erie County 29
Failed Fax S Bobrow, Joy Sun 2/12/2006 8:32 AM New York County Clerk 29 Comp Fax S Wozniak, Ronald Sat 2/11/2006 10:52 AM Dutchess County (County Attorney) 29
Comp Fax S Suffolk County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 3:28 AM Suffolk County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S New York City Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 10:20 AM New York City Board of Elections 29
Failed Fax S Steuben County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 3:27 AM Steuben County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Otsego County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 9:59 AM Otsego County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S St. Lawrence County Board of E Sun 2/12/2006 3:01 AM St. Lawrence County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Ulster County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 8:32 AM Ulster County Board of Elections 29
Comp Fax S Seneca County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 2:28 AM Seneca County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Attorney, (Ulster County) Sat 2/11/2006 6:52 AM Ulster County 29
Comp Fax S Schenectady County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 1:32 AM Schenectady County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Hinchey, Maurice Wed 2/8/2006 10:33 AM US Congress (NY-22) 29
Comp Fax S Saratoga County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 1:12 AM Saratoga County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S McDermott, Meaghan Wed 2/8/2006 7:40 AM Democrat and Chronicle 29
Comp Fax S Putnam County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 12:52 AM Putnam County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Thompson, Carolyn Wed 2/8/2006 7:24 AM Associated Press (Buffalo) 29
Comp Fax S Oswego County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 12:32 AM Oswego County Board of Elections 29 Comp Fax S Herbeck, Dan Wed 2/8/2006 7:04 AM Buffalo News, The 29

Page 1 Page 2

Send Log Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages
Comp Fax S Precious, Tom Wed 2/8/2006 6:43 AM Buffalo News 29 Comp Fax S Little, Elizabeth Wed 2/8/2006 5:17 AM NYS Senate SD 45 1
Comp Fax S Bunker, Matthew Wed 2/8/2006 6:41 AM US Senate Judiciary Committee 1 Comp Fax S Bonacic, John Wed 2/8/2006 5:16 AM NYS Senate SD 42 1
Comp Fax S Schumer, Charles Wed 2/8/2006 6:40 AM US Senate 1 Comp Fax S Larkin, William Wed 2/8/2006 5:14 AM NYS Senate SD 39 1
Comp Fax S Clinton, Hillary Wed 2/8/2006 6:38 AM US Senate 1 Comp Fax S Gonzalez, Efrain Wed 2/8/2006 5:13 AM NYS Senate SD 33 1
Comp Fax S Miller, Candice Wed 2/8/2006 6:37 AM US Congress 1 Failed Fax S Schneiderman, Eric Wed 2/8/2006 5:13 AM NYS Senate SD 31 1
Comp Fax S Walsh, James Wed 2/8/2006 6:35 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Paterson, David Wed 2/8/2006 5:11 AM NYS Senate SD 30 1
Comp Fax S King, Peter Wed 2/8/2006 6:33 AM US Congress 1 Failed Fax S Mendez, Olga Wed 2/8/2006 5:11 AM NYS Senate SD 28 1
Comp Fax S McNulty, Michael Wed 2/8/2006 6:32 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Connor, Martin Wed 2/8/2006 5:10 AM NYS Senate SD 25 1
Failed Fax S Velasquez, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:31 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Marchi, John Wed 2/8/2006 5:08 AM NYS Senate SD 24 1
Comp Fax S Lewis, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:30 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Padavan, Frank Wed 2/8/2006 5:07 AM NYS Senate SD 11 (District Offices) 1
Failed Fax S Burton, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:29 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Padavan, Frank Wed 2/8/2006 5:06 AM NYS Senate SD 11 1
Comp Fax S Shays, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:27 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Parment, William Wed 2/8/2006 5:04 AM NYS Assembly AD 150 1
Comp Fax S Davis, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:26 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Young, Catherine Wed 2/8/2006 5:03 AM NYS Assembly AD 149 1
Failed Fax S Turner, Fred Wed 2/8/2006 6:25 AM US CONGRESS 1 Failed Fax S Hayes, Jim Wed 2/8/2006 5:02 AM NYS Assembly AD 148 1
Comp Fax S TANCREDO, REP. Wed 2/8/2006 6:23 AM US CONGRESS 1 Comp Fax S Burling, Daniel Wed 2/8/2006 5:01 AM NYS Assembly AD 147 1
Failed Fax S Kelly, Sue Wed 2/8/2006 6:23 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Smith, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 4:59 AM NYS Assembly AD 146 1
Comp Fax S Boehlert, Sherwood Wed 2/8/2006 6:21 AM US Congress 1 Failed Fax S Higgins, Brian Wed 2/8/2006 4:59 AM NYS Assembly AD 145 1
Comp Fax S Nadler, Jerrold Wed 2/8/2006 6:20 AM US Congress 1 Comp Fax S Hoyt, Sam Wed 2/8/2006 4:58 AM NYS Assembly AD 144 1
Comp Fax S Reynolds, Thomas Wed 2/8/2006 6:18 AM US Congress (R-NY) 26th District 1 Comp Fax S Tokasz, Paul Wed 2/8/2006 4:56 AM NYS Assembly AD 143 1
Comp Fax S Hinchey, Maurice Wed 2/8/2006 6:17 AM US Congress (Kingston) 1 Comp Fax S Wirth, Sandra Wed 2/8/2006 4:55 AM NYS Assembly AD 142 1
Comp Fax S Sweeney, John Wed 2/8/2006 6:16 AM US Congress (NY-20th) 1 Failed Fax S Peoples, Crystal Wed 2/8/2006 4:54 AM NYS Assembly AD 141 1
Comp Fax S Hinchey, Maurice Wed 2/8/2006 6:14 AM US Congress Friends of Maurice Hinc... 1 Comp Fax S Schimminger, Robin Wed 2/8/2006 4:52 AM NYS Assembly AD 140 1
Comp Fax S Hinchey, Maurice Wed 2/8/2006 6:12 AM US Congress (NY-22) 1 Comp Fax S Nesbitt, Charlie Wed 2/8/2006 4:51 AM NYS Assembly AD 139 1
Comp Fax S Rich, Joseph Wed 2/8/2006 5:56 AM US DOJ Civil Rights Div. Voting Sec. 29 Comp Fax S DelMonte, Francine Wed 2/8/2006 4:49 AM NYS Assembly AD 138 1
Comp Fax S Wilkey, Thomas Wed 2/8/2006 5:41 AM US Election Assistance Commission 29 Comp Fax S Sayward, Teresa Wed 2/8/2006 4:48 AM NYS Assembly AD 113 1
Comp Fax S Cottrell, Barbara Wed 2/8/2006 5:40 AM US DOJ NDNY (Albany) 1 Comp Fax S Manning, Patrick Wed 2/8/2006 4:46 AM NYS Assembly AD 103 1
Comp Fax S Dvorin, Jeffrey Wed 2/8/2006 5:38 AM NYS-DOL Attorney General 1 Comp Fax S Miller, Joel Wed 2/8/2006 4:45 AM NYS Assembly AD 102 1
Comp Fax S Miller, Jennifer Wed 2/8/2006 5:37 AM NYS-DOL Attorney General 1 Comp Fax S Kirwan, Thomas Wed 2/8/2006 4:44 AM NYS Assembly AD 100 1
Comp Fax S Spitzer, Eliot Wed 2/8/2006 5:36 AM NYS-DOL Attorney General 1 Comp Fax S Diaz, Ruben Wed 2/8/2006 4:42 AM NYS Assembly AD 085 1
Comp Fax S Arnold, Kathlene Wed 2/8/2006 5:35 AM NYS-DOL CLAIMS BUREAU 1 Comp Fax S Arroyo, Carmen Wed 2/8/2006 4:41 AM NYS Assembly AD 084 1
Comp Fax S Graber, Joel Wed 2/8/2006 5:33 AM NYS-DOL OAG 1 Comp Fax S Heastie, Carl Wed 2/8/2006 4:39 AM NYS Assembly AD 083 1
Comp Fax S NYS-DOL Press Office Wed 2/8/2006 5:31 AM NYS-DOL Press Office 1 Comp Fax S Dinowitz, Jeffrey Wed 2/8/2006 4:38 AM NYS Assembly AD 081 1
Comp Fax S Sullivan, Peter Wed 2/8/2006 5:30 AM NYS DOL OAG Buffalo 1 Comp Fax S Klein, Jeff Wed 2/8/2006 4:36 AM NYS Assembly AD 080 1
Comp Fax S Daniels, Randy Wed 2/8/2006 5:29 AM NYS DOS 1 Comp Fax S Benjamin, Michael Wed 2/8/2006 4:35 AM NYS Assembly AD 079 1
Comp Fax S Pataki, George Wed 2/8/2006 5:27 AM NYS Executive Office 1 Comp Fax S Rivera, José Wed 2/8/2006 4:34 AM NYS Assembly AD 078 1
Comp Fax S Platkin, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 5:25 AM NYS Executive Office (Counsel to the ... 1 Comp Fax S Greene, Aurelia Wed 2/8/2006 4:32 AM NYS Assembly AD 077 1
Comp Fax S Attorney, (Broome County) Wed 2/8/2006 5:24 AM Broome County 1 Comp Fax S Rivera, Peter Wed 2/8/2006 4:31 AM NYS Assembly AD 076 1
Failed Fax S Maziarz, George Wed 2/8/2006 5:23 AM NYS Senate SD 62 1 Comp Fax S Gottfried, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 4:29 AM NYS Assembly AD 075 1
Comp Fax S Rath, Mary Wed 2/8/2006 5:22 AM NYS Senate SD 61 1 Comp Fax S Sanders, Steven Wed 2/8/2006 4:28 AM NYS Assembly AD 074 1
Comp Fax S Volker, Dale Wed 2/8/2006 5:21 AM NYS Senate SD 59 1 Comp Fax S Espaillat, Adriano Wed 2/8/2006 4:26 AM NYS Assembly AD 072 1
Comp Fax S Stachowski, William Wed 2/8/2006 5:19 AM NYS Senate SD 58 1 Comp Fax S Wright, Keith Wed 2/8/2006 4:25 AM NYS Assembly AD 070 1
Comp Fax S McGee, Patricia Wed 2/8/2006 5:18 AM NYS Senate SD 57 1 Failed Fax S Stringer, Scott Wed 2/8/2006 4:24 AM NYS Assembly AD 067 1

Page 3 Page 4
 Send Log Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages
Comp Fax S Glick, Deborah Wed 2/8/2006 4:23 AM NYS Assembly AD 066 1 Comp Fax S Schimminger, Robin Wed 2/8/2006 3:29 AM NYS Assembly AD 140 1
Comp Fax S Grannis, Alexander Wed 2/8/2006 4:21 AM NYS Assembly AD 065 1 Comp Fax S Nesbitt, Charlie Wed 2/8/2006 3:27 AM NYS Assembly AD 139 1
Comp Fax S Silver, Sheldon Wed 2/8/2006 4:20 AM NYS Assembly AD 064 1 Comp Fax S DelMonte, Francine Wed 2/8/2006 3:26 AM NYS Assembly AD 138 1
Comp Fax S Cusick, Michael Wed 2/8/2006 4:18 AM NYS Assembly AD 063 1 Comp Fax S Hooker, Daniel Wed 2/8/2006 3:24 AM NYS Assembly AD 127 1
Failed Fax S Straniere, Robert Wed 2/8/2006 4:18 AM NYS Assembly AD 062 1 Comp Fax S Sayward, Teresa Wed 2/8/2006 3:23 AM NYS Assembly AD 113 1
Comp Fax S Valentine, Todd Wed 2/8/2006 4:17 AM NYS-Bd of Elections 1 Comp Fax S McDonald, Roy Wed 2/8/2006 3:22 AM NYS Assembly AD 112 1
Comp Fax S Zalen, Stanley Wed 2/8/2006 4:15 AM NYS-Bd of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Prentiss, Robert Wed 2/8/2006 3:20 AM NYS Assembly AD 109 1
Comp Fax S Kosinski, Peter Wed 2/8/2006 4:14 AM NYS-Bd of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Casale, Pat Wed 2/8/2006 3:19 AM NYS Assembly AD 108 1
Comp Fax S Daghlian, Lee Wed 2/8/2006 4:13 AM NYS-Bd of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Canestrari, Ron Wed 2/8/2006 3:17 AM NYS Assembly AD 106 1
Comp Fax S Maziarz, George Wed 2/8/2006 4:12 AM NYS Senate SD 62 1 Comp Fax S Manning, Patrick Wed 2/8/2006 3:16 AM NYS Assembly AD 103 1
Comp Fax S Rath, Mary Wed 2/8/2006 4:10 AM NYS Senate SD 61 1 Comp Fax S Cahill, Kevin Wed 2/8/2006 3:15 AM NYS Assembly AD 101 1
Comp Fax S Brown, Byron Wed 2/8/2006 4:09 AM NYS Senate SD 60 1 Comp Fax S Stephens, Willis Wed 2/8/2006 3:13 AM NYS Assembly AD 099 1
Comp Fax S Volker, Dale Wed 2/8/2006 4:08 AM NYS Senate SD 59 1 Comp Fax S Brodsky, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 3:12 AM NYS Assembly AD 092 1
Comp Fax S Stachowski, William Wed 2/8/2006 4:07 AM NYS Senate SD 58 1 Comp Fax S Farrell, Herman Wed 2/8/2006 3:10 AM NYS Assembly AD 071 1
Comp Fax S McGee, Patricia Wed 2/8/2006 4:05 AM NYS Senate SD 57 1 Comp Fax S Silver, Sheldon Wed 2/8/2006 3:09 AM NYS Assembly AD 064 1
Failed Fax S Seward, James Wed 2/8/2006 4:04 AM NYS Senate SD 51 1 Comp Fax S Betts, Julie Wed 2/8/2006 3:08 AM Yates County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S DeFrancisco, John Wed 2/8/2006 4:03 AM NYS Senate SD 50 1 Comp Fax S Spano, Leonard Wed 2/8/2006 3:06 AM Westchester County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Breslin, Neil Wed 2/8/2006 4:02 AM NYS Senate SD 46 1 Comp Fax S Shaffer, Linda Wed 2/8/2006 3:04 AM Wayne County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Little, Elizabeth Wed 2/8/2006 4:01 AM NYS Senate SD 45 1 Comp Fax S Stewart, Donald Wed 2/8/2006 3:03 AM Washington County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Farley, Hugh Wed 2/8/2006 3:59 AM NYS Senate SD 44 1 Comp Fax S Spada, Albert Wed 2/8/2006 3:02 AM Ulster County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Bruno, Joseph Wed 2/8/2006 3:58 AM NYS Senate SD 43 1 Comp Fax S Valenti, Aurora Wed 2/8/2006 3:01 AM Tompkins County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Bonacic, John Wed 2/8/2006 3:57 AM NYS Senate SD 42 1 Failed Fax S LaPlante, Carole Wed 2/8/2006 3:00 AM Tioga County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Saland, Stephen Wed 2/8/2006 3:56 AM NYS Senate SD 41 1 Comp Fax S Cooke, George Wed 2/8/2006 2:59 AM Sullivan County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Leibell, Vincent Wed 2/8/2006 3:54 AM NYS Senate SD 40 1 Comp Fax S Romaine, Edward Wed 2/8/2006 2:58 AM Suffolk County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Larkin, William Wed 2/8/2006 3:53 AM NYS Senate SD 39 1 Failed Fax S Hunter, Judith Wed 2/8/2006 2:57 AM Steuben County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Paterson, David Wed 2/8/2006 3:52 AM NYS Senate SD 30 1 Comp Fax S Ritchie, Patricia Wed 2/8/2006 2:55 AM St. Lawrence County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Stavisky, Toby Wed 2/8/2006 3:50 AM NYS Senate SD 16 1 Comp Fax S Lotz, Christina Wed 2/8/2006 2:54 AM Seneca County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Padavan, Frank Wed 2/8/2006 3:49 AM NYS Senate SD 11 1 Comp Fax S Compton, Linda Wed 2/8/2006 2:52 AM Schuyler County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Johnson, Owen Wed 2/8/2006 3:48 AM NYS Senate SD 04 1 Comp Fax S Hallock, E. Wed 2/8/2006 2:51 AM Schoharie County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S LaValle, Kenneth Wed 2/8/2006 3:47 AM NYS Senate SD 01 1 Comp Fax S Woodward, John Wed 2/8/2006 2:49 AM Schenectady County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S NYS Assembly Office of Minority Coun... Wed 2/8/2006 3:45 AM NYS Assembly Office of Minority Coun... 1 Comp Fax S Marchione, Kathleen Wed 2/8/2006 2:48 AM Saratoga County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Hayden, Courtney Wed 2/8/2006 3:44 AM NYS Assembly Committee on Education 1 Comp Fax S Gorman, Edward Wed 2/8/2006 2:46 AM Rockland County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Parment, William Wed 2/8/2006 3:42 AM NYS Assembly AD 150 1 Comp Fax S Merola, Frank Wed 2/8/2006 2:44 AM Rensselaer County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Young, Catherine Wed 2/8/2006 3:41 AM NYS Assembly AD 149 1 Comp Fax S D'Amico, Gloria Wed 2/8/2006 2:43 AM Queens County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Hayes, Jim Wed 2/8/2006 3:40 AM NYS Assembly AD 148 1 Comp Fax S Sant, Dennis Wed 2/8/2006 2:42 AM Putnam County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Burling, Daniel Wed 2/8/2006 3:38 AM NYS Assembly AD 147 1 Comp Fax S Carso, Brian Wed 2/8/2006 2:40 AM Otsego County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Smith, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 3:37 AM NYS Assembly AD 146 1 Comp Fax S Williams, George Wed 2/8/2006 2:39 AM Oswego County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Higgins, Brian Wed 2/8/2006 3:35 AM NYS Assembly AD 145 1 Comp Fax S Lonnen, Carol Wed 2/8/2006 2:38 AM Orleans County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Hoyt, Sam Wed 2/8/2006 3:34 AM NYS Assembly AD 144 1 Comp Fax S Benson, Donna Wed 2/8/2006 2:36 AM Orange County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Tokasz, Paul Wed 2/8/2006 3:33 AM NYS Assembly AD 143 1 Comp Fax S Cooley, John Wed 2/8/2006 2:35 AM Ontario County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Wirth, Sandra Wed 2/8/2006 3:31 AM NYS Assembly AD 142 1 Failed Fax S Ciarpelli, M. Wed 2/8/2006 2:33 AM Onondaga County Clerk 1
Comp Fax S Peoples, Crystal Wed 2/8/2006 3:30 AM NYS Assembly AD 141 1 Comp Fax S Allen, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 2:32 AM Oneida County Clerk 1

Page 5 Page 6

Send Log Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages
Comp Fax S Jagow, Wayne Wed 2/8/2006 2:30 AM Niagara County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S St. Lawrence County Board of E Wed 2/8/2006 1:37 AM St. Lawrence County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Goodman, Norman Wed 2/8/2006 2:30 AM New York County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Seneca County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:35 AM Seneca County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Bobrow, Joy Wed 2/8/2006 2:29 AM New York County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Schuyler County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:33 AM Schuyler County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Bartone, Helen Wed 2/8/2006 2:27 AM Montgomery County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Schoharie County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:31 AM Schoharie County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Brooks, Maggie Wed 2/8/2006 2:27 AM Monroe County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Schenectady County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:29 AM Schenectady County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Tooker, M. Wed 2/8/2006 2:26 AM Madison County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Saratoga County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:28 AM Saratoga County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Culbertson, James Wed 2/8/2006 2:25 AM Livingston County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Rockland County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:26 AM Rockland County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Hanno, Douglas Wed 2/8/2006 2:24 AM Lewis County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Rensselaer County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:25 AM Rensselaer County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Levin, Wilbur Wed 2/8/2006 2:22 AM Kings County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Putnam County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:23 AM Putnam County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Wilder, JoAnn Wed 2/8/2006 2:21 AM Jefferson County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Otsego County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:21 AM Otsego County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Rowan, Sylvia Wed 2/8/2006 2:19 AM Herkimer County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Oswego County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:20 AM Oswego County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Zarecki, Jane Wed 2/8/2006 2:18 AM Hamilton County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Orleans County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:16 AM Orleans County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Kordich, Mary Wed 2/8/2006 2:16 AM Greene County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Orange County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:14 AM Orange County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Read, Don Wed 2/8/2006 2:15 AM Genesee County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Ontario County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:13 AM Ontario County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Eschler, William Wed 2/8/2006 2:13 AM Fulton County Clerk & Clerk of Courts 1 Comp Fax S Onondaga County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:11 AM Onondaga County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Murtagh, Wanda Wed 2/8/2006 2:12 AM Franklin County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Oneida County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:09 AM Oneida County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Provoncha, Joseph Wed 2/8/2006 2:12 AM Essex County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Niagara County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:08 AM Niagara County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Swarts, David Wed 2/8/2006 2:10 AM Erie County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S New York City Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:07 AM New York City Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Anderson, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 2:09 AM Dutchess County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Nassau County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:05 AM Nassau County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Cady, Gary Wed 2/8/2006 2:08 AM Delaware County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Montgomery County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:04 AM Montgomery County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Riehlman, Judith Wed 2/8/2006 2:06 AM Cortland County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Monroe County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:02 AM Monroe County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Tanner, Holly Wed 2/8/2006 2:04 AM Columbia County Clerk 1 Failed Fax S Madison County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:02 AM Madison County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Zurlo, John Wed 2/8/2006 2:04 AM Clinton County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Livingston County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:01 AM Livingston County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Weidman, Mary Wed 2/8/2006 2:02 AM Chenango County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Jefferson County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:59 AM Jefferson County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Hughes, Catherine Wed 2/8/2006 2:01 AM Chemung County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Herkimer County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:57 AM Herkimer County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Sopak, Sandra Wed 2/8/2006 2:00 AM Chautauqua County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Hamilton County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:56 AM Hamilton County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Marshall, Joseph Wed 2/8/2006 1:58 AM Cayuga County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Greene County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:55 AM Greene County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Griffith, James Wed 2/8/2006 1:57 AM Cattaraugus County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Genesee County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:53 AM Genesee County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Fiala, Barbara Wed 2/8/2006 1:56 AM Broome County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Fulton County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:52 AM Fulton County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Diaz, Hector Wed 2/8/2006 1:54 AM Bronx County Clerk 1 Failed Fax S Franklin County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:50 AM Franklin County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Presutti, Joseph Wed 2/8/2006 1:52 AM Allegany County Clerk 1 Failed Fax S Essex County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:50 AM Essex County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Clingan, Thomas Wed 2/8/2006 1:52 AM Albany County Clerk 1 Comp Fax S Erie County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:49 AM Erie County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Yates County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:50 AM Yates County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Dutchess County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:47 AM Dutchess County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Westchester County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:49 AM Westchester County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Delaware County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:45 AM Delaware County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Wayne County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:48 AM Wayne County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Cortland County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:44 AM Cortland County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Washington County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:47 AM Washington County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Columbia County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:42 AM Columbia County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Ulster County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:46 AM Ulster County Board of Elections 1 Failed Fax S Clinton County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:41 AM Clinton County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Tompkins County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:44 AM Tompkins County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Chenango County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:40 AM Chenango County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Tioga County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:43 AM Tioga County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Chemung County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:39 AM Chemung County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Sullivan County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:41 AM Sullivan County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Chautauqua County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:37 AM Chautauqua County Board of Elections 1
Comp Fax S Suffolk County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:40 AM Suffolk County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Cayuga County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:35 AM Cayuga County Board of Elections 1
Failed Fax S Steuben County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:39 AM Steuben County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Cattaraugus County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:34 AM Cattaraugus County Board of Elections 1

Page 7 Page 8
 Send Log Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages StatusAtType PrName Date Company Pages
Comp Fax S Broome County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:32 AM Broome County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S DeWitt, Karen Tue 2/7/2006 9:40 PM NYS Public Radio Network 1
Comp Fax S Allegany County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:31 AM Allegany County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Caher, John Tue 2/7/2006 9:38 PM New York Law Journal 1
Comp Fax S Albany County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:29 AM Albany County Board of Elections 1 Comp Fax S Bureau, Capitol Tue 2/7/2006 9:37 PM Newsday 1
Comp Fax S Indelicato, Charlene Wed 2/8/2006 12:28 AM Westchester County (County Attorney-... 1 Comp Fax S Ottaway News Service Tue 2/7/2006 9:36 PM Ottaway News Service 1
Comp Fax S Attorney, (Warren County) Wed 2/8/2006 12:26 AM Warren County 1 Failed Fax S Perez-Pena, Richard Tue 2/7/2006 9:35 PM New York Times 1
Comp Fax S Attorney, (Ulster County) Wed 2/8/2006 12:25 AM Ulster County 1 Comp Fax S Gavin, Robert Tue 2/7/2006 9:33 PM Staten Island Advance 1
Comp Fax S Attorney, (Sullivan County) Wed 2/8/2006 12:23 AM Sullivan County 1 Comp Fax S Kriss, Erik Tue 2/7/2006 9:32 PM Syracuse Herald-Journal/ Post-Standard 1
Failed Fax S Malafi, Christine Wed 2/8/2006 12:22 AM Suffolk County (County Attorney) 1 Comp Fax S Precious, Tom Tue 2/7/2006 9:30 PM Buffalo News 1
Comp Fax S Zugibe, Patricia Wed 2/8/2006 12:21 AM Rockland County (County Attorney) 1 Failed Fax S WGY Radio Tue 2/7/2006 9:29 PM WGY Radio 1
Failed Fax S Konstanty, James Wed 2/8/2006 12:20 AM Otsego County Attorney 1 Comp Fax S Zahn, Benita Tue 2/7/2006 9:28 PM WNYT TV 1
Comp Fax S Count-Attorney Wed 2/8/2006 12:18 AM Orange County (County Attorney) 1 Comp Fax S WRGB TV Tue 2/7/2006 9:27 PM WRGB TV 1
Comp Fax S Attorney, (Onondaga County) Wed 2/8/2006 12:17 AM Onondaga County 1
Failed Fax S Goodman, Lorna Wed 2/8/2006 12:15 AM Nassau County (County Attorney) 1
Comp Fax S Attorney, (Monroe County) Wed 2/8/2006 12:13 AM Monroe County 1
Comp Fax S Hartzell, John Wed 2/8/2006 12:12 AM Jefferson County 1
Comp Fax S Attorney, (Erie County) Wed 2/8/2006 12:10 AM Erie County 1
Comp Fax S Wozniak, Ronald Wed 2/8/2006 12:09 AM Dutchess County (County Attorney) 1
Failed Fax S Brennan, James Tue 2/7/2006 11:01 PM NYS Assembly AD 044 1
Failed Fax S Brodsky, Richard Tue 2/7/2006 11:00 PM NYS Assembly AD 092 1
Failed Fax S Brown, Byron Tue 2/7/2006 11:00 PM NYS Senate SD 60 1
Failed Fax S Cahill, Kevin Tue 2/7/2006 11:00 PM NYS Assembly AD 101 1
Failed Fax S Attorney, (Broome County) Tue 2/7/2006 10:10 PM Broome County 1
Comp Fax S Joyce, Amy Tue 2/7/2006 10:09 PM Albany County Department of Law 1
Comp Fax S Flaherty, Rich Tue 2/7/2006 10:07 PM WBNR-AM 1260 1
Comp Fax S Poughkeepsie Journal Tue 2/7/2006 10:05 PM Poughkeepsie Journal 1
Comp Fax S Brooks, Paul Tue 2/7/2006 10:04 PM Times Herald Record (Highland Bureau) 1
Comp Fax S Office, Middletown Tue 2/7/2006 10:03 PM Times Herald Record 1
Comp Fax S Hendrix, Cameron Tue 2/7/2006 10:01 PM Clear Channel 1
Comp Fax S Hollander, Brian Tue 2/7/2006 10:00 PM Ulster Publishing 1
Comp Fax S Benjamin, Elizabeth Tue 2/7/2006 9:58 PM Albany Times Union 1
Comp Fax S GORMLEY, MICHAEL Tue 2/7/2006 9:57 PM Associated Press 1
Comp Fax S Humbert, Marc Tue 2/7/2006 9:56 PM Associated Press 1
Comp Fax S Hammond, Bill Tue 2/7/2006 9:54 PM Daily Gazette 1
Comp Fax S Flood, Betty Tue 2/7/2006 9:53 PM Cuyler New Service 1
Comp Fax S Lynch, Dan Tue 2/7/2006 9:51 PM WROW 1
Comp Fax S Editor Tue 2/7/2006 9:49 PM New York Daily News 1
Comp Fax S Empire Information Services Tue 2/7/2006 9:48 PM Empire Information Services 1
Comp Fax S Roy, Yancy Tue 2/7/2006 9:47 PM Gannett News Service 1
Comp Fax S Gazette Newspapers Tue 2/7/2006 9:45 PM Gazette Newspapers 1
Comp Fax S Inside Albany Tue 2/7/2006 9:43 PM Inside Albany 1
Comp Fax S Jochnowitz, Jay Tue 2/7/2006 9:42 PM Albany Times Union 1
Comp Fax S Bechtel, John Tue 2/7/2006 9:41 PM Legislative Gazette, The 1

Page 9 Page 10

Send Log Send Log

Subject Retries Duration Speed
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 13 min 46 sec 4800
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 1 min 2 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 54 sec 0
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 7 min 26 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 56 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 3 min 25 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 4 min 15 sec 9600
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 1 min 10 sec 12000
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 6 min 12 sec 9600
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 11 min 10 sec 9600
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 54 sec 0
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 15 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 55 sec 0
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 4 sec 0 17756841108
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 43 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 1 min 37 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 15 sec 0
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 13 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 17 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 18 min 25 sec 12000
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 18 min 10 sec 12000
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 15 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 21 min 3 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 5 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 24 min 56 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 17 min 58 sec 12000
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 5 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 11 sec 0
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 5 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 8 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 33 min 47 sec 9600
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 16 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 24 sec 0
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 55 sec 0
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 18 min 6 sec 12000
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 54 sec 0
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 24 min 58 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 32 min 36 sec 9600
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 9 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 19 min 23 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 13 sec 14400
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 6 sec 14400
Phone Number/CallerId Subject Retries Duration Speed Phone Number/CallerId
15182702909 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 59 min 3 sec 4800 15855892771
13157986412 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 15 sec 14400 15853932941
2912437 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 7 sec 14400 13154358451
15165712058 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 8 sec 14400 17164384054
15852437015 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 13 sec 14400 15188538392
15185486345 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 7 sec 14400 15854282158
15187361612 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 11 sec 0 13153662532
15184816018 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 6 sec 14400 13157855197
16077466516 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 33 sec 0 13158671106
15852689406 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 6 sec 14400 15189439202
2913167 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 9 sec 14400 15853448562
16077788869 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 11 sec 0 15188733479
16075477572 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 7 sec 14400 17168588282
Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 3 sec 14400 4862483
15039861616 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 41 sec 14400 16077585513
15033784017 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 33 min 51 sec 9600 15188282624
17185226227 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 8 sec 0 15185654508
15184866627 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 8 sec 14400 16073371766
12124166075 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 21 min 45 sec 14400 16077375499
15184869652 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 16 sec 14400 17167534111
15184741513 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 10 sec 14400 13152531289
17168538428 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 26 min 21 sec 9600 17169386347
15184875077 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 5 sec 14400 16077782174
15184475564 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 17 sec 14400 19149955858
13155365523 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 4 sec 14400 15187616395
19149953190 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 1 sec 14400 7944924
13159467409 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 18 min 3 sec 12000 16318535169
15187462179 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 19 min 59 sec 14400 6385676
16072745533 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 4 sec 14400 13154355729
16076876348 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 15 sec 14400 15165716604
7940183 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 25 min 25 sec 14400 15857531331
12124875349 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 3 sec 14400 13157855178
12123745970 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 13 sec 14400 17168588411
12127888521 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 19 min 59 sec 14400 4862002
16318524590 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 18 sec 14400 12124875349
16077769631 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 6 sec 14400 16075474248
13153862737 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 25 min 0 sec 14400 3345434
13155393710 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 19 min 59 sec 14400 3403691
15183772716 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 27 min 44 sec 14400 12022260774
15188844751 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 33 sec 14400 15852582237
2786798 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 10 sec 14400 17168521452
13153498357 Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 8 sec 14400 17168565150

Page 11 Page 12
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 2 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 2 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 2 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 22 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 22 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 2 of 3
 The AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate
HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide
P.O. Box 28 - Clarendon New York 14429
nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com

May 5, 2006
` FAX and E-Mail

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

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

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

05/02/2006 26 RESPONSE to 24 Order to Show Cause filed by John Joseph Forjone :

The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the
statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel
effecting New York Municipal People's equity in Bottom-up Suffrage,
Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5(DLC) (Entered:
05/02/2006)

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

Note: For those Defendants desiring a PDF copy of the Attachments Exhibits A thru G to the
Show Cause Letter available on the WDNY Website docket as shown above, in order to save
money please contact the following e-mail nyspeoplenationwide@yahoo.com and we will
forward them accordingly.

John Joseph Forjone / Christopher Earl Strunk

Co-Chairmen of the AD HOC NYS People for

Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate
HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide

FAX of Show Cause Letter Page 1 of 7

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 26 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 1 of 15 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 26 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 2 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 26 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 3 of 15 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 26 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 4 of 15
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 26 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 5 of 15 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 26 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 6 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 24 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 24 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 2 of 8 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 24 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 24 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 4 of 8 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 24 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 24 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 6 of 8 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 24 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 24 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 8 of 8

EXHIBIT B
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK case: 06-cv-0080 A(Sc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide
distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York
Municipal People¶s equity in Bottom-up suffrage, Homerule autonomy and
effecting real property tax levy: JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE,
DAN DEL PLATO JR. GABRIEL RAZZANO, EDWARD M. PERSON JR.,
And CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiffs: AMENDED
V. COMPLAINT
The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS R. WILKEY its
Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the Attorney General
ALBERTO GONZALEZ; The States of: CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW
MEXICO, TEXAS each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively; THE SECRETARY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR §1012; THE
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS by its counsel and every Municipal Board of Elections
within 58 Municipalities; The New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of: ERIE,
MONROE, ONONDAGA, ALBANY, DUTCHESS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND, WESTCHESTER, THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, NASSAU, SUFFOLK, NIAGARA, ORLEANS, GENESEE, WYOMING,
ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CATTARAUGUS, CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, CORTLAND,
CHENANGO, COLUMBIA, TIOGA, TOMPKINS, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, BROOME,
LIVINGSTON, ONTARIO, YATES, SENECA, WAYNE, OSWEGO, JEFFERSON, LEWIS,
MADISON, HERKIMER, OTSEGO, ST. LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX,
MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA, WASHINGTON, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER,
DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON, FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN; and
the duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn MARTY MARKOWITZ,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________________x
JURISDICTION
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Article I, Article III, Article IV,
Article V, Article VI, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth, Fifteenth U.S.
Constitution amendments; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331, §1343(3) and §§2201-02; 42 U.S.C.A. §1981,
§1982, §1983, §1985,§1986,§1988 and 42 U.S.C.A §1973gg as relates to the 1993 National
Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the October 29, 2002 Help America to Vote Act (³HAVA´),
P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 and as relates to Article 1 Sections 2 and 4 compliance with the
State of New York Constitution and Laws as a sovereign state among several sovereign states¶
Amended Complaint Page 1 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
That this matter has related active cases with different issues:
a) in Western District of New York Forjone v. Leavitt 05-cv-395 before the Honorable
Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara with an interlocutory appeal dismissed by 2nd Circuit
case 05-4513-cv, with motions pending involving 28 USC 2284;
b) in Northern District of New York Loeber v. Spargo 04-cv-1193 before Judge
Lawrence E. Kahn with an appeal wrongly pending before the Second Circuit in case
05-6956-cv and dismissal of an Original Proceeding 05-6539-op with a motion for en
banc on procedural matters pending involving 28 USC 2284;
c) in Northern District of New York USA v. New York State et.al. 06-cv-263 before
Judge Gary L. Sharpe in the matter of New York not meeting the January 1, 2006
HAVA deadline- and where Plaintiffs are denied intervention with prejudice.
d) in Eastern District of New York Torres et.al. v NYS BOE et.al. 04-cv-1129 before
Judge John Gleeson with a January 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order and
Preliminary Injunction with significant elements effected by redistricting, Strunk was
denied intervention status.
e) in Northern District of New York Fitzgerald et.al. v. NYS BOE et.al. 02-cv-926
before Judge Norman A. Mordue with amended complaint in the matter of the NVRA
and HAVA involving ballot access and lockbox restraint, effected by the decision of
Judge Gleeson in the EDNY case Green v NYS BOE 02-cv-6465 with 2nd Circuit
upholding permanent injunction on N.Y. voter registration in November 2004.
Amended Complaint Page 3 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
constitutions and related laws, and as a matter of any state and or subdivision / person, territory
that makes a false claim, as defined under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 USC §3729 thru
§3733, as well as Racketeering provisions of 18 USC §1961 thru §1968 as done under color of
HAVA for Federal Treasury reimbursement certification review by the United States Department
of Justice (DOJ) for the United States Election Assistance Corporation (EAC).
VENUE
2. Venue is properly found in this District and this Division under 28 U.S.C.A.
§§1391(b) and §1393(a) and 18 USC §1965 as a statewide HAVA funds distribution matter to be
heard by a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel in that this Court comprises the District and Division
in which Erie county among other State Subdivision Defendants that maintain their official
residence and in which the claims arose under color of the 1993 NVRA in the 42 USC §1973gg,
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 with
available remedy as of right adopted by the New York State Election Law (³EL´) §2-100, §4-
100, §4-138, §5-210, §5-211, §5-213, §6-134, §6-138, §6-147, §6-154, §6-156.
That additional State and Federal Defendants are necessary parties arising after the enactment of
the 2002 HAVA, with significant occurrences and transactions with supplemental injuries arising
first on January 1, 2006 by failure of the State Board of Elections to maintain a virtual real-time
duplicate central data base to verify the actual active voter registration in any and all
municipalities with control over the Bottom-up original voter registration data base; and by
failure of the EAC to also maintain a duplicate certified central national data base capable of
checking the legitimacy of actual active voters nationwide in each and every state and territory
totaling FIFTY-FIVE (55).
Amended Complaint Page 2 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
PARTIES
3. At all times relevant to the instant action of all PLAINTIFFS, hereinafter known as
³Plaintiffs´, ³Eligible Voters´, ³PEOPLE´(1) ³U.S. Citizens´, ³whistleblowers´, ³relators´ are
U.S. Citizens entitled and or duly registered voters as ³active voters´ per Election Law §5-213
organized under EL §4-100 within a legitimate NYS municipality of the State of New York, by
individual ³relator´ affidavit of verification attached, are part of a class of state U.S. Citizens jus
tertii of the PEOPLE without any control over patronage, policy, and purse, who are pro se
without an attorney, per 18 USC §1964(c) hereby complain of Defendants as persons defined by
31 USC §3729 thru §3733 under the False Claims Act (FCA) and 18 USC §1962(a)(b)(c)(d).
4. John Joseph Forjone, 5367 Upper Holley Road mailing address POB 28 Clarendon
NY 14429 Phone: 585-721-7673, injured in County of Orleans with George D. Maziarz 62nd SD
and Charles Nesbitt 139th AD
5. a.) Dan Del Plato Jr., 50 Chandler Avenue, Batavia, N.Y. 14202, Phone:
585.343.5283 e-mail dandelplatojr@yahoo.com injured in County of Genesee;
5. b.) PENDING DISMISSAL Wayne Alan Mack, 1178 Indian Church Rd. West Seneca NY,
14224 Phone: 716.675.5285, Cell 566.0056 e-mail waynealanmack@yahoo.com, County of Erie.
(That Plaintiffs received a copy of a letter to Mr. Mack dated March 27, 2006 from
Magavern Magavern & Grimm, and as such we also understand that the firm does not
represent him expressing his desire not to be a plaintiff. Plaintiffs are all aware that Mr.
Mack had been employed by Erie County, has considerable first hand experience with
government in the Medicaid program compliance, and Mr. Mack desires his job back
without complication.)
6. Gabriel Razzano, 135 Gordon Place Freeport, New York 11520, Phone 516-223-
6883, injured in County of Nassau, with Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. in the 8th SD and David G.
McDonough in the 19th AD
1
New York State Constitution Article IX 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.
Amended Complaint Page 4 of 62
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
7. Edward M. Person, Jr., 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon N.Y. 11703 Phone
631-667-7316, injured in County of Suffolk, Owen H. Johnson in 4th SD & Andrew P. Raia 9th
AD with real property in the 6th AD.
8. Christopher Earl Strunk, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238
Phone 845-389-0774, injured in City of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn, Velmanette
Montgomery in 18th SD and Roger L. Green in the 57th AD.
9. Plaintiffs are associated with The AD HOC NYS People¶s Bottom-up Suffrage and
Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide (³AD HOC U.S.
Citizens´) for this suit as of right seeking remedy individually jus tertii (third party status created
by malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty) within a respective municipality of residence
as an unincorporated association that would be granted recognition by the NYS Civil Rights
Consolidated Law Chapter 6 Article 5A (CRL) with twenty or more members.
10. The United States ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (³EAC³),
Address United States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite -
1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202)
566-3127 E-mail Address HAVAinfo@eac.gov by the THOMAS R. WILKEY as the EAC
Executive Director Address, that operates under the auspice of the Voting Rights Act , United
States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite - 1100 Washington,
DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202) 566-3127 E-mail
Address HAVAinfo@eac.gov.
11. The United States Department of Justice by ALBERTO GONZALEZ is the
Honorable United States of America Attorney General, is a statutory party herein under 28 USC
2403 takes orders from the chief law enforcement officer of the United States President George
W. Bush (³Respondent´, ³U.S. Attorney General´, ³DOJ´, collectively as ³Defendants´ or
³Respondents´), serves at the pleasure of the President with advice and consent of Congress has
Amended Complaint Page 5 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
f) the state of TEXAS by the Secretary of State at Executive Offices State Capitol
Room 1E.8 Austin Texas 78701, (512) 463-5770 Fax (512) 475-2761 E-mail;
secretary@sos.state.tx.us , and Attorney General at By U.S. Mail: Office of the
Attorney General PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548- Physical Address:
Office of the Attorney General 300 W. 15th Street Austin, TX 78701
13. THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL in the person of ELIOT SPITZER,
individually and as public officer is the State of New York Attorney General duly elected
Democratic Party chief law enforcement officer (³Respondent´, ³Defendant´, ³Attorney
General´, collectively as ³Respondents´, ³Defendants´), with offices located at the State of New
York Capitol Albany New York 12224 and per CPLR 1012 is vested with the authority to defend
the State Constitution, Civil Rights Law and Public Officers with duties during good behavior;
14. THE NEW YORK SECRETARY OF STATE individually and as a public officer,
is the Secretary of the State of New York is a Republican Party member duly appointed and
serves at the pleasure of Governor (³Defendant´, ³Secretary of State´, ³SOS´, collectively as
³Defendants´), with offices located at The New York State Department of State 41 State Street
Albany, NY 12231, is a member of NASS and by law is the Public Officer charged with
responsibility to safeguard civil rights under CRL to review for compliance and repository for
all, incorporated and unincorporated association due process including 58 municipalities with
Boards of Elections within, safeguards all records for New York;
15. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, created under EL §3-100
two ³bi-partisan´ co-chairman and two ³bipartisan´ commissioners with jurisdiction and
authority over every one of the 58 Municipal Boards of Elections, along with every Corporation
Counsel of every Municipality including the Board of Elections, of the city of New York, by
their special counsel Todd Valentine Esq. with place of business located at 40 Steuben Street
Albany, New York 12207-2109.
Amended Complaint Page 7 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
offices other than Washington D.C. in every State and here in this venue such ancillary office is
located at the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, 138 Delaware
Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202; The United States Attorney General has the duty and
authority to defend the Federal Constitution, Congressional Law, Civil Rights Law, the Voting
Rights Act Immigration and Nationality Act, HAVA, and Public Officers with duties during
good behavior;
12. At all times relevant to the instant action of all STATE DEFENDANTS, hereinafter
known as ³State Defendants´, and Collectively as ³Defendants´ each state of the several states to
numerous to name each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively:
a) the state of CALIFORNIA, the Secretary of State at 1500 11th Street Sacramento,
California 95814, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I"
Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 (916) 445-9555
b) the state of OREGON, the Secretary of State at Room 136 State Capitol Salem,
OR 97301 Fax: (503) 986-1616, and the Attorney General at the Department of
Justice 1162 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Fax: (503) 378-4017 TTY: (503)
378-5938
c) the state of NEVADA, the Secretary of State at 101 North Carson Street, Suite 3
Carson City, NV 89701-3714, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney
General Nevada Department of Justice Carson City Office 100 North Carson
Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 (775) 684-1100 Fax - (775) 684-1108
d) the state of ARIZONA, the Secretary of State at Capitol Executive Tower 7th
Floor 1700 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888, and Attorney
General at Office of the Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix,
AZ 85007 602.542.5025 Fax 602.542.4085, 800.352.8431 (outside Phoenix and
Tucson)
e) the state of NEW MEXICO, the Secretary of State at Office of the New Mexico
Secretary of State, State Capitol North Annex, Suite 300 , Santa Fe, New Mexico
87503, Phone: (505) 827-3600, FAX: (505) 827-3634 Toll Free 1-800-477-3632, and
Attorney General at 407 Galisteo Street Bataan Memorial Building, Room 260, Santa
Fe, NM 87501, Phone:(505) 827-6000, Fax: (505) 827-5826
Amended Complaint Page 6 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
16. At all times relevant to the instant action all MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS,
hereinafter known as ³Municipality´, ³Municipalities´, ³County(s)´, ³Municipal Defendant(s)´,
³State Subdivision(s)´, ³person(s)´, ³HAVA claim filers´, collectively as ³Defendants´, are to
maintain an elected local government legislative body per NYSC Article IX and maintain a
Bottom-up data base of real property owners subject to real property tax levy under EL §4-138
and as such use a municipal board of elections per Election Law to maintain original records
database of real property owners and qualified voter registrations and voting records of duly
registered voters as ³active voters´ per Election Law §5-213 organized under EL §4-100 resident
within a NYS municipality of the State of New York; and that each exists with a state
constitution Article III suffrage and Homerule autonomy conformance mandate of the State
Legislature for protection of the People¶s speech and association by a dedicated representative in
the Assembly by no less than two (2) ADs coterminous and compact within each such
municipality and
17. That Eleven (11) Municipal Defendants, including the city of New York and the
People resident in the NYC Boro of Brooklyn represented by natural Person of the Brooklyn
Borough President, are entitled to a municipal Board of Elections a municipal entity created by
the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX and Article II accordingly for the People
within ERIE, MONROE, ONONDAGA, ALBANY, DUTCHESS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND,
WESTCHESTER, NASSAU, SUFFOLK:
a. Erie County Attorney Frederick A. Wolf, Esq. 69 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, New
York 14202 phone - 858-2200, fax - 858-2281
b. Monroe County Attorney Daniel M. DeLaus, Jr., Esq. Law Department Room 307
Monroe County Office Building 39 West Main Street Rochester, New York
14614 Phone: (585) 753-1380 Fax: 753-1331 mclawdept@monroecounty.gov
c. Onondaga County Attorney Anthony P. Rivizzigno Onondaga County
Department of Law John H. Mulroy Civic Center 10th FL. 421 Montgomery
Street Syracuse, New York 13202 lwdrobb@nysnet.net
Amended Complaint Page 8 of 62
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
d. Albany County Attorney c/o Department of Law Office of the County Attorney
112 State St- Room 900 Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 447-7110 Fax: 5564
e. Dutchess County Attorney, Ronald Wozniak, 22 Market Street Poughkeepsie
NY 12601 (845) 486-2110 Fax 486-2002
mailto:countyattorney@co.dutchess.ny.us
f. Orange County Attorney, David Darwin, Esq., Orange County Government
Center 255 Main Street Goshen, NY 10924 Law Department Municipal: (845)
291-3150
g. Rockland County Attorney, Patricia Zugibe, 11 New Hempstead Road, New
City, NY 10956 (845) 638-5180, (845) 638-5676
h. Westchester County Attorney, Charlene M. Indelicato Law Department 148
Martine Avenue Michaelian Office Building White Plains, NY 10601-3311
Phone: (914) 995-2000 Fax: (914) 285-3884
i. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity created by the State Legislature
under State Constitution Article IX and Article II accordingly for the People
within, which as a corporate entity subsumes pre existing Counties, without
Homerule since 1964 are now boroughs of the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens,
Brooklyn, Staten Island, that NYC exists at State Legislature pleasure;
(³Defendant´, ³NYC´, ³Person´) with place of service at the NYC Corporation
Counsel. Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 100
Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0995
j. Nassau County Attorney, Lorna Goodman, Esq. 1 West Street Mineola, NY
11501 (516) 571-3056
k. Suffolk County Attorney, Christine Malafi, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Building 100
Veterans Memorial Hwy PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 (631)853-
4049 FAX 853-5169
17. Each of Forty-seven (47) Municipalities without sufficient total persons excluding
the civilly dead resident within for the People therein to have Homerule with at least two (2)
Assembly Districts coterminous within as such are null municipal entities historically created by
the neglect of the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX, Article II and Article III
accordingly for the People with a nullity municipal Board of Elections including NIAGARA,
ORLEANS, GENESEE, WYOMING, ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CATTARAUGUS,
CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, CORTLAND, CHENANGO, COLUMBIA, TIOGA,
TOMPKINS, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, BROOME, LIVINGSTON, ONTARIO, YATES,
SENECA, WAYNE, OSWEGO, JEFFERSON, LEWIS, MADISON, HERKIMER, OTSEGO, ST.
LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA,
Amended Complaint Page 9 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
dd. Seneca County Attorney, Steven Getman, Esq. Seneca County Office Building 1
DiPronio Drive, Waterloo, NY 13165 Phone: 315-539-1833, Fax: 315-539-3789
E-mail: clotz@co.seneca.ny.us
ee. Wayne County Attorney, Daniel M. Wyner, Esq. Court House -26 Church Street,
Lyons, New York 14489 315-946-7442, E-mail: dwyner@co.wayne.ny.us
ff. Oswego County Attorney, Richard Mitchell, Interim 46 E. Bridge St., Oswego,
NY 13126 Telephone 349-8296 349-8290 Telefax 349-8298
gg. Orleans County Attorney, David C. Schubel, Esq. P.O. Box 606, Medina, NY
14103 (585) 798-2250 FAX: 798-0776 E-mail: occoa@orleansny.com.
hh. Genesee County Attorney, c/o the County Clerk the County Courthouse, 7 West
Main Street, Batavia, NY 14020 (585)344-2550 ext 2205.
coclerk@co.genesee.ny.us
ii. Wyoming County Attorney, Eric T. Dadd, Esq. 11 Exchange Street, Attica, New
York 14011 Phone 585-591-1724 etd@daddandnelson.com
jj. Jefferson County Attorney, John Hartzell, Esq. 175 Arsenal Street Watertown,
New York 13601 Phone: (315)785-3088, FAX (315)785-5178
kk. Lewis County Attorney, Richard Graham, Esq. 7606 N. State Street Lowville,
NY 13367 Phone: 315-376-5282, Fax: 3857 Email: rgraham@lewiscountyny.org
ll. Madison County Attorney, S. John Campanie, Esq., Box 635 Wampsville, NY
13163 (315) 366-2203 / fax (315) 366-2502
mm. Herkimer County Attorney, Robert J. Malone, Esq. Suite 1320 County Office
Building: 109 Mary Street, Herkimer, NY 13350 Phone: 867-1123 Fax: 1109
nn. Otsego County Attorney, James Konstanty, Esq. 197 Main Street Cooperstown,
NY 13326-1129 Phone: 607-547-4208 FAX: 547-7572; jek@konstantylaw.com
MIS_Director@co.otsego.ny.us,
oo. St. Lawrence County Attorney, Andrew W. Silver, Esq. Building #8 County
Attorney 48 Court Street, Canton, New York 13617 Phone: 315-379-2269 Fax:
379-2254 asilver@co.st-lawrence.ny.us
pp. Franklin County Attorney, c/o County Manager James N. Feeley 355 West Main
Street, Malone, New York 12953 Phone: 518/481-1693 Fax: 483-0141
jfeeley@co.franklin.ny.us
qq. Clinton County Attorney, Dennis D. Curtin, Esq. 1 Cumberland Avenue P.O. Box
2947 Plattsburgh, NY 12901 Phone: (518) 561-4400 FAX 561-4848
rr. Essex County Attorney, Jill Drummond, Esq. 7551 Court Street P.O. Box 217
Elizabethtown, New York 12932 518-873-3380 FAX 518-873-3894
ss. Montgomery County Attorney, Douglas E. Landon, Esq. 155 2nd Avenue, Fonda,
NY 12068 Phone: (518) 829-5067
tt. Warren County Attorney, Paul B. Dusek, Esq. Warren County Municipal Center
1340 State Rt. 9 Lake George, NY 12845 518-761-6463 Fax 518-761-6377
uu. Saratoga County Attorney, Sara Caty, Esq. 40 McMaster Street Building #1
Second Floor, Ballston Spa, New York 12020 518-884-4770 E-mail:
saracaty@govt.co.saratoga.ny.us
vv. Washington County Attorney, Roger Wickes, Esq. County Municipal Center, Fort
Edward, NY 12828. Phone (518) 746-2216
ww. Rensselaer County Attorney, Robert A. Smith, Esq. Rensselaer County Office
Building - 4th Floor NY 1600 7th Ave Troy, NY 12180-3410 (518) 270-2950
Amended Complaint Page 11 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
WASHINGTON, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER, DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON,
FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN:
l. Niagara County Attorney Claude A Joerg, Esq. Courthouse, 175 Hawley Street,
Lockport NY 14094-2740 Claude.joerg@niagracounty.com
m. Allegany County Attorney, Daniel J Guiney, Esq. County Office Building, 7
Court Street; Belmont, New York 14813, Telephone: (585) 268-9410 Email:
GuineyDJ@alleganyco.com
n. Broome County Attorney, c/o the County Clerk Broome County Office Building
44 Hawley Street, 6th Floor PO Box 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902-1766
Phone: 607.778.2117 bclaw@co.broome.ny.us
o. Chautauqua County Attorney, Frederick Larson, Esq. Chautauqua County Law
Department Gerace Office Building Mayville, New York 14757 (716) 753-
4247 email: cclaw@co.chautauqua.ny.us
p. Cattaraugus County Attorney, Dennis Tobolski, Esq. 303 Court Street - Little
Valley 14755 Extension: 2390 Phone: 716- 938-9111 Fax: 938-9438
DVTobolski@cattco.org
q. Cayuga County Attorney, Fredrick Westphal, Esq. 160 Genesee St., 6th FL (315)
253-1274 Fax #: 253-1098
r. Chemung County Attorney, c/o Law Department 203 Lake St. Elmira, NY 14901
607-737-2982
s. Oneida County Attorney, Randal B. Caldwell, Esq. Oneida County Office
Building 800 Park Avenue Utica, New York 13501 Phone : (315) 798-5910 Fax
798-5603 Email: coatty@ocgov.net
t. Cortland County Attorney, John Bardsley, Esq. County Office Building, 3rd Floor
60 Central Avenue Cortland, NY 13045 Phone: (607) 753-5095 E-mail:
jbardsley@cortland-co.org
u. Chenango County Attorney, Richard W. Breslin, Esq. 5 Court Street Norwich,
New York 13815 Phone: (607) - 337-1405
v. Columbia County Attorney, Daniel J. Tuczinski, Esq. 401 State Street, Hudson,
NY 12534 (518) 828-3303 Fax (518) 828-9535
w. Tioga County Attorney, David Dutko, Esq. 56 Main Street Owego, New York
13827 Tel. (607) 687-8253, Fax. 223-7003
x. Tompkins County Attorney, Jonathan Wood, Esq. 125 East Court Street Ithaca,
New York 14850 (607) 274-5546 countyattorney@tompkins-co.org
y. Schuyler County Attorney, c/o The Schuyler County Attorney's Office 105 Ninth
Street, Watkins Glen, NY 14891 Tele: (607) 535-8100 Fax: (607) 535-8109
z. Steuben County Attorney, Frederick H. Ahrens, Esq. Attorney's Office 3 East
Pulteney Square, Bath, New York 14810 Telephone: (607) 776-9631 Ext. 2355
aa. Livingston County Attorney, David J. Morris, Esq. Government Center 6 Court
Street, Geneseo, NY 14020 dmorris@co.livingston.ny.us (585) 243-7033
bb. Ontario County Attorney, John W. Park, Esq. Ontario County Courthouse 27
North Main Street Canandaigua, N.Y. 14424 Voice: (585) 396-4411; Fax 4481.
cc. Yates County Attorney, Bernetta A. Bourcy, Esq. Yates County Courthouse 415
Liberty Street, Suite 204 Penn Yan, NY 14527
Amended Complaint Page 10 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
xx. Greene County Attorney, Carol D. Stevens, Esq. 411 Main Street Catskill, NY
12414 Phone: 518 719-3540 Fax: 518 719-3790
countyattorney@discovergreene.com
yy. Ulster County Attorney, Joshua Koplovich, Esq. County Office Building, 6th
Floor 244 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Phone: (845) 340-3685 Fax: 340-3691
zz. Delaware County Attorney, c/o Gary L. Cady, County Clerk 11 Main Street PO
Box 426 Delhi, NY 13753 (607) 746-2123 Fax (607) 746-6924.
aaa. Putnam County Attorney, phone 845225-3641 ext. 260, c/o County Executive
Robert J. Bondi County Executive Putnam County Office Building 40 Gleneida
Avenue, 3rd Floor Carmel, N. Y. 10512 (845) 225-3641, ext. 200 FAX 225-0294
bbb. Hamilton County Attorney, c/o of County Clerk at Hamilton County, New York
County Office Building Box 771 Indian Lake, NY ‡ 12842-0771 518-648-5239
info@hamiltoncounty.com
ccc. Fulton County Attorney, Arthur Spring, Esq., County Office Building 223 West
Main Street Johnstown, NY 12095, Phone; 518-736-5803 FAX 762-4504
ddd. Schenectady County Attorney, c/o John J. Woodward Schenectady County
Clerk¶s Office 620 State Street, Schenectady, NY 12305 Phone: (518) 388-4220,
388-4493
eee. Schoharie County Attorney, Michael West, Esq. 2668 State Route 7, Suite 34,
Cobleskill, NY 12043 Phone: 518-296-8844 Fax: 518-296-8855
fff. Sullivan County Attorney, Sam Yasgur, Esq. Sullivan County Government Center
100 North Street P.O. Box 5012 Monticello, NY 12701-5192 845-794-3000 FAX:
845-794-3459 E-Mail: info@co.sullivan.ny.us Phone: (845)-794-3000 ext. 3565
Fax: (845)-794-4924
18. MARTY MARKOWITZ, the natural person Borough President of Brooklyn,
Democrat out of the Brooklyn Democratic machine associated with the State Democratic
Committee, duly elected by the People of Brooklyn, is a powerless figurehead that has a
ceremonial staff, picks some members of the city planning board, however has no authority over
the City of New York Board of Elections or any other policy regarding bottom-up suffrage and
autonomy for US Citizens resident within Brooklyn; (³Defendant´, ³Boro President´,
collectively as ³Defendants´, ³State Defendants´, ³State Public Officer´, ³Public Officer´) with
place for service at Brooklyn Borough Hall, Brooklyn New York 11201;
BACKGROUND FACTS
19. The 1973 / 1975 Helsinki Accords under the auspices of NATO (North Atlantic
Treaty Organization) in combination with the 1966 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Amended Complaint Page 12 of 62
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
issued by the United Nations, is being utilized to modify suffrage here in New York and each 27. The 1991 ³Copenhagen Declaration´ on International Standards of Elections

state of the several states and territories of the United States. associated with the OSCE created after the so-called collapse of the USSR (actually seen as a

20. The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was adopted by a summit meeting of most shift in war by alternative means) follows the script of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe

European governments in addition to those of Canada, the United States and the Asian countries that adopts the Helsinki Accords¶ human rights goals ratified by the U.S. Senate except for those

of the former Soviet Union, in Paris on 21 November 1990. Copenhagen Declaration articles that are not self actuating and unenforceable unless adopted by

21. The Charter of Paris was established on the foundation of the Helsinki Accords, and each of the several states in suffrage matters.

was further amended in the 1999 Charter for European Security. Together, these documents form 28. The unenforceability of the Copenhagen Declaration entered by President George

the agreed basis for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. H.W. Bush and the Federal Executive in 1990 requires that of 53 Articles the first 27 Articles

22. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is an are not self-actuating, because nearly exclusively the 50 States who are not party to the treaty

international organization for security; in its region, OSCE is concerned with early warning, per se individually in each state legislatures in the name of the people within control suffrage.

conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. 29. Under the Federal Constitution Article I Sections 1, 4, 8-18, Article II Section 1-4,

23. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has 55 participating states Article IV, Article V, Article VI, Article VII limits the power of Congress in keeping with the

from Europe, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Central Asia and North America, with agents spirit of the Copenhagen Declaration as an Extension of the CSCE Helsinki Accords with the

operating with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and whose Office for Democratic OSCE / ODIHR overtly interfering with elections under the NVRA and HAVA empowers the

Institutions and Human Rights is the oldest OSCE institution, established in 1990. Federal Judiciary to hear specific grievance under 42 USC 1973gg.

24. OSCE is based in Warsaw, Poland, and is active throughout the OSCE area in the 30. In 1993 the National Voter Registration Act ³Motor Voter´ ³Registration by Mail´

fields of election observation, democratic development, human rights, tolerance and non- was enacted as a self-fulfilling design by Congress to circumvent state sovereign control over

discrimination, and rule of law. suffrage and create a central voter registration data base for those states maintaining such and

25. OSCE/ODIHR has observed over 150 elections and referenda since 1995, sending nationally supposedly to prevent the ongoing interstate and intrastate abuse of ³One Person One

more than 15,000 observers. vote´, and thereby a ³real time´ state central data base, done nationally breaks the status quo.

26. OSCE/ODIHR has operated outside its own area more than once. Notably a 43- 31. Enactment of NVRA is adopted from the language of the Copenhagen Declaration

member OSCE team offered technical support for the October 9, 2004 presidential election in despite the non-self actuating aspects, nevertheless mandates state compliance without an

Afghanistan, as well as with multiple inspection teams inside the United States. amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Amended Complaint Page 13 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 14 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
32. The Nov. 21, 1995 Dayton Accords were created as an extension of the Helsinki 38. the States of CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS,

Accords and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, that brought forth Copenhagen and NVRA; OREGON all require that only US Citizens be allowed to vote would violate their own state

33. That the Dayton Accords are an social engineering experiment intended to afford constitutions and election laws by using VAP under the broad definition used by Congress to

suffrage to otherwise questionable transient persons deemed resident in the New state (Bosnia raid the US Treasury of HAVA Funds disproportionately from New York and other states with

Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia) therein requiring provisional voting at a general election, less non-citizens or otherwise more honest in filing for HAVA certification and funds.

which has since been adopted by HAVA; 39. The September 2005 report by the American University Commission on Federal

34. And Furthermore like boiling a frog the provisional voting experiments by the OSCE Election Reform and Center for Democracy & Election Management whose Co-Chairmen James

/ ODIHR in Bosnia under the Dayton accords, are now being used to further impose top-down E Carte and James Baker III report on the public confidence in the election system in Section II

control over the outcome of elections in every state of the several states, that as of October 29, for Voter Registration and Identification state quote that ³under the National Voter Registration

2002 Congress enacted Help America to Vote Act (³HAVA´), P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 as a Act, names are often added to the list, but counties and municipalities often do not delete the

questionable mandate under Article 1 Section 4 to carry forward the state by state requirement names of those who moved.. Inflated voter lists are also caused by phony registrations and

for a central voter databases that was to be done by January 1, 2006 for the November 2006 efforts to register individuals who are ineligible«. At the same time, inaccurate purges of voter

national elections, with final system operations due in 2008. lists have removed citizens who are eligible and are properly registered. «[T]he quality of voter

35. As enticement for cooperation of the southwest border states Congress created an registration lists probably varies widely by state. Without quality assurance, however, cross-

overly broad HAVA reimbursement formula based upon ³Voting Age Population´ (VAP); and state transfers of voter data may suffer from the problem of ¶garbage in, garbage out¶«´

by vagueness and cynical interpretation would include all persons enumerated in the 2000 40. In New York we have bottom-up suffrage in supposedly Homerule municipalities

Census who are 18 years of age and older whether citizens or not, rather than ³Citizens Voting with a BOE within that is to maintain the original voting records, and each such municipality

Age Population´ (CVAP) that does not include non-citizens, the civilly dead and those U.S. outside the city of New York provide funds for expense of all elections by a real property tax

Citizens otherwise not entitled to register to vote. levy under EL §4-138.

36. Nowhere in the United States does a non-citizen have a civil right to vote in any 41. In New York 47 municipalities of 58 by mis application and administration of the

Federal Election at the state level and therefore VAP must only be defined as CVAP. State Constitution and Elections Laws do not have at least two (2) Assembly Districts

37. New York only uses those U.S. Citizens who are registered to vote, and is not coterminous within as required by the State Constitution Article III Section 5, as such are a legal

interested in those citizens who aren¶t registered- e.g. no non-citizen is of voting age. nullity and do not even qualify for having a municipal board of Elections within.

Amended Complaint Page 15 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 16 of 62

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
42. As a top-down matter, the New York state Election Law §4-100 requires that each Gary L. Sharpe in NDNY 06-cv-263.

³Election District´ as a single polling place with at least one voting machine have 950 Active 48. the State BOE knows an active ongoing central data base, as opposed to the present

Voters per EL §5-213 each for equal time place and manner of suffrage- the status quo in New once every two years as a snapshot, would entail detecting Election Law Article 17 illegal

York as a rule fails to provide equity as such. interstate / intrastate multiple voting, domicile residency and uncovering the civilly dead and

43. As a result of the April 22, 2002 redistricting using the 2000 Census by the State thereby greatly reduce the number of both active and inactive voters on the registration roles and

Legislature, Governor, Secretary of State, have continued since the WMCA v. Lomenzo , 377 thereby decrease the amount of HAVA money due the state.

49. The HAVA penalty, and lack of interstate and intrastate HAVA funding equity means
U.S. 633 (1964) US Supreme Court case to mis administer and apply the State Constitution
that real property owners are not equally treated on a municipal by municipal basis and some of
and related laws as applies to Municipal boundaries, Election Districts, Assembly Districts,
which will lose real property in smaller municipalities as a result of the increased burden
Senate Districts, Congressional Districts and Judicial Districts statewide using total population
imposed by the HAVA mandate of as much as a 500% Tax Levy increase.
without giving deference for actual citizens eligible to vote and there by gerrymander vote
50. Plaintiffs in the Western part of the state as in the Eastern part, on an intrastate basis
effectiveness.
want equity with all other parts of the state in HAVA funding missing since 1994, and
44. That each legitimate state subdivision municipality with a legislative body and board
51. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that New York suffers interstate injury is caused by
of elections within, in which there are eleven legitimately formed, had until March 1, 2006 to
loss of HAVA funds when California etcetera use a broad interpretation of VAP versus CVAP
declare its intention to redraw their own Senate, Assembly, Legislative and Election Districts
contrary to its own election laws and constitutions in seek HAVA funding; New York gets less
within in order to comply with administration and application of equal time place and manner for
funds than it should be entitled to.
bottom-up suffrage within in a fight for more HAVA funding.
52. An Erie County BOE audit as with the other municipalities with a BOE to numerous
45. Despite adequate notification to each and every one of the 58 state subdivision
to name, report that Erie County is unable to pay for compliance with the HAVA without raising
municipalities named as defendants herein, not one of the municipalities has expressed intent to
real property taxes or getting more of a share of HAVA money now going to California and
reconfigure any districts coterminous within.
other states making false claims under HAVA, and in that regard the 27 January 2006 Erie Board
46. That NYC is too large in population size by proper application and administration of
Of Elections Audit Released Written by Press Release at Cost, Free!!
the State Constitution and Laws shall not have 1/3 and or ½ of all the State Senators- does;
http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=898

47. That the State BOE and the State of New York failed to meet the HAVA deadline of Erie County, NY - Our review determined that the Boards staffing structure of 36 full-time
employees is sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate part-
January 1, 2006 to create a central data base which is the subject of a case before the Honorable time and seasonal employees, said Poloncarz. However, our auditors determined that the Board
does not have sufficient funding for part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities

Amended Complaint Page 17 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 18 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
and that additional funding will likely be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the
Help America Vote Act (HAVA). 54. An example in the matter of impropriety and the failure of the city of New York to
Erie County Comptroller Mark C. Poloncarz today issued an audit of the Erie County Board
of Elections (Board) for the period starting October 1, 2004 and ending September 30, 2005. The
enforce the election law by equal time place, manner, and flouts the appearance of impropriety in
review was initiated by Comptroller, Poloncarz's predecessor in October 2005 at the request of
the Erie County Legislature and Executive. The audit examined staffing and operational issues
relating to the conduct of elections. the matter reported on January 26, 2006 by the New York Daily news article entitled ³Board
"Our review determined that the Board's staffing structure of 36 full-time employees is
sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate part-time and votes to spare elex boss´ http://www.nydailynews.com/01-26-2006/boroughs/story/385772p-327360c.html
seasonal employees´, said Poloncarz.
"However, our auditors determined that the Board does not have sufficient funding for
part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities and that additional funding will likely by HUGH SON DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, quote:
be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)."
Poloncarz expressed concerns over the Board's ability to conduct, within its current ³Diane Haslett Rudiano- Despite a City Department of Investigation probe that found she lied
appropriation, the February 28th Special Election for the New York State Senate, September about her voting address, an embattled Brooklyn Board of Elections honcho will keep her job, the
Primary Election, and November General Election. Poloncarz stated, "The Board's 2006 Budget Daily News has learned.
appropriation is not sufficient to meet the new expenses incurred by the County under HAVA, and
additional funding will be necessary." The audit reports that HAVA costs to Erie County in 2006 Board of Elections officials declined to punish Diane Haslett Rudiano - even though city
will be at least $1.4 million, and likely higher. investigators said she lives in Forest Hills, Queens, and not at the East New York address listed
HAVA is the federal legislation passed in the wake of the 2000 Presidential Election in voter registration records.
requiring state and local elections officials to implement certain procedures to safeguard
elections. In New York State, this includes transferring election responsibilities and those "Her attorney made a case and gave supplemental documentation that wasn't part of the DOI
respective expenses from cities and towns to the County. investigation," said Board of Elections Executive Director John Ravitz.

"And [election commissioners] decided that the residency issue DOI raised wasn't sufficient
53. In the September 2005 GAO Report 05-956 on ELECTIONS it found that:
enough for disciplinary action against Rudiano."
Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems
Board of Elections commissioners unanimously voted to clear Haslett-Rudiano of the election law
Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed
felony charges at a closed Tuesday hearing.
While electronic voting systems hold promise for improving the election process, numerous entities have
raised concerns about their security and reliability, citing instances of weak security controls, system design Haslett-Rudiano, who earns $76,817 as the borough's top Elections Board employee, is
flaws, inadequate system version control, inadequate security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor responsible for making sure election laws are upheld.
security management, and vague or incomplete voting system standards (see below for examples). It is
important to note that many of these concerns were based on specific system makes and models or a "I think it's a disgrace," said Sam Sloan, the political gadfly who notified the investigators of
specific jurisdiction¶s election, and there is no consensus among election officials and other experts on their Haslett-Rudiano's address flap last year.
pervasiveness. Nevertheless, some have caused problems in elections and therefore merit attention.
"I went to her supposed house," said Sloan. "I talked to 30 of her neighbors who had never seen
Federal organizations and nongovernmental groups have issued both election-specific recommended
practices for improving the voting process and more general guidance intended to help organizations
her there. The idea that she claims she's been living there all these years is just preposterous."
manage information systems¶ security and reliability. These recommended practices and guidelines
(applicable throughout the voting system life cycle) include having vendors build security controls and audit Haslett-Rudiano represents East New York, Bushwick and Cypress Hills as an elected district
trails into their systems during development, and having election officials specify security requirements when leader in the Brooklyn Republican organization.
acquiring systems. Other suggested practices include testing and certifying systems against national voting
system standards. According to her voter registration records, Haslett-Rudiano has lived in a modest two-story
Schenck Ave. house since 1988. The owner of the building, Theresa McGovern, 99, said Haslett-
The federal government has begun efforts intended to improve life cycle management of electronic voting Rudiano lives on the second floor.
systems and thereby improve their security and reliability. Specifically, EAC has led efforts to (1) draft
changes to existing federal voluntary standards for voting systems, including provisions addressing security
Property records show Haslett-Rudiano owns several properties, including an upper West Side
and reliability; (2) develop a process for certifying voting systems; (3) establish a program to accredit
independent laboratories to test electronic voting systems; and (4) develop a library and clearinghouse for townhouse and two Queens homes.
information on state and local elections and systems.
The Investigation Department report wasn't made public, and a Freedom of Information Law
However, these actions are unlikely to have a significant effect in the 2006 federal election cycle because request to reveal its contents was rejected.
important changes to the voting standards have not yet been completed, the system certification and
laboratory accreditation programs are still in development, and a system software library has not been 55. On March 15, 2006 ± an EXCLUSIVE New York Post article entitled ³Hill Foe Registers
updated or improved since the 2004 election. Further, EAC has not consistently defined specific tasks,
processes, and time frames for completing these activities; as a result, it is unclear when their results will be
available to assist state and local election officials. Often, Votes Rarely´ By FREDRIC U. DICKER http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/65274.htm

Amended Complaint Page 19 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 20 of 62

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
³ALBANY - Just-announced Republican Senate hopeful Kathleen McFarland has repeatedly
failed to vote in some elections and is registered at two addresses - a possible violation of state
law, The Post has found.
McFarland, a wealthy Park Avenue matron who announced last week that she'll seek the GOP
nomination to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, didn't vote in nearly half of the state
elections since 1991, records show.
She skipped six of the past 14 elections - starting from the time she registered as a Republican in
late 1991, Board of Election records for New York City and Suffolk County show.
McFarland, a Reagan administration official in the early 1980s, has maintained two voting
addresses since 1996: at her posh Park Avenue home and at her family's stunning second home
on a small island near Southampton, according to the records.
She pingponged her vote from Manhattan to Southampton in various years, casting her ballot
from the Ram Island address in 1998 and 1999, but voting from Park Avenue in 2000 and 2001.
She skipped the 2002 and 2003 elections, and then it was back to voting in Southampton in 2004,
according to the records.
State law makes it a felony to be registered at two addresses during the same election cycle,
according to state Board of Elections spokesman Lee Daghlian.
"When you change the place you've been voting, a new registration has to be filed, showing that
you've changed your address," Daghlian said.
Her spokesman, William O'Reilly, said, "We don't know the circumstances around the missed
votes, but we will make no excuses for them."
McFarland's newly hired election lawyer, Josh Ehrlich of Albany, insisted there was "no criminal
intent, no venality here," but conceded the law does not allow dual registrations.
"This is a case of the boards of elections not doing their jobs . . . She should have been turned
away," Ehrlich insisted.
Records at the two boards show McFarland registered as a Republican in Manhattan in late 1991
and then registered again as a GOPer in Southampton in 1996.
State Republican Chairman Stephen Minarik said yesterday it would "probably make more sense"
for the GOP to give its nod to McFarland's opponent, ex-Yonkers Mayor John Spencer.
56. Based upon Plaintiff Strunk¶s phone call with the Office of Representative Hyde of
Illinois April 18 2006 there is broad failure in any attempt to enact ³The Federal Election
Integrity Act of 2004,´ or H.R. 4530 or any other associated bill to ensure voting integrity that
Amended Complaint Page 21 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
new citizens demonstrating that creating new Democrat voters was a much higher priority than
national security.
63. It is estimated that tens of thousands of applications approved without FBI review.
64. The Justice Dept. report documented 1,000 cases in Miami; 1,300 cases in Chicago;
and an astonishing 2,500 cases in Los Angeles.
65. The politicization of the INS continued in the 2000 election. As documented by
journalist Joseph Farah, on Nov. 6, 2000, (one day before the national election) the California
Democratic Party sent thousands (upwards of 4 million by some estimates) of mailers out to
immigrants who had citizenship requests before the INS.
66. These non-citizens were informed, in both English and Spanish, they were registered
to vote as a Democrat and given special identification card to "help...voting go more smoothly."
67. Follow up investigations by the press pointed to the possible use of INS records to
commit this massive voter fraud.
68. How many of the recipients took advantage of the generous offer made by the
Democrats is unknown, but based on the estimates it is quite possible that Gore's much touted
popular vote win (by just under a million votes) could all be attributed to this scam alone
69. A Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report reveals that "The Matricula card is
accepted as a valid form of identification by police departments, banks and 12 states for driver's
license applications."
70. This disregard for immigration law has no positive impact for Americans except
those who seek to grant Democrats and Republicans additional power.
71. Moreover, this aberration of constitutional law is tantamount to mailing absentee
ballots for any future election to Iran, Syria, France, Germany, North Korea, or anywhere else.
Amended Complaint Page 23 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
would specifically amend the NVRA of 1993, would require any individual who desires to
register or re-register to vote in an election for federal office to provide the state election official
with proof of citizenship to prevent illegal aliens from voting in federal elections.
57. Plaintiffs pursuant to the foregoing background facts have injuries to plaintiffs¶
individual proprietary suffrage property by dilution, devaluation as a targeted jus tertii class also
effected by long-term gerrymandering since the 1972 reapportionment; and that those Plaintiffs
with real property are effected by takings injury by multiple schemes to defraud facilitated by
local governments acting in conjunction with state and federal malfeasance, therefore Plaintiffs
complain such is done by defendants illegally as a if by a complex racketeering enterprise under
18 USC 1961 thru 1964 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries as follows:
58. As and for a First Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants DOJ and its
agents and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yet to be named pursuant to above
paragraphs 19 thru 57 have improperly enforced the 1993 NVRA to prevent mail-fraud by those
persons ineligible to register to vote in a respective state of the several states and or territories.
59. A report issued by the Justice Dept. in 2000 detailed a program run under auspices of
Vice President Gore's "Reinventing Government" project to streamline government services.
60. In a successful effort to clear a backlog of 1.2 million applicants, the INS engaged in
this crash program called "Citizenship USA" to naturalize the immigrants between October 1995
and September 1996, not coincidentally, just in time for the presidential election.
61. Douglas Farbrother, an official on Gore's team, is quoted in the report saying he
"believed that the (citizenship) program had a deadline that was directly connected to the
upcoming election."
62. The Clinton administration bypassed the customary FBI background check for these
Amended Complaint Page 22 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
72. Under the Motor Voter law, anyone [Motor Vehicle Department employees
included] who "knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to
intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to
register or vote" violates federal law.
73. Hence, the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, visa overstayers and others
classified as "refugees" who were granted amnesty or asylum by the Clinton Administration and
or borderless philosophy of Texacan George W. Bush, under the NVRA and seditious lack of
enforcement could all have been illegal voters in the 1996 thru 2004 election thereafter.
74. The DOJ has not done enforcement under NVRA to prevent those ineligible to vote
to take advantage of the Motor Voter law by registering to vote. In Florida, according to the
Florida Secretary of State's numbers, between 1994 and 1998 (the most recent data available),
the number of registered Hispanic voters skyrocketed by an astonishing 557%, from 99,000 to
655,000 while the number of White and Black registered voters increased by a reasonable 15%.
75. The number of registered Hispanic voters has grown even more dramatically in south
Florida. For example, in Dade County, from 1994 to 1998 the number of Hispanic voters grew
by 1996%, a nearly 20-fold increase! And in now-famous Palm Beach County, the four year
increase was completely off the charts, a 7,220% jump!
76. In 1996 the Clinton administration's documented immigrant fast-track citizenship
programs, which have granted citizenship to known criminals, freed to prey on innocent
Americans who "worked hard and played by the rules." ; has not skipped a beat with transition to
the Bush Administration rush to placate and entice illegal immigration and vote fraud.
77. NVRA use by applicants who had no business even visiting this country, let alone
living here, were rushed by the Clinton Administration through the citizenship maze based on the
Amended Complaint Page 24 of 62
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
theory they would, out of gratitude, vote for the Democratic Party.
78. While unhinged seditious Democrats and Republicans spread fear about the alleged
discriminatory disenfranchisement of American citizens, they have supported the indiscriminate
enfranchisement of untold numbers of foreign outlaws -- including suspected al Qaeda operatives
and terrorist sympathizers.
79. The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported that illegal alien Nuradin Abdi -- the
suspected shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia -- was registered to vote in the battleground
state of Ohio by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
80. Also on the Ohio voting rolls: convicted al Qaeda agent Lyman Faris, who planned
to sabotage the Brooklyn Bridge and had entered the country fraudulently from Pakistan on a
student visa.
81. In the battleground state of Florida, indicted terror suspect Sami Al-Arian illegally
cast his ballot in a Tampa referendum in 1994 while his citizenship application was pending. He
claimed the unlawful vote was a "misunderstanding." State officials declined to prosecute.
82. John Fund, author of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our
Democracy," reports that at least eight of the nineteen Sept. 11 2001 hijackers were eligible to
vote in Virginia or Florida while they plotted to kill Americans.
83. According to Ohio¶s Franklin County Board of Elections, the Dispatch reports, the
office simply "takes a person's word, that they're (sic) a U.S. citizen." The Democratic Party
revealed its hand when it crafted the "motor-voter" bill, which made registration so easy that
NVRA stopped authorities from asking for proof of citizenship.
84. Another method in use by seditious state officials is the unwillingness to require an
ID at the polling place, in New York merely requires recognition by a person¶s signature.
Amended Complaint Page 25 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
92. Charges were made in at least three federal elections in California (3) and twice in
Florida (4) that voting by ineligible aliens determined the outcome of the election; for instance:
x In Florida, election observers say a ³sizable number´ of Florida votes in the 2000 election
may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens. (5)
x In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta
Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were
cast illegally by non-citizens. (6)
93. Investigation of the allegations established that aliens had illegally voted in those
elections, but not in sufficient numbers to have changed the result. Authorities appear not to
have prosecuted any of the aliens who voted illegally.
94. The enactment of NVRA made the process of registering to vote nearly automatic for
people applying for a state driver¶s license or ID card, and called for distributing registration
applications in state welfare offices. (7)
95. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as
information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she does not want to be
3
Samuel Francis, ³Voters²the Democrats Seek Them Everywhere,´ Washington Times, February 17,
1995. ³Fraudulent voting by illegal aliens or legal immigrants not yet citizens has been documented in a
number of elections in the past ² in Florida in 1989, in Los Angeles in 1988, and in some nine California
counties in 1982, to mention only a few ² and Republican Michael Huffington claims alien voting helped
him lose last year¶s California Senate race to Diane Feinstein.´
³Ineligible Voters May Have Cast a Number of Florida Ballots,´ Washington Times, November 29, 2000.
4
Ibid
5
Ibid
6 10
Ibid
7 Verification Act that would have given voter registrars the ability to eliminate non-citizen voting. Although the bill
³Illegal Voters,´ Honolulu Advertiser, September 9, 2000. Election officials found 543 Oahu residents
who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote. The officials speculated a number of factors may have
resulted in the voter irregularities, including language barriers and the ease of voter registration.
Amended Complaint Page 27 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
85. In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal
election (or state election, unless authorized by state law).
86. It is up to the state officials to ensure that those voting in federal, state and local
contests are citizens.
87. A vote by an illegal immigrant brings in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, a newly formed arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
88. It would be ICE's job to deport any non-citizen discovered casting a vote, whether
they are legal or illegal. Marc Raimondi, an ICE spokesman, said the penalty for being in the
country illegally would be deportation anyway.
89. Additionally, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in
violation of the IIRIRA law.
90. There are many documented reports of non-citizen voting, (2) and there is no evidence
of prosecution of the aliens for their action by DOJ or state authority.
91. With nearly 19 million foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens in the
country in the 2000 Census and an estimated 9-11 million illegal residents (many of them were
also counted in the Census by intentional refusal to ascertain actual citizenship status for fear of
decreasing responses) and now in 2006 estimated to be approaching 20 million, the potential is
enormous for non-citizens to affect the outcome of elections.
2
³Fraud Roundup,´ United Press International, January 26, 2001.
³Putnam Opposed Voting Reform Act,´ Lakeland, Florida Ledger, December 17, 2001. Rep. Adam
Putnam (R-FL) is quoted: ³Now we find that one of the guys that flew into the buildings in New York had
voted in Florida,´ (referring to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers). ³Think
about it,´ he said. ³You are told you are entitled to public assistance and then almost in the same breath
asked if you want to register to vote. Now, if you think that registering to vote is tied to getting assistance
or to getting your driver¶s license, you are going to say, µYes.¶´
Amended Complaint Page 26 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
registered to vote. (8)
96. With driver¶s licenses made available by several states to aliens (both legal and
illegal), it seems likely that voter rolls now contain large numbers of non-FLWL]HQVʊHQRXJKLQ
close elections to change the outcome if those aliens illegally vote.(9)
97. An effort in Congress in 1998 to preclude the registration of non-citizens was
narrowly defeated. (10)
98. Among the reforms included was a provision that required ID for first time voters.
The bill passed 92-2 in the Senate. The two standouts: N.Y. Democrats Clinton and Schumer.
99. Explaining her vote, Clinton said the ID provision would "disproportionately affect
ethnic and racial minorities, recently naturalized American citizens, language minorities, the
poor, the homeless, the millions of eligible New York voters who do not have a driver's license,
and those individuals who otherwise would have exercised their right to vote without these new
provisions."
100. Considering the bill allowed for the use of Social Security numbers, pay stubs
(including government issued checks), utility bills and other forms of verification, Senator
Clinton¶s real concern seems to be placed squarely on opposition to the prevention of voter fraud
by the large illegal population in her state. Forty five percent of Democratic primary voters in
8
John Fund's Political Diary, Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2000. ³Voter fraud has become a bigger problem since
the 1993 federal Motor Voter law required states to allow people to register to vote when they get a driver¶s licenses;
47 states don't require any proof of U.S. residence for enrollment.´
9
On September 26, 1996, California¶s Secretary of State ordered county voter registrars not to permit non-citizens to
vote in the November 1996 elections, after it was revealed that 727 non-citizens in Los Angeles County had filled out
the voter registration form attached to the driver¶s license application under the new ³motor voter´ law.
Rep. Steve Horn (R-CA-38), observing a rapid increase in non-citizen voting, introduced the Voter Eligibility
received a majority of the votes cast, the Rules under which it was brought to the House floor required a two-thirds
majority and so it failed to pass. (H.R. 1428, 105th Congress) (Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot Program Act of 1998,
H.R. 3485, 105th Congress)
Amended Complaint Page 28 of 62
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
New York were minorities, a group Clinton clearly pandered to in making her decision.
101. Among the special interest groups that oppose requiring ID to vote: The League of
Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership
Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund.
102. The Clinton and now the Bush Administration contribute to the opening for mass
voter disenfranchisement.
103. Recently the Treasury Department handed down a decision allowing banks to
accept Matriculas under the Patriot Act, legislation enacted in part to make tracing money to
terrorist organizations easier.
104. In Congressional testimony spokesmen for both the FBI and Department of
Homeland Security backed off previously asserted national security concerns with issuing
Matricula cards to illegals. Granting legitimacy to these flawed ID's opens the door wider to
massive voter fraud in states granting driver¶s licenses to non-citizens, further undermining an
already besieged franchise.
105. Flaws in the system continue to be used and expanded upon to give the Left an
unfair advantage in elections and to undermine the legitimacy of our most fundamental
American right.
106. In 2002 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, designed to correct some of
the irregularities found in the 2000 election.
107. A report filed in Washington D.C. Nov. 21, 2003 by United Press International
declared that the nation's election boards have few controls that would prevent illegal immigrants
from voting in federal, state or local elections, with many of them saying they operate under a
Amended Complaint Page 29 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
them and we allow people to vote illegally, we have dual nationality," Stein said.
115. "In a sense, it winds up diluting the votes. (But) it's not just a matter of diluting the
votes. If a person's vote is offset by someone voting illegally, you also have this problem of
entire states losing congressional seats. It jeopardizes the legitimacy of the whole system of
representation in this country, potentially."
116. Stein contends that efforts to match names on voter registration lists with
immigration lists have been confounded by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union,
which threaten lawsuits about information sharing. Democrats, he said, insist it would chill voter
participation.
117. FAIR¶s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal
aliens vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations. He pointed to the 1996 California
race between former Rep. Robert Dornan and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, who defeated
him by 985 votes.
118. In that race Stein said that Dornan challenged the election results and set up a year-
long battle over the validity of more than 700 votes, allegedly by illegal immigrants. A House
committee voted to drop the investigation of Dornan's accusations, saying that while they had
found evidence of illegal votes by non-citizens, it wasn't enough to affect the race.
119. Stein pointed to state driver¶s licenses as a problem. The so-called motor-voter
program that allows individuals to register to vote when they obtain or renew their drivers
licenses also opens the process to fraud. Some states do not require applicants to prove they are
legal residents of the United States or citizens before they obtain a drivers license
120. Since enactment of the 1993 NVRA a pattern of illegal registration use by mail
fraud by illegal aliens has been aided and abetted by partisan political figures wire and media
Amended Complaint Page 31 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
patriotic cloak of trust that individuals casting ballots will conform to U.S. law.
108. Federal immigration officials¶ estimate in 2002 between 8 million and 11 million
illegal immigrants live in the United States and with the limited restrictions on voting policies,
some say that raises serious questions about the integrity of the U.S. voting system.
109. Three years after the country's most contentious presidential election -- inundated
with hanging chad and butterfly ballots -- the sweeping reforms promised for the voting process
in the 50 states and the District of Columbia had not been realized.
110. Moreover, with few exceptions including those instituted in Arizona and Missouri,
no security measures have been put in place to protect the veracity of elections from illegal, legal
aliens and or citizen multiply registered within a state and without a single state.
111. The U.S. Constitution details how elections in the United States are to work. To
hold office in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, it requires an individual to
reach at least age 25 or age 30, respectively, and be a citizen for at least seven years.
112. The Federal Election Commission, which oversees the financing of federal
elections, does not have jurisdiction over how elections are carried out in the individual states.
"That's not the role of the FEC. It's probably enforced by the Department of Justice," said Peggy
Sims, an FEC research specialist.
113. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in Washington, is an
organization that advocates reform of U.S. immigration policy. Dan Stein, FAIR's executive
director, says the federal government and political parties have little interest in ensuring that
illegal immigrants do not cast votes.
114. "It is one more factor that causes illegal immigration to jeopardize the integrity of
the electoral process. (If) we count illegal aliens in the census and reapportion districts to include
Amended Complaint Page 30 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
fraud intent on vote fraud necessary for maintaining control over patronage policy and purse,
121. There is an ubiquitous scheme to defraud elections with use of NVRA with
impunity due to lack of ³bi-partisan´ will to prosecute offenders at the state and federal DOJ law
enforcement level, under the guise that somehow illegal registration and voting is a victimless
crime and law enforcement would undermine confidence in elections and impact partisan gains.
122. That the FEC uses an arbitrary and capricious ³unofficial´ definition of VAP based
upon internal consideration separate and apart from state law (11).
11
The Federal Election Commission website http://www.fec.gov/pages/vapwords.htm, with emphasis added
by Strunk quote: ³A Few Words About Voting Age Population (VAP)
The term Voting Age Population (VAP), refers to the total number of persons in the United States who are
18 years of age or older regardless of citizenship, military status, felony conviction, or mental state.
The standard source of VAP figures is the Bureau of Census, as reported in their Current Population
Reports, Series P-25.
Extreme care must be taken when using VAP figures as a basis for measuring voter participation
in elections for federal office. The actual number of eligible voters, those that are legally entitled to vote,
will always be less than the VAP because of the inclusion of resident aliens (both legal and illegal), as
well as convicted felons who are either institutionalized or who have not yet had their voting rights
restored under the various State laws, persons declared non-compos mentis by a court of law, or those
persons otherwise ineligible to vote. Neither the Bureau of Census nor any other organization can define
with complete accuracy exactly how many eligible voters there are in the United States. According to
1994 estimates, approximately 13 million persons over the age of 18 were not U.S. citizens. (Non citizens
make up the largest group of ineligible voting age persons. In contrast, the next largest group,
institutionalized felons, who are prohibited by State law from voting in all but 4 States, numbered only
about 1.2 million at the end of 1996.) In spite of these shortcomings, the lack of accurate eligibility figures
requires political analysts to employ voting age population as a base number for comparisons of
participation in the political process.
The other significant variable one must keep in mind when dealing with VAP is the fact that the
Bureau of Census actually uses 3 separate sets of voting age population figures in any given federal
election:
x Projected Voting Age Population
x Estimated Voting Age Population
x Current Population Survey
The Projected Voting Age Population is provided by Census in the Spring of each election year.
These figures are only "quick and dirty" extrapolations from previous data and are therefore unofficial
approximations. These figures include members of the armed forces where they reside at their duty
stations, but exclude the military and civilian population overseas and their dependents of voting age who
would be eligible to vote by absentee ballot in their home State. These early figures are used primarily to
satisfy the needs of the news media and political strategists.
The Estimated Voting Age Population are based on a sample survey conducted in the Summer of
the election year and are thus "official" estimates as of July 1st and are certified as such by the
Commerce Department. These figures include military and institutionalized populations but (in 1996) were
not adjusted for the 4 million undercount in the 1990 census. The value of these statistics lies in their
Amended Complaint Page 32 of 62
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
123.As and for a Second Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants the EAC regards to an accurate definition of VAP commensurate with the use of the respective state

and DOJ and its agents yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 122 have election law and constitution in regards to what voting population actually is for the respective

improperly certified state HAVA submissions of the several states without reviewing the state, i.e. any US citizen 18 years or older being a qualified to register to vote.

submissions in the context of the respective state law and constitution; 130.As and for a Third Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants EAC, Thomas

124. EAC has improperly distributed HAVA funds to each state of the several states and Wilkey and its agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 129

territories under color of HAVA on the basis of DOJ and EAC staff application review intentionally promote facilitate aid and abet illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona

125. That DOJ has admitted to improper review and certification of the applications from and in other state of the several states.

New York in the case USA v the State of New York et.al. NDNY 06-cv-263 131. In ARIZONA when vote fraud was suspected in the 1996 Arizona Primary (the one

126. DOJ has admitted it has improperly certified for EAC to make premature funds that ended Pat Buchanan's winning streak after New Hampshire), the Arizona legislature passed

distribution to defendant New York without being in compliance with HAVA and or state Law a special law forbidding a recount for that one primary election only!

127. That DOJ admits that it has improperly certified the application for payment and 132. Jeff Flake R-Ariz., introduced a bill that would bar federal agencies from accepting

EAC has improperly disbursed funds to New York, and are without authority under HAVA to a state-issued driver¶s license unless the state has in effect a policy requiring presentation of

retrieve the sums improperly paid acceptable forms of identification prior to issuance of the license.

128. However, DOJ and EAC are empowered to retrieve HAVA funds under the False 133. "Acceptable forms of identification" would include a birth certificate, U.S. passport,

Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733, but refuse to do so. a U.S. certificate of naturalization or U.S. certificate of citizenship.

129. That DOJ and in turn EAC as per above paragraphs 19 thru 128 have similarly 134. Matthew Specht, an aide to Flake, said that Flake wanted to close the loophole

reviewed the applications of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas as well opened when Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002. That law states that a voter

as the other state of the several states and territories to numerous name without using state law in should present to "the appropriate state or local election official current and valid photo

identification."
utility to government agencies like the FEC who must use them, especially in Presidential election years,
for certain financial purposes. 135. "There are some states like California that issue drivers licenses to undocumented
Current Population Survey numbers are generated by Census each month based on
extrapolations from the previous years estimates. In contrast, these figures do not include military or
institutionalized persons, but are adjusted for the 4 million undercount. citizens. That would be a case where you have a legal form of identification according to federal
For statistical purposes, the Federal Election Commission has opted to use the Current
Population Survey figures for its report to Congress on the NVRA largely out of professional convention. law ... for somebody who is not a citizen and should not be allowed to vote," Specht said. In
These are the figures employed by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress as
well as by Election Data Services, Inc.. Moreover, these are the most frequently cited sources in other
private publications such as those from the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate and
Congressional Quarterly.

Amended Complaint Page 33 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 34 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
2004 Arizona Voters approved Proposition 200 that requires all registrants and voters to show an 141. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or

idea when voting. passports to verify citizenship or when voters show up at the polls.

136. That the EAC and DOJ are working at cross purposes under HAVA as is properly 142. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have

framed nationwide by the March 11, 2006 press report By C.J. Karamargin ARIZONA DAILY been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law,"

STAR Tucson, Arizona entitled ³U.S. panel says voters don't have to prove citizenship - Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred.

Decision appears to run counter to state's Proposition 200´. 143. Lee Daghlian, spokesman for the New York Board of Elections, alleges that their

137. That EAC and Director Wilkey treatment of the State of Arizona in the matter of voter registration card is an affidavit that has an individual swear that they are a U.S. citizen and

it¶s plenary right to ascertain who is or is not a citizen for the purposes of voting as a conflict to at least 18 years of age, or face felony charges; in fact the voter registration card is an un-

be resolved general is further elaborated by the January 24, 2005 Letter from Joseph Rich then witnessed declaration unenforceable as an affidavit.

chief of the DOJ Voting Rights Section to the Attorney General of Arizona in the matter of 144. "Is there room for someone to lie and get by, sure," Daghlian said. However, he

constitutionality of Arizona proposition 200. pointed out that the new rules for the next general election will require potential voters who

138. Furthermore, on February 7, 2005 the Arizona Attorney General duly notified register by mail to provide their drivers license number and the last four digits of their Social

Missouri State Senator Larry Taylor of Jefferson City of the constitutionality of proposition 200 Security number.

and as such Missouri enacted a similar law requiring certification that only U.S. Citizens are 145. A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney, Hans Von Spakovsky, charged with

permitted to vote in Missouri. United Press International surveyed several states with large determining whether to pre-clear Georgia's voter identification law penned a law review article

immigrant populations to determine their policies for ensuring voters are legal citizens. advocating polling-place photo ID from all voters last spring, angering critics who say the staffer

139. FAIR estimates there are as many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in had made up his mind on the issue before reviewing it.

California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the state's board of elections told UPI that it has 146. The Washington Post reported that Hans Von Spakovsky, now at the Federal

an "inherent assumption" that individuals who sign their names on voter registration cards are Election Commission, published the article under a pseudonym in a 2005 issue of the Texas

doing so legally. Review of Law & Politics - before issuing the decision to Georgia - and later added a link to his

140. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order page at the FEC. It has since been removed from the agency's site but is available here.

to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding that they provide registration cards in seven different 147. In the CALIFORNIA 1996 election that unseated Bob Dornan following his efforts

languages. to investigate the Clinton White House, canvassers discovered that nearly half of the names

Amended Complaint Page 35 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 36 of 62

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
registered to vote in the GOP election from 7 precincts simply did not exist.
148. The California Attorney General's office was informed by the precinct worker, but
again nothing was done.
149. In 1998, almost 20,000 fraudulent voter registrations were discovered on the voting
rolls, but were allowed to remain on the excuse that their removal in time for the election would
cost too much!
150. California State Senator BILL MORROW of the 38th Senatorial District in a letter
to the state Attorney General Bill Lockyer on April 7, 2006 challenged him to enforce state law
in regards to illegal aliens registering to vote.
151. Morrow Alleges the registrars of voters in all of California¶s 58 counties are not
ensuring that they have procedures in place for identifying valid voters so that illegal aliens are
prevented from casting illegal ballots
152. United Press International surveyed several states with large immigrant populations
to determine their policies and controls for ensuring voters are legal citizens.
153. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates there are as
many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for
the state's board of elections told UPI that it has an "inherent assumption" that individuals who
sign their names on voter registration cards are doing so legally.
154. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order
to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding they provide registration cards in seven languages.
155. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or
passports to verify citizenship or when voters show up at the polls.
156. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have
Amended Complaint Page 37 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
162. Nevada has announced that it is to use a voter registration back up system because
of problems with its vendor Covansys Inc., Nevada will be employing a similar system to
California's whereby counties will send voter registration information to a state computer every
24 hours for comparisons to DMV and Social Security records.
163. In February 2006, Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller (R) suspended a contract
with Covansys claiming there were too many problems with the system the company was
creating for the state.
164. According to published reports, in addition to suspending the contract with
Covansys, Heller requested that the company return more than $1 million the state paid for the
creation of a new database as well as reimbursement of monies the state is now spending to
implement the replacement system.
165. Heller told The Associated Press that the back up system is not ideal and that he
prefers a top-down system, but with no vendor contract and an election just about four months
away, the back up system is the only option for compliance with HAVA.
166. As and for a Fourth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants New York
State Board of Elections and its agents yet named as Defendants as per above paragraphs 19
thru 165 intentionally and maliciously for partisan gain fail to maintain statewide central
data base to enable municipalities to reduce and verify actual inactive voters per EL §5-213 as
displayed below: § 5-213. Inactive status.
1. When a voter is sent a confirmation notice pursuant to the provisions of this article, the
voter¶s name shall be placed in inactive status.
2. The registration poll records of all such voters shall be removed from the poll ledgers and
maintained at the offices of the board of elections in a file arranged alphabetically by election
district. If such board uses computer generated registration lists, the names of such voters shall
not be placed on such lists at subsequent elections other than lists prepared pursuant to the
provisions of section 5-612 of this article but shall be kept as a computer record at the offices of
such board.
Amended Complaint Page 39 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law,"
Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred.
157. The evidence for massive vote fraud in the United States uncovered by the Voting
Integrity Project and organizations like it are ignored by the government, which has obviously
been the beneficiary of such chicanery, and by the media, which is complicit in the fraud.
158. FAIR¶s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal
immigrants vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations.
159. Election On Line. Org reported April 13, 2006 Thousands of registration
applications were rejected in California where, since January 1, nearly 25 percent of voter
registration forms submitted for verification have been rejected by the statewide database. In Los
Angeles County, 43 percent of voter registrations have been rejected.
160. In a letter to Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (R), Conny McCormack, L.A.
County registrar-recorder/county clerk cited several examples of some of the thousands of
applications rejected by the "CalVoter" system including forms being rejected because a last
name has a space in it such as De Leon, or a last name that is actually two last names with no
hyphen, such as Weaver Cardona, or even new residents to California being rejected because the
DMV file the CalVoter system uses is only six months old.
161. "The challenge of setting up a statewide voter registration database that complies
with HAVA requirements has been well-known to election administrators and activists for
years," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "This particular
problem that California is experiencing is a result of the terms of an agreement made between the
Secretary of State and the Department of Justice that is unique to California and a handful of
other states. This form rejection problem itself is a surprise that I don't think anyone anticipated."
Amended Complaint Page 38 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
3. The board of elections shall restore the registration of any such voter to active status if such
voter notifies the board of elections that he resides at the address from which he is registered,
or the board finds that such voter has validly signed a designating or nominating petition which
states that he resides at such address, or if such voter casts a ballot in an affidavit envelope
which states that he resides at such address, or if the board receives notice that such voter has
voted in an election conducted with registration lists prepared pursuant to the provisions of
section 5-612 of this article. If any such notification or information is received twenty days or
more before a primary, special or general election, the voter¶s name must be restored to active
status for such election.
4. As soon as practicable, after it restores a voter¶s registration to active status, the board of
elections shall send the voter, by first class forwardable mail, a notice advising him of the
restoration in a form which is similar to the notice sent to new registrants pursuant to the
provisions of section 5-210 of this title and which has been approved by the state board of
elections.
5. If the board of elections receives notice, which complies with the requirements of this article,
that a voter in inactive status is residing at another address within the jurisdiction of such board,
it shall transfer the registration and enrollment of such voter to such other address pursuant to
the provisions of section 5-208 of this title.
167. That using the flawed 31 December 2004 statewide database done as a snapshot
every two years yields a statewide average number of inactive registrations of 9.74%, includes a
10.08% of inactive registrations within NYC shown in the below Chart on Line #58, and outside
NYC, the mean number of inactive registrants is 9.39% shown below as Chart line #59.
168. Outside NYC the EL §5-213 determined number of inactive registrations by
municipality varies from 2.95% in Chenango county shown on the Chart below on Chart Line
#1 to Sullivan County with 22.93% shown on Chart Line 57.
169.That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE individual municipal
boards responsible for maintaining the original registration records in each municipality separate
from the so-called state database, the NYS BOE does not impose rigorous of uniformity of EL
§5-213 compliance to be done by each municipality as evidenced by the below chart:
Amended Complaint Page 40 of 62
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
170. That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE and the obvious facts of

active voters multiply registered in one and more municipalities outside of the NYC,

171. In more than one borough within illegal aliens having been given sanctuary ³with

the don¶t ask don¶t tell ³ policy promulgated by the Koch Administration before the 1980 Census

172.The NYC Board of Elections has no viable excuse for not rigorously enforcing EL

§5-213 in the Boroughs marked in the above Chart Line Item 58A thru 58E have inactive

registrants that vary from 9.77% to 11.89% ;

173. That NYC will wrongly receive no less than $394,075 shown on the chart above

that should rightly go to municipalities to relieve real property taxpayers therein a municipality

otherwise doing its fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 and otherwise getting less than the people

within are en titled for reimbursing costs of implementation of the NVRA and HAVA.

174.That theoretically based upon use of the state mean inactive voters calculated in the
above Chart there are 23 municipalities shown on Chart Line items 1 thru 23, that are not only

entitled to receive the $394,075.45 that would otherwise be wrongly disbursed to NYC, but are

additionally entitled to greater amounts from the municipalities outside of NYC shown as Chart

Line item 24 thru 57 that would otherwise be wrongly reimbursed HAVA funds instead.

175. That the New York state legislature controlled by the permanent oligarchy
despite absolute need for merger and consolidation of municipalities in order to afford US

citizens within equal protection and treatment under the law according to the state constitution

and related laws, instead the so-called ³bi-partisan´ autocracy maintains municipalities as if

merely plantations to extract bounty with impunity from the non-majoritarian People left without

a dedicated voice within in the state legislature as they were devised in the 19th century as the

map of municipalities and New York Municipal subdivisions History depicts as follows:

Amended Complaint Page 41 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 42 of 62

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

New York 176. That NYC like other municipalities in expectation of increase HAVA funds

malfeasance is rewarded with expectation of increased dollars by maintaining fraudulent

Municipal
registrations with plausible denial by the State refusal to setup a real time statewide database,
Subdivision History
177. That each individual municipality with implementation of NVRA has lost control
1683 thru 2006
of the accuracy of the original registration database, as was intentionally done to create plausible

denial to effect a scheme to defraud the election process by Defendant BOE and those yet named

based upon the pattern shown since implementation of NVRA nationally and since its adoption

by New York¶s Pataki Administration and ³bi-partisan´ legislature.

178. On March 23, 2006 the special counsel to the BOE inferred that the State Board

may have to sue each municipal board of elections to implement HAVA requirements and in

effect is not representing the municipalities per se in the Case USA v NYS NDNY 06-cv-263.

179. Notably both Niagara and Cayuga Counties refuse the dictates of the NYS BOE.

180. On March 23, 2006 the Assistant Attorney general of the State of New York

appearing for the entities of New York State in USA v NYS stated that the NYS Ag in the matter

of NVRA and HAVA can not adequately represent the interests of the People of New York.

181. On April 20, 2006 the Executive Director Robert Freeman of the Committee for

Open Government of the Office of the New York Secretary of State held in a written opinion that

the DOJ advisary to the NYS BOE and New York State has repeatedly improperly attended the

Executive Session of the Board of Election closed sessions without public access or record there

by violates the state of open meetings law.

182. There is a body of evidence that the Defendant State Board has NOT enforced the

requirement of EL §5-213 be done by each Municipal Board, enforcement is non existent when

compared to aggressive enforcement of Election Law Article 14 finance provisions.

Amended Complaint Page 43 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 44 of 62

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
183. As and for a Fifth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendant New York well as election costs required under EL §4-138 and now NVRA and HAVA to be levied upon

State Municipal subdivisions and agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above real property outside NYC, as excise users fees within NYC whose tax burdens are staggering.

paragraphs 19 thru 182 intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration 187. That were the other states of the several states to honestly and legally to make

database on a municipal by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and reimbursement claims for HAVA funds using the narrow interpretation of VAP based upon

New York State Election Law; rigorous use and enforcement of the respective state constitution and laws less HAVA funds

184. That Municipal defendants under EL §4-138 pass-on the expense of administering would be disbursed to those states, and

elections to the real property owners by tax levy outside of NYC and by users fees and other 188. Accordingly based upon the narrow interpretation of the HAVA VAP

excises within the city: reimbursement formula, rather than the intentionally over broad use of VAP as

unconstitutionally vague, when in fact in all state law non-citizens, and the civilly dead are NOT

part of the voting age population, and

189. Therefore, the state of New York and the respective municipalities subdivisions

would receive a significantly greater HAVA reimbursement, thereby relieving the real property

owners as a jus tertii class including plaintiffs with property along with those people within

NYC, would not be burdened with unreasonable higher taxes as a result of such legal narrow

interpretation of VAP.

190. That Plaintiffs are not legally represented in the state legislature with a dedicated
185. That Defendant Municipalities depicted in Chart Line Item 24 thru 58 have a
voice or other recourse other than Federal court and that State Defendants, State Municipalities
fiduciary duty required of each respective ³bi-partisan´ municipal board of elections as part of
and rubber stamp by DOJ of the April 22, 2002 gerrymander of state and federal districts
the partisan control over patronage policy, purse and especially the real property tax levy
191. Gerrymander per se is done by mis application and administration of the state
empowered under local government Homerule law, pass on the all unfunded expenses for
constitution and laws, contradicts the express required total number and allotment of State Senate
Medicaid, Elections, and other unfunded mandates required by the State.
Districts (³SDs´) location, and ratio of Assembly Districts (³ADs´) seats within;
186. Municipal Defendants over the years based upon public records display a pattern
192. Statewide allocation, size, number of State Senate and Assembly seats for the
of intentional concealment and cover-up in regards to accurately noticing and segregating the
people resident within each existing municipality entitled to no less than two (2) ADs and a
actual Medicaid costs required under Social Service Law related to the Social Security Act, as

Amended Complaint Page 45 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 46 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
municipal Board of Elections within is dictated by the state constitution and related laws; disburse HAVA funds.

193. The intra-municipal equity in distribution of EDs is necessary within each AD to

prevent Disproportionate Diminished Dilution (³DDD´) of a vote strength and effectiveness is

dictated by the state constitution and related laws, however is not complied with.

194. As and for a Sixth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants State of

California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states of several states to

numerous to name whose agents yet named as Defendants, pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru

193, intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal

by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and N.Y.S. Election Law.

195. That the Chart on the next page entitled ³2000 Census Table 1.1 Total Population

by Age and Citizenship: March 2000´ is from the 2000 Census enumeration, and is highlighted

to show all persons of any sex 18 years or older equals 204,523k or 73.9% of the Total Persons,

or ³Voting Age Population´ (³VAP´) therein containing the civilly dead within. Of that total

177,515k are native born citizens, 10,683k naturalized citizens totaling 188 mil. And when the

civilly dead are subtracted by say 3 mil. equals say 185 mil. Eligible voters nationally therein

include both registered and un-registered citizens entitled to suffrage.

198. The set of Census numbers when compared to the total VAP used by the EAC will
196. The 2000 Census Table 1.1 for total combined persons by Sex and Age in the
validate whether VAP of CVAP is used.
category of 18 Years and over totals say 204 mil. VAP as opposed to Citizens both Native and
199. That the basis for determining the accuracy of the projection of the national total
Naturalized including the civilly dead, or say 188 mil. minus the civilly dead equals CVAP
of say 185,208,072 mil. Citizens 18 years or older, whether registered or not excluding the
197. The ³Projected 2000 percent of Total State EV per total National EV´ the total
civilly dead, approximates ³Citizen Voting Age Persons´ New York has say 12,931,489 with the
185,208,072; and further shows the ³2004 Estimated Active Voters per state using New York´
actual 10,540,535 AV recorded as of 31 December 2004 in the flawed central database, and
10,540,535 AV or 81.51% of the total registered persons in NY and each state as first
200. That based upon the December 31, 2004 New York voting rolls, 10,540,535
approximation equal to say 150,964,221 Active Voters nationally as the figure to be used to

Amended Complaint Page 47 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 48 of 62

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
Active Voters is compared for accuracy with the actual number of those persons alleged
³Eligible´ to register to vote as claimed by the Secretary of State of both California, Texas, in
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
resident of this State shall be deemed a qualified voter; provided, however, that before offering to vote at an election
a voter shall have registered, but such requirement for registration shall not be considered a qualification of a voter
within the meaning of the term "qualified voter" as used in any other Article of this Constitution in respect to any
matter except qualification and eligibility to vote at an election.

each State Compliance Plan filed with the Department of Justice and the Election Assistance
The CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
Commission for HAVA funds reimbursement, and that the SOS of California alleges it has SEC. 2. A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

26.08% unregistered and Texas alleges it has 12.47% unregistered; and compares such figures to
203. That the Texas compliance submission to the DOJ and EAC in the matter of use of
an estimated 9.79% for New York state as of December 31, 2004, as follows: the term ³Eligible´ notes that its VAP according to the 2000 Census is 14,965,061; as follows:

Total
2000 Percent of Actual Total
ALLEGED Alleged Percent
State Census ALLEGED Total Active
Eligible Eligible unregistered
Total Eligible Registered Voters
unregistered
======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= =======
California 33,930,798 22,495,914 66.30% 16,628,673 15,587,358 5,867,241 26.08%
Texas 20,903,994 14,965,061 71.59% 13,098,329 9,971,374 1,866,732 12.47%
New
19,004,973 12,931,489 68.04% 11,666,103 10,540,535 1,265,386 9.79%
York

201. That as of February 10, 2005 a California compliance submission to the DOJ and
EAC in the matter of use of the term ³Eligible´ notes that ³the figures under the heading
µEligible¶ in these sections represent our estimate of the number of people in California who are
eligible to register to vote as of February 10, 2005´; and quote that
the ³Population estimate data from the Population Research Unit of the Department of Finance
were used to estimate each county¶s total population. Subtracted from this total was the
estimated number of persons ineligible for registration because of age, felony convictions, and
citizenship status. The figures given are unofficial but represent a reasonable estimate of the
eligible population.´

202. Like the California Constitution portion shown below only US Citizens may vote

and as in Texas Election Law §11.001 and §11.002 that defines Eligibility to Vote and

³Qualified Voter´ using only US Citizen eliminates non-citizens and the civilly dead in keeping

with Article 6 ± SUFFRAGE Section 2 - QUALIFIED ELECTOR; REGISTRATION; ABSENTEE VOTING ±

Texas Constitution Article 6 Section 2 Subsection (a) Every person subject to none of the disqualifications provided
by Section 1 of this article or by a law enacted under that section who is a citizen of the United States and who is a

Amended Complaint Page 49 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 50 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
204. That in the matter of national HAVA Funds distribution there is an inconsistency in injurious to the U.S. Citizens resident in New York with use of VAP instead of CVAP;

the use of VAP versus CVAP, that a thorough review of the public records of each state of the accordingly New York Citizens are denied equal protection as a result of California and

several states and territories will reveal in comparison the 2000 Census enumeration for nativity especially Texas gaming the system without proper Voting Rights Act compliance oversight and

and State Plans submissions to the Election Assistance Commission evidenced by the Federal equal treatment afforded by DOJ review and certification for the EAC to equally disburse funds.

Register record on the EAC website. 208. That Injury to Plaintiffs is significant and palpable by the very nature of the

205. Federal Election Commission (FEC) basis for which VAP (shown in footnote #11) underlying causes of action stated above in paragraphs 58 thru 207, Petitioners / Plaintiffs

is used differently from state to state and would properly create an offset and resolution for individually and collectively as a class as those similarly situated are irreparably injured by

equity; especially since as many as 18 states have not implemented the ³centralized´ voter Respondents / Defendant as a result as follows:

registration database- i.e. the underlying reason for HAVA and the National Voter Registration 209. As and for a First Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 208

Act (NVRA) in the first place. Respondents injure Petitioners by Denial of Substantive Due Process required of Defendants

206. The imperative to catch the rampant vote fraud and abuse nationally and statewide under proper administration and application of the NVRA, HAVA and NYSC and Laws .

here in New York is essential and warrants fraud investigation statewide. 210. Because of virtually no vote fraud enforcement, motor voter registration, driver's

207. The Chart below compares the actual numbers used by New York with a licenses for illegal aliens, amnesties and other factors, American's most precious liberty, voting,

$221,000,000 funds figure that is subject to HAVA funding variations caused by arbitrary use of is being rapidly undermined by illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens.

VAP by California and Texas in the state compliance submissions to the DOJ and EAC: 211. As and for a Second Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 210

Respondents injure Petitioners by denial of equal treatment under Election Law, deny

expectation of effective ballot access and voting., by disproportionate diminished dilution of

plaintiffs vote strength as is related both to gerrymandering and arbitrary enforcement of law.

212. As and for a Third Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 211

Respondents infringe Petitioners¶ speech and association fundamental rights otherwise

available for U.S. Citizens in the Federal 1st amendment as related to the 14th Amendment by

the Chart shows that New York even with a large number of non-citizens like both Texas and denial of due process and equal treatment under Election Law and redistricting violation of the

California, however New York has relatively less aliens, and therefore is more significantly NYSC Art III, infringe speech in the Legislature.

Amended Complaint Page 51 of 62 Amended Complaint Page 52 of 62

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
213. As and for a Fourth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 212
Federal Respondents as a Bivens 1st, 4th 5th 8th 13th 14th 15th amendments injury disenfranchise
Petitioner suffrage rights by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs proprietary
tangible suffrage property.
214. As and for a Fifth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214 State
Defendants by a pattern of malicious fiduciary neglect intentionally take Petitioners¶ suffrage
rights as reverse discrimination prohibited by VRA under a scheme to defraud under color of the
NVRA and HAVA.
215. As and for a Sixth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214
Respondents infringement of Petitioners¶ speech, association, bottom-up suffrage and Homerule
autonomy rights and unlawful takings by patterns of fraud under multiple schemes to defraud
thereby deny a republican form of government.
216. As and for a Seventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 215
Respondents injures Petitioners¶ 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th Amendment Right as U.S. Citizens who as
New York State Citizens with sovereignty granted in each state of the several states are to be
protected against foreign interference with suffrage aren¶t by use of VAP instead of CVAP.
217. As and for a Eighth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 216
Respondents injure Petitioners¶ as jus tertii classes where they reside since April 22, 2002 having
expended state available remedy are without a means to provide for reasonable amendment to the
State Constitution.
218. As and for a Ninth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 217 in
the matter of CVAP unequal treatment of the unfunded HAVA mandate on a municipal entity-
by-entity basis Defendants deny substantive due process for the EL §4-138 unfunded mandate as
Amended Complaint Page 53 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
claim, and that the fee due relators per transaction is in the amount not to exceed $11,000 for
each occurrence, and notwithstanding the False Claims Act (³FCA´) damages that financial
injury to individual plaintiffs being denied expectation of effective suffrage participation date
exceeds $75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners as ³whistleblower / relators´ and those similarly situated as a
Federal class of CVAP within the state of New York and in the several states and territories urge
remedy from irreparable harm that warrants a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel for preliminary
injunction suspending HAVA filing deadlines, permanent injunction for equal treatment of
suffrage and autonomy for all New York State Citizens and CVAP nationwide entitled to
suffrage separate from non-citizens, minors and those adjudged civilly dead, Petitioners and
those similarly situated urge remedy and protection from irreparable harm that warrants
permanent injunction for equal treatment of all real property owners with a the Court order:
A. That there must be a 28 USC 2284 trial to hear the statewide municipal apportionment of
HAVA funds based upon proper administration and application of the State Constitution and
related laws
B. That each legitimate municipality has until March 1, 2006 to initiate redistricting of its
legislative, senate, assembly, congressional districts coterminous within including those of
NYC and for HAVA certification and constitutional infringement issues.
C. That the HAVA January 1, 2006 compliance deadline for each state of the several states be
stayed nationwide until such time that the court determines the constitutionality of the use of
VAP funding rather than CVAP without those adjudged civilly dead, and determines equity
for reimbursement using CVAP nationwide accordingly.
D. That each municipality entitled to a Board of Elections within must produce a compliance
plan proving conformance with the administration and application of the State Constitution
and laws in order to receive HAVA reimbursement for equity statewide in voting machine
acquisition.
E. That U.S. DOJ voting rights section must pre-clear municipal compliance plans before
Amended Complaint Page 55 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
is done under the Medicaid tax levy without notice and segregation of the election costs on real
property tax levy, is a taking of property.
219. As and for a Tenth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 218
notwithstanding 28 USC 1341 does not apply herein, the EAC under HAVA absent equity relief
would deprive Plaintiffs and the PEOPLE of NYS and of the several States by either Top-down
or Bottom-up suffrage, with Homerule autonomy, must afford equal protection of the law against
HAVA false claims, would otherwise qualify under the False Claims Act 31 USC 3729-3733.
220. As and for a Eleventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 219
that damages to individual plaintiffs jus tertii within each respective municipality entitled to a
board of elections not in compliance with application and administration of the state constitution
and laws who by ultra vires offense, not least of which impose unequal EDs non-conforming
with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 and without elections conducted without ³bipartisan´ election
inspection, while maliciously requiring of real property tax per EL §4-138 as an unreasonable
burden by excessive expense, Plaintiffs as a jus tertii class require reimbursement for suffering
arbitrary and capricious taking of personal and real property.
221. As and for a Twelfth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 220
that were any claim against the HAVA reimbursement transacted with DOJ and EAC for the
state of New York without bottom-up suffrage and Homerule compliance with the application
and administration of the state constitution and related laws such would be a false claim as
defined under 31 USC §3729 thru §3733 subject to treble damages and penalties against
Defendants with payment due to Plaintiffs as whistleblower / relator jus tertii as U.S. Citizens in
the name of the United State Government entitled to 15% to 30% of that recovered and a fee for
each false claim filed by any municipality not conforming as well as any state effecting as a false
Amended Complaint Page 54 of 62
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
certification is sent to the Election Assistance Commission for reimbursement offset.
F. That the municipalities of Hamilton and Fulton must elect together conterminous within one
single SD, AD and CD.
G. That the US Supreme Court held in the WMCA case that the State Constitution Article III
Section 4 formula for enlarging the number of SDs beyond the expressed provision of fifty
(50) is unconstitutional, and as such until such time that the NYSC is amended accordingly
with a new formula, there shall be fifty (50) SDs that shall each contain three ADs
coterminous within a CD and JD by proper application and administration of the NYSC and
laws to meet the requirements of the VRA, the U.S. Constitution and HAVA reimbursement
for ED voting machines.
H. That in the matter of EL §4-100 creation of Election Districts shall not to exceed 950 active
voters (³AV´) each statewide, and further, every ED statewide shall be of equal size with the
exception that for the convenience of the active voters any ED may be subdivided and
additional voting machines provided and paid for by the EL §4-138 real property tax levy,
and furthermore, at the direction of any municipal legislature to the board of elections within
may decrease the number of EDs within such municipality to contain more active voters
beyond 950 AV not to exceed 1150 active voters, with the convenience proviso of ED
subdivision.
I. That redistricting of the each SD, AD, CD and adjoining SDs ADs and CDs is moot were it
effected before March 1, 2006 for the purposes of the 2006 election cycle based upon proper
use of the New York State Constitution Article III and laws, is now dependent upon a
Federal Court under 28 USC 2284.
J. That the NYC entity must be subdivided to prevent continued disproportionate diminished
dilution of EV / CVAP votes within NYC, excluding those adjudged civilly dead must be
enumerated at the domicile of conviction within NYC, as well as effect it has outside NYC.
K. That the NYC entity in the matter of the 1/3 rule and the ½ rule must be subdivided to
prevent majoritarian control over the state senate and therefore the assembly exclusive of any
other consideration involved when combined with either Westchester and or Nassau in the
matter of a State constitutional amendment and convention.
L. Certification by each municipality of Election District equity for equal time place and
manner in regards to available machines and absentee ballots
M. A trust fund for each municipality setup with HAVA funds to property real property owners
over time to prevent real property taxes increase
N. Restraint against HAVA funds from being disbursed to any and all states and or
Amended Complaint Page 56 of 62
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------x RICO CASE STATEMENT
JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, DAN DEL PLATO JR. PURSUANT TO LOCAL
GABRIEL RAZZANO, EDWARD M. PERSON JR., RULE 5.1(h)
And CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiffs, Civil Action No.
V. 06-cv-0080A(Sc)
The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION,
THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ;
The States of: CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA,
NEW MEXICO, TEXAS each by Secretary of State and Attorney General
respectively; THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR §1012;
THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et.al. TRIAL BY JURY IS
Defendants. DEMANDED OF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------x ALL ISSUES

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is a Civil RICO Statement by Plaintiffs John Joseph Forjone and

Christopher Earl Strunk, each pro se and neither being an attorney under 18 USC

§1964(c), in addition to the relators matter under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31

USC §3729 thru §3733. This Civil RICO Statement (³Statement´) is submitted

pursuant to WDNY Local Rule 5.1 and 9.2 in conjunction with the Amended

Complaint to be duly filed by May 1, 2006 in compliance with the Order of the

Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara.

The Amended Complaint has 221 paragraphs and Wherefore relief section

that will be referenced in this Statement. As alleged in paragraph 57, Plaintiffs

pursuant to the background facts in paragraphs 19 thru 56 have injuries to (i.)

EXHIBIT C Plaintiffs¶ individual suffrage proprietary property by dilution, devaluation, and

RICO Statement Page 1 of 50

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
offset as a jus tertii class (1) additionally effected by long-term gerrymandering
since the 1972 reapportionment, (ii.) those Plaintiffs with real property are
especially affected by takings injury caused by multiple schemes to defraud
facilitated by local governments acting in conjunction with state(s) of the several
states and territories and federal malfeasance and both sets of Plaintiffs suffer (iii.)
theft of individual liberty.
That Plaintiffs complain of injury done by Defendants, their agents
statewide, and those yet named nationally and internationally conducting an
enterprise through patterns of racketeering activity defined 18 USC §1961 thru
§1968 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries.
The enterprise in New York, centers the New York State BOE and its
agents, including every Municipal BOE and its agents, including Thomas Wilkey
as its Democratic Party co-director and member of the National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS), are a legally mandated ³bi-partisan´ configuration
dependent upon appointed members of two different political faiths (the same
parties for more than one hundred years) are all defendants as a class herein too
numerous to name. By operation of law Defendants preclude non-partisan and or
non-majoritarian citizens. As such all ³bi-partisan´ Defendants and their agents
have an express fiduciary duty to check and verify the actions of each other, as
1
³Jus tertii³ third party standing created by non/mis/malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty.
RICO Statement Page 2 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
That under HAVA as an extension of NVRA, the enterprise and its agents
facilitate illegal mail-in voter registration(2) devised in a scheme that can only be
enforced by the respective state of the several states in many of which its agents
are of the enterprise itself. That the DOJ has refused to become involved as a rule
rather than exception, and when the State authorities refuse to do fiduciary duties
as the only agency that may ascertain the validity of the registration and or voting
by mail-in voter registration and or absentee ballots nationwide, As such politically
(3)
motivated dereliction of fiduciary duty constitutes a component of the enterprise
scheme for unjust enrichment that willfully facilitates, aids and abets to defraud
Plaintiffs, those similarly situated, and the Federal Treasury by devaluing and or
nullifying (offsetting) U.S. Citizen¶s proprietary vote investment, thereby thieves
and extorts expectation of suffrage effectiveness, real property, and individual
2
18 USC § 1341. Frauds and swindles - Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,
or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any
counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held
out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to
do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or
delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or
delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or
knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which
it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
3 knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing
1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television -Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice
to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or
foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or
artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a
financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or
both.
RICO Statement Page 4 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
well as to detect, prevent and punish misrepresentation and fraud in provision of
suffrage for the benefit of each Plaintiff individually and class similarly situated
precluded from the process under color of law.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants on a state, multi-state, national and international
level are part of a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with exploiting vagaries,
loopholes and questionable devices associated with the ³Voting Age Population´
(VAP) Formula created by Congress and the enterprise itself as if by operation of
law under color of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 2002 Help
America to Vote Act (HAVA).
That the enterprise reaps unjust enrichment by taking intangible and tangible
property by fraudulent concealment, extortion, theft and robbery benefiting from
mail and wire fraud while operating under color of the 1993 NVRA, 2002 HAVA
incorporated into the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA); and by operation of the
Racketeering Enterprise among enticements it harbors aliens defined per the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), uses the ³Great Society Program´
provision of Medicaid (SSA), education, housing, employment and provides mail-
in registration and voting without oversight to Plaintiffs proprietary property and
business detriment.
RICO Statement Page 3 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
liberty; and notwithstanding the myth of good government appearing long
abandoned in New York, corruption is a ³bi-partisan´ endeavor, expectation of
effective voting remains the right that safeguards all other rights.
That NYS BOE is at the center of the enterprise with respect to various New
York state subdivision municipal boards of election who are each either co-
conspirators willfully acting or unwitting participants in the scheme to facilitate
registration, voting, and with use of the U.S. Mail funding the scheme by a pattern
of real property tax levy taking property differently outside NYC and other states
than within. That participants act under color of the VRA and related laws to aid
and abet illegal alien sanctuary per 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.), obstruct
INA process in the matter of facilitating illegal aliens to pose as US Citizens (4), to
obtain fraudulent documents (5), and then on the prime voters list used tangentially
every tens years to gerrymander as was done April 22, 2002. That the criminal
activity of the enterprise involves mail and wire fraud defined under 18 USC
§1341 and 18 USC §1343, and that for no less than fourteen years has been aided
4
18 USC § 1425. Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully- (a) Whoever knowingly
procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence
of naturalization or of citizenship
5
18 USC § 1546. Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents ± (a.) Whoever
card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as
evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains,
accepts, or receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document
prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United
States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any
false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained
RICO Statement Page 5 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
and abetted by DOJ, FEC and now EAC, its agents in ³bi-partisan´
administrations.
That anyone who is not a citizen, or is a citizen multiply registered at two
different locations with intent to vote, or is a U.S. Citizen declared civilly dead by
due process of law including but not limited to felons who have not regained civil
rights as well as those declared incompetent under supervision of the state, who
engages in use of suffrage documents and or votes, participates in the scheme to
(6)
defraud with such documents . That any document associated with use of the
social security number or other official means of identification that may be used
with intent to defraud the government, by passing as a US Citizen or legally
6
18 USC 1028 Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and
information ± (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section² (1) knowingly and
without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification
document; (4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the
possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be
used to defraud the United States; (7) knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of
identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a
violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; (c) The circumstance
referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that² (1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false
identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or the document-
making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false
identification document; (2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or (3) either²(A) the
production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce,
including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or (B) the means of identification, identification
document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of
the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section. (d) In this section² (1) the term
³authentication feature´ means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers
or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing
authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the
document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified; (f) Attempt and Conspiracy.² Any person who attempts
or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for
the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
RICO Statement Page 6 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
That by reason of not having a central database, by reason of Don¶t ASK
Don¶t Tell harboring policies, by reason of non-compliance in application and
administration of the respective state constitution and related laws, by reason of
enticement and common purposes with federal funds certified without checks and
balances; by reason of the proximate cause of the commonality of criminal activity
plaintiffs are sufficiently directly injured by the unlawful expansion of the
registration pool, and by reason of harboring deprives Plaintiffs individual and
collective suffrage bargaining power, depresses suffrage power outside of the
enterprise.
That each Plaintiff whose proprietary property is affected associate together
in an ad hoc group to protect proprietary voting property, personal property, real
property, and intangible liberty, against defendants perversity in participating
knowingly and unknowingly as outlined above in a statewide scheme to defraud, a
nationwide scheme to defraud and international scheme to defraud under color of
the NVRA and HAVA, and as such Plaintiffs require protection relief against
(8)
interference in this action accordingly
which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957
of this title«
8
18 USC § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant- (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation,
threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward
another person, with intent to² (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official
proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to² (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other
object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the
object¶s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to
appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent
RICO Statement Page 8 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
documented alien, are document matters that DOJ absolutely has authority and
jurisdiction over.
That DOJ and its agents inaction absent reasonable standard of care is
dereliction of duty, that appears politically motivated, is consistently done as a
pattern of dereliction while under the Clinton and current Bush administrations to
both conceal and facilitate the scheme to defraud.
That the scheme to defraud US Citizens that registers illegal aliens to vote as
if done by US Citizens under color of NVRA and HAVA involves solicitation of
foreign owned vendors to acquire, operate and manipulate votes cast on electronic
voting machines mandated by Congress, and that such schemes not only statewide
have an impact nationally and internationally as a matter of commerce under North
American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) whose agents promote open borders
and predatory trade practice with use of chattel indenture and peonage.
The schemes use the weakness of the VRA, whose safeguards apply only
for protected minorities in which DOJ has jurisdiction; however, does not afford
equal protection to those who are not protected minorities, operates as a reverse
discrimination facilitating the crime defined(7)
7
18 USC § 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises-
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign
commerce, with intent to² (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage,
establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity,
and thereafter performs or attempts to perform² (b) As used in this section (i) ³unlawful activity´ means (2)
extortion, bribery, « in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act
RICO Statement Page 7 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
According to Local Rules Plaintiffs submit this RICO Case Statement that
includes facts upon which we are relying and which were obtained as a result of
the reasonable inquiry required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In
particular, the statement uses the numbers and letters as set forth by local rules, and
states in detail and with specificity the following information.
(1) State whether the alleged unlawful conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d).
RESPONSE: This civil action alleges violation of 18 USC §§ 1962 (a), (b), (c),
and (d).
(2) List each defendant and state the alleged misconduct and basis of liability
of each defendant.
RESPONSE:
a) The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION created
under HAVA by ³bi-partisan´ consent not competition has by gross dereliction
of duty disbursed Federal Funds without proper oversight using the FEC
definition of VAP rather than by actual state law imposes a top-down form of
from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or (3) hinder, delay, or
prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the
commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised
release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both. (c) Whoever corruptly² (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other
object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object¶s integrity or availability for use in an official
proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another
person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from² (1) attending or testifying in an
official proceeding; (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or
possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation supervised release, parole, or
release pending judicial proceedings; (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a
Federal offense;
RICO Statement Page 9 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
state and national elections without Article 5 amendment;
b) THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director, having previously been the a Democratic
Party co-director of NYS BOE, pursuant to the Third Cause of Action aids and
abets illegal aliens to register and vote in Arizona and other states of the several
states as per paragraph 137.;
c) THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION co-authority
of the EAC in the matter of involvement in the implementation of the
³unofficial´ definition of VAP for broad rather than narrow use as referenced
by the Amended Complaint footnote #11 referenced by paragraph 122 and in
the First Cause of Action Paragraphs 58 thru 122.
d) THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Voting Rights Section
per (VRA) under direction of Joseph Rich who retired in 2005, and now John
K. Tanner with assistant Wan J. Kim, all have failed to duly certify HAVA each
state compliance plan submission by measure of state law in the matter of VAP,
admitted such for New York on the record of USA v NYS BOE on March 23,
2006, referenced in Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207;
e) Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ preceded by John Ashcroft in the
Bush Administration, and Janet Reno under the Clinton Administration,
together have been politically motivated in the arbitrary enforcement of the
VRA, and especially the NVRA and HAVA to the detriment of Plaintiffs and
RICO Statement Page 10 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
operating as such have failed to enforce oversight of the NYS BOE improperly
operating under Election law per EL §3-100, as well as non-enforcement of
open meetings law, has aided and abetted concealment of the enterprise that by
public disclosure of the ³bi-partisan´ decisions that have been degenerated in a
star chamber, would have been exposed;
i) New York State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER per CPLR §1012, like the
SOS in the matter of enforcement of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article
5A, Eliot Spitzer and Dennis Vacco before him are ³bi-partisan´ operatives
who are politically motivated to enforce law in a capricious manner for the
benefit of the ³bi-partisan´ enterprise, and that just as the Attorney General has
been found wanting in a pattern of lack of enforcement of fraud and abuse in
the Medicaid program, he is similarly exudes willful neglect in election matters,
j) THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, past and present two
³bi-partisan´ co-commissioners and two co chairmen, two Counsels, two co-
Directors, one NVRA Officer, agents at the Office of General Services securing
equipment and services, and per the Fourth Cause of Action in the Amended
Complaint paragraphs 166 thru 182 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of
Action 183 thru 193 of the Fifth Cause of Action are at the Hub of the
Racketeering Enterprise billing for HAVA funds yearly since 2002 enactment.
k) That as per the Fifth Cause of Action in the Amended Complaint paragraphs
RICO Statement Page 12 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
those similarly situated. Alberto Gonzalez first acted from 2000 thru 2004 as
counsel to President Bush and after the 2004 Elections as referenced in the
Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207;
f) Each State of the several states and territories by each Secretary of State with
authority and Fiduciary control over the respective State Board of Elections
responsible for compliance with the NVRA and HAVA as each similarly
devises a different interpretation of VAP and billing as referenced in the
Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207; and
g) Each state of the several states¶ Attorney General responsible for protecting US
Citizen suffrage. Plaintiffs allege that CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA,
ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS have falsely billed for HAVA funds and
have received an amount greater than each is entitled by using a broad
interpretation of the VAP rather than a narrow definition of CVAP in keeping
with state law referenced in paragraphs 58 thru 207.
h) THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (SOS) first with
Alexander Treadwell (who left to become chairman of the Republican Party and
now being filled by Stephen Minarik), replaced by sportscaster Randy Daniels,
now with an unnamed substitute with authority, jurisdiction and responsibility
to protect the civil rights of every citizen of the state of New York and to keep
the ³bi-partisan´ function of the State Board of Election and related boards
RICO Statement Page 11 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
183 thru 193 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of Action 166 thru 182, the
New York State municipal subdivisions entitled a municipal board within
whose officers to numerous to name herein for the purposes of brevity in the
matter of the fiduciary duty to comply with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 along with
interrelated ³bi-partisan´ safeguard and oversight of elections, especially since
mere existence of a legal county party committee under EL §2-100 in most
municipalities is questionable, would detail plaintiffs contentions of
wrongdoing; and to the extent that the 1894 state constitutional mandated
firewall of municipal control over the original database has been breeched by
the operation of NVRA, HAVA and districting after the case WMCA v.
Lomenzo, 377 US 633 (1964), the need for safeguard and compliance becomes
that more urgent as a fiduciary duty to protect plaintiffs and those similarly
situated.
(3) List the alleged wrongdoers, other than the defendants listed above, and
state the alleged misconduct of each wrongdoer.
RESPONSE:
For the reasons and occurrences cited in the Amended Complaint in paragraphs 1
thru 221: William J. Clinton, Albert Gore, Douglas Farbrother, George W. Bush,
Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Joseph Rich, John Turner, Wan J. Kim, The
Department of Homeland Security including Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), George E. Pataki, Alexander Treadwell, Carroll Berman,
RICO Statement Page 13 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

Edward I. Koch, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, National Association of prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting

Secretaries of State, New York State Association of Counties, Lee Daghlian, Diane inside and outside the state is combined with questionable imposition of

Haslett Rudiano, Kathleen McFarland, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, The Electronic Voting Machines, that effects elections outcome within Orleans

League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National County and statewide, as both involved in harboring illegal aliens, with aiding

Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Association of definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories,

Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the American Civil with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain

Liberties Union, The Brennan Center for Justice. the city of New York borough and penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and

party committees, Defendant Municipal party committees, NYS Party Committees. HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to

(4) List the alleged victims and state how each victim was allegedly injured. New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL §4-138 (unlike

RESPONSE: NYC) impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid

a) JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Orleans County; notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Orleans county

a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor; owns real reports 10.42% Inactive Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter

property in Orleans County used in the transaction of business, affected in the registration database; however, acts in conspiracy with the racketeering

matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters

property tax levy, has a related action in WDNY 05-cv-395 with a decision breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.

pending in various motions since October 7, 2005 and Default Judgment since b) DAN DEL PLATO JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Genesee County, is

the return date of February 28, 2006; has been directly affected by Defendants employed as a Hospital worker, owns real property in Genesee that is protected

breech of fiduciary duty at the center of the ³bi-partisan´ racketeering under a five year U.S. Bankruptcy Court mandated plan in WDNY that is

enterprise, whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, affected by the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in

RICO Statement Page 14 of 50 RICO Statement Page 15 of 50

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real property

duty of NYS BOE at the center of the ³bi-partisan´ racketeering enterprise in Nassau County used in the transaction of business, affected in the matter of

whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real property

fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the

and outside the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic center of the ³bi-partisan´ racketeering enterprise whose control over the

Voting Machines, effects election outcome within Genesee County and central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and

statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside and outside

abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting

definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, Machines, effects election outcome within Nassau County and statewide both as

with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting citizens

and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were

HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of

York and in turn the County of Genesee who under EL §4-138 impose election EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties

costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA

and segregate amounts; that Genesee county with 7.30% Inactive Voters has a mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New York and

duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however, acts in in turn the County of Nassau who under EL §4-138 impose election costs as a

conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark and

disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 segregate amounts; that Nassau county has a duty to maintain the original voter

for detecting inactive voters. registration database and with only 3.13% Inactive Voters, the county is due

c) GABRIEL RAZZANO is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Nassau County, a proper reapportionment of interstate HAVA funds reimbursement which is

RICO Statement Page 16 of 50 RICO Statement Page 17 of 50

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
effected by the conspiracy by the racketeering enterprise in other municipalities
in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate the number of inactive
voters breech the fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.
d) EDWARD M. PERSON JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Suffolk
County, a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real
property in Farmingville Suffolk County used in the transaction of business,
that has been adversely affected by local government extortion in matter of the
harbor of illegal aliens as well as the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs
by the municipality in the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected
by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the center of the ³bi-partisan´
racketeering enterprise whose control over the central database and fiduciary
duty to detect, prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple
registrations and voting inside and outside the state combined with questionable
imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, effects election outcome within
Suffolk County and statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal
aliens, aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if
by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states
and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as
a bill of pain and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden
of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if
RICO Statement Page 18 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and
misrepresentation, includes multiple registrations and voting inside and outside
the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting
Machines, whose effects affects election outcome within NYC and statewide
both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting
citizens multiply registering and voting; and that if by a narrow definition of
VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with
imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and
penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and
HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to
New York in turn NYC being is exempt under EL §4-138 imposes election
costs by excise to general revenue as with Medicaid, notwithstanding a local
government empowered real property tax levy; that NYC has 10.28% Inactive
Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however,
acts in conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA
funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-
213 for detecting inactive voters.
f) That Plaintiffs jus tertii fairly represent a class of U.S. Citizens similarly
situated inside and outside of NYC, have standing under the FCA as
whistleblowers beyond 18 USC 1964(c).
RICO Statement Page 20 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
reapportioned to New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL
§4-138 impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid
notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Suffolk county
has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database and with only
6.11% Inactive Voters, the county is due proper reapportionment of interstate
HAVA funds reimbursement which is effected by the conspiracy by the
racketeering enterprise in other municipalities in expectation of HAVA funds
disbursement to inflate the number of inactive voters breech the fiduciary duty
under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.
e) CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote in the
city of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn (NYC), a sole proprietor self
employed as an independent contractor, no longer owns real property in NYC
used in the transaction of business, suffers such loss as an extortion matter in a
similar pattern that should reopen the case in EDNY 99-cv-6480 as a
racketeering matter associated with a corrupt state judiciary as seen in Orleans
County, that also involves the unequal matter of concealment of Medicaid costs
by NYC in the annual real property tax levy; that NYC is a national sanctuary
for illegal aliens; wherein elections are paid for by general revenue from excise
tax and user fees, and that Strunk has been effected by breech of fiduciary duty
of NYS BOE at the center of the ³bi-partisan´ racketeering enterprise whose
RICO Statement Page 19 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
(5) Describe in detail the pattern of racketeering activity or collection of
unlawful debts alleged for each RICO claim. A description of the pattern of
racketeering shall include the following information:
(A) List the alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes which were
allegedly violated;
RESPONSE:
18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in
connection with identification documents)
18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens)
18 USC §1341 (mail fraud)
18 USC §1343 (wire fraud)
18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully)
18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim )
18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents)
18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) ± (interstate and foreign travel in aid of
racketeering Enterprise)
18 USC §1957 ± (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from
specific unlawful activity)
(B) Provide the dates of the predicate acts, the participants in the
predicate acts, and a description of the facts surrounding the predicate
acts;
RESPONSE: Subsequent to the 1993 enactment of the NVRA continuously
every year before the enactment of the 2002 HAVA and now concurrently
both are involved in annual filing for HAVA reimbursement using the overly
vague VAP formula. That by operation of New York state election law and
believed of other states of the several states, that the system of bottom-up
and or top-down registration and voting compliance as determines
requirements for the number and placement of existing voting machines as
RICO Statement Page 21 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

well as proposed EVM, is impacted by individuals being urged to register, would act politically and invest their vote for candidates promising

register while signing nominating petitions; and since there is no witness to Election cost burden relief on owners per EL §4-138.

mail-in registration may be done by anyone at any time or place inside or c) The NVRA mail-in registration Form found by those who would register

outside the respective state responsible for detecting, and preventing at all state and private agencies doing business with the state of each state

misrepresentation and fraud. of the several states as well as with political committees acquiring ballot

(C) If the RICO claim is based on the predicate offenses of wire fraud, access for candidates in the process of petitioning and building state party
mail fraud, or fraud in the sale of securities the ³circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.´ Fed. R. organization.
Civ. P. 9(b). Identify the time, place and contents of the alleged
misrepresentations, and the identity of persons to whom and by whom d) That absentee ballot voting as an accessory associated with NVRA and
the alleged misrepresentations were made;
HAVA registration has been adopted by each state of the several states
RESPONSE:
and territories facilitates the pattern and scheme to defraud Plaintiffs.
1. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY MAIL FRAUD:
e) Use of the U.S. Postal Service to bill EAC for falsified HAVA
a) In the matter of the various New York municipal subdivisions engaged in
Compliance figures using broad rather than narrow definition of VAP per
a billing pattern of Medicaid by real property tax levy is done without an
respective state laws, that the amended complaint paragraphs 194 thru
earmark segregation to conceal the amount from real property owners
207 give detail in the case of how California, Texas and New York are
and voters, who if they were informed would act politically and invest
affected by a broad to narrow interpretation of VAP based upon rigorous
their vote in other candidates who would relieve the burden placed upon
use of the respective state laws.
them under Social Services Law by local government
2. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY WIRE FRAUD:
b) Billing of increased HAVA costs without segregation as pre-exists in the
a) Use of phones and communications by campaign workers and non-profit
Medicaid billing pattern and previous EL §4-138 levies, done to conceal
organizations to notify illegal aliens and or illegal registered voters to
the scheme from real property owners and voters who if duly notified
vote and or cast an absentee ballot.

RICO Statement Page 22 of 50 RICO Statement Page 23 of 50

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

b) Use of the news media by the beneficiary of illegal votes and registration March 23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ ±

to intentionally tell lies in order to directly assist illegal aliens and those without proper parties and proper jurisdiction over subject matter appears as

not entitled to register to in fact register and vote illegally. a friendly suit.

c) Use of the media to promote myths of the Florida election debacle in (F) Describe how the predicate acts form a ³pattern of racketeering
activity´;
conjunction with OSCE and other international intentions to interfere
RESPONSE:
with state and national elections.
1. Malicious refusal of NYS BOE to create a real-time voter registration
3. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD IN EXTORTION USED BY PUBLIC
OFFICIALS: database:

a) State Subdivisions taking of real property owners who question Medicaid a) That NYS BOE and ³bi-partisan´ agents in regards to 1962 (a)(b)(c)(d)

and HAVA false billings on both the tax levy by concealment and have since 1993 passage of NVRA until the present have intentionally

subterfuge failed to developed a real time central voter database as then under

b) By government officials acting under color of authority with force of law NVRA and now required by HAVA to be done by January 1, 2006 ±

(D) State whether there has been a criminal conviction for violation of intentionally was not done.
each predicate act;
b) That NYS BOE and its agents are in conspiracy with the Pataki
RESPONSE: None that Plaintiffs are aware of.
Executive as evidenced by 237 pages of Correspondence disclosed by
(E) State whether civil litigation has resulted in a judgment in regard to
each predicate act: executive chambers in which 230 of 237 pages of correspondence are

RESPONSE: alleged exempt from FOIL - requires release by court order,

That on March 1, 2006 the DOJ filed a civil complaint in Northern District c) That NYS BOE delay creates plausible denial to avoid any EL Article 17

of New York against the NYS BOE and associated entities in the case USA enforcement or prevention of registration and voting fraud, in expectation

v. NYS BOE 06-cv-263 is seen as prohibited friendly suit by glaring of Federal reimbursement now available under HAVA.

disparities between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on 2. Inflated Registrations used for HAVA Billing
RICO Statement Page 24 of 50 RICO Statement Page 25 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
a) That NYS BOE delay intentionally inflated registrations for the purposes
of receiving greater HAVA reimbursement from EAC.
b) That NYS BOE coordinated the intentional inflated registrations with
various municipal sub-division boards of election ³bi-partisan´ agents.
c) That NYS BOE filed false HAVA compliance billings with EAC, the
DOJ has rubber stamped the submission and certified for EAC for
payment totaling about $221 million that was received by NYS BOE and
placed under the control of the State Controller and Commissioner of
Finance in a commercial Bank accruing interest,
3. Expenditure of Interest on HAVA Principal on Deposit
a) That according to public reports NYS BOE is expending the interest on
the principal held in escrow pending litigation in USA v. NYS BOE
NDNY 06-cv-263,
b) That 06-cv-263 is seen as a prohibited friendly suit by glaring disparities
between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on March
23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ ± appears as
a friendly suit.
4. Rigged insiders list of Electronic Voting Machines Vendors
a) That NYS BOE requires Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) from ES&S,
Sequoia, and Liberty international corporations with securities held by
RICO Statement Page 26 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
fact not exist as a matter of voting record from every election by paper tape
coordinated with voter number ³bi-partisan´ gerrymandering every tens
years by packing racking or stacking total person without regard to actual
eligible voters guarantee by consent not competition re-election of party
sinecures who in super majority like gangster run protection operations to
maintain the non-profit organizations a the local government level to loot the
Medicaid system and every line item on the cooked book budget, spread
walk-around-money buying votes and favors to fix and predetermine
elections.
2. At the National Level there is no accountability for what each state does
within or without and the ³Bi-partisan nature of the DOJ acting in a totally
politically motivated fashion in effect run protection for each of fifty
enterprises which are now coordinated for maximum bills of pain and
penalties generated by the Congress who also with the consent nature of
conducting elections in New York state and Plaintiffs are sure exists nearly
as corruptly in the other state of the several state especially California and
Texas feature in comparison in the sixth Cause of Action in paragraphs 194
thru 207.
3. At the International level through the auspice of the U.S. State Department
and Central Intelligence Agency as with the OSCE / ODIHR and other
RICO Statement Page 28 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
foreign governments and or foreign citizens, were chosen even though
the same companies have been found lacking by Florida and other states
of the several states in meeting compliance, and in the home country of
origin Ireland as well refuses to use Liberty EVMs.
b) That NYS BOE in conjunction with agents of the various Municipal
Defendants, seemingly with the exception of Niagara and Cayuga
Counties, are involved in transactions with the foreign held electronic
voting machine vendors, under rules devised by NYS BOE, to secure
unjust enrichment, and autocratic control over patronage policy and
purse.
(G) State whether the alleged predicate acts relate to each other as part
of a common plan. If so, describe in detail.
RESPONSE: Yes, the above predicates relate to each other as part of a
common plan:
1. in New York have two stages first to secure as much money from the
Federal Treasury as possible and in stage two to tighten ³bi-partisan´ control
over patronage policy and purse for the purposes of taking Real property by
extorting owners and at the same time secure top down control over
individual expectation of suffrage at every election using prime voter lists as
a crib sheet and notwithstanding the absolute myth of a secret vote does in
RICO Statement Page 27 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
organizations interfering in other sovereign countries, like the Council for
Hemispheric Affairs is overseeing and interfering in Central American
elections, and that somehow Hugo Chavez of Venezuela with copious oil
reserves, the new Fidel Castro of the hemisphere, has acquired interest in
Sequoia Industries whose employees in March counted the Chicago Election
Votes (9).
9
³CHICAGO BALLOT CHAOS - NEW COMPUTER VOTE MACHINES MALFUNCTION, UNVERIFIABLE´
By Christopher Bollyn ± American Free press Published March 27, 2006 - COOK COUNTY, Illinois²Chicago¶s use of
a flawed computerized voting system operated by a privately held foreign company reveals how meaningless and
absurd the ³democratic´ process in America has become. Having observed voting systems across Europe, from
Serbia, Germany and Estonia to Holland and France, this reporter has noted that the most honest and transparent
elections are also the most simple.
The more complicated methods of voting, such as the unverifiable computerized voting systems widely used
across the United States, lack the most essential element of democratic elections²transparency.
The $50 million touch-screen and optical-scan voting system provided by Sequoia Voting Systems failed
across Chicago and suburban Cook County during the March 21 Illinois primary. However, the leading corporate-
controlled newspapers merely lamented the failures of the system without addressing its fundamental flaws or even
reporting that the company running the election is foreign-owned.
The ³high-tech´ computerized voting system was ³cumbersome´ and ³slow,´ one mainstream Chicago
newspaper reported. The machines failed across the county causing ³plenty of frustration and confusion for voters,´
the paper reported. The ballots and votes from more than 400 precincts were still uncounted two days after the
election due to machine malfunctions and lost memory cartridges which contain the results.
Reports from other dailies noted that as of noon Wednesday, Chicago was missing memory cartridges from
252 polling stations while Cook County officials ³couldn¶t find´ the results from 162 suburban precincts.
Election officials tried to assure the public that although nobody knew where all the ballots and computerized
memory cartridges were, they were ³most assuredly not lost.´
³I don¶t trust that,´ U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said. ³This is Chicago. This is Cook County. We created
vote fraud, vote scandal and stealing votes. We created that mechanism. It became an art form.´
³Ballot chaos´ is how another large Chicago newspaper described the situation in which the votes from
hundreds of precincts could not be found or counted on Election Night.
³We have accounted for the votes,´ Langdon Neal, city election chairman told the publication. ³What we
haven¶t been able to do is count them.´
In one precinct on the Near South Side, for example, the Sequoia optical scanner failed to register anything
but Republican ballots. Although ³election officials´ tried to repair the machine four times, by the end of the day it had
failed to register a single Democratic ballot in a precinct in which some 86 percent of the voters are Democrats.
When this reporter went to vote, the touch-screen machine went completely dead as the voter in front of me
pressed the button to print. When the poll workers were asked if other voters had had similar problems with the
equipment they said it had happened all day and showed me an unplugged machine that had broken down earlier.
When the polls closed at 7 p.m., American Free Press was at the Cook County Clerk¶s office to see how the
votes were tallied.
Citizens in Chicago, as in most American cities, are, however, forbidden from viewing or participating in the
any aspect of the vote-counting process.
RICO Statement Page 29 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

(6) Describe in detail the alleged enterprise for each RICO claim. A
The so-called counting of the votes is managed by some two dozen employees of Sequoia Voting Systems,
description of the enterprise shall include the following information:
a privately held foreign company. These employees, many of whom are not even U.S. citizens, have ³full access´ to
the ³back room area,´ a sealed-off section of the 5th floor of the county clerk¶s office which is called the ³tally area.´ (A) State the names of the individuals, partnerships, corporations,
In Chicago, the person in charge of the tallying of the votes was a British employee of Sequoia named David
Allen from London. Allen, who ran the ³Sequoia War Room´ in an office next to that of Cook County Clerk David Orr,
associations, or other legal entities, which allegedly constitute the
oversaw the ³tally room´ team, which included a dozen Venezuelan employees, who operated the hidden computer enterprise;
equipment that counts the votes.
As American Free Press has noted before, there are wire services such as the Associated Press, who could
be seen having direct connections leading from their computers to the hidden mainframe computer of the Sequoia
RESPONSE: Liberty- each set of Board of Directors, as well as the entity
tallying system located behind the wall on the 5th floor of the clerk¶s office.
Senior executives from Sequoia Voting Systems and from its partner company, Smartmatic, such as affiliates of the National Association of Secretaries of States : CT
company president Jack A. Blaine and Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, vice president of special operations, also
had ³full access´ to the tally area.
Sequoia, which was previously held by the British-based firm De La Rue PLC, a company, which produces Corporation System, Dun & Bradstreet, Saber Consulting, West,
bank notes, travelers checks and cash handling equipment, was merged or combined with Smartmatic in March
2005.
Smartmatic, which has a U.S.-based office in Boca Raton, Fla., is headed by three young Venezuelans Covansys, Hart InterCivic, IBM Government Industry, InfoSENTRY,
along with Blaine, a former vice president with Unisys. A dozen Venezuelans could be seen managing the most
sensitive aspects of the recent election in Chicago. ManTech International, NIC, PCC Technology Group, Saber Consulting,
Smartmatic, the parent company of Sequoia Voting Systems, obtained the company for a ³ridiculously low
amount of money,´ Charles D. Brady, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital Inc., said at the time of the merger.
While De La Rue purchased 85 percent of Sequoia in 2002 for $35 million, it reportedly sold the growing UNISYS, X.Systems, 3M Touch Systems, Accenture eDemocracy Services,
global company for only $16 million in 2005. Tracey Graham, then president of Sequoia, said more than 30
organizations had expressed interest in buying her company, yet no names of other bidders were given citing
³confidentiality agreements.´ AccuPoll, Inc., Alpha Data Services, Diebold Election Systems, Inc.,
The chief officers of Sequoia-Smartmatic are two 32-year old Venezuelans from Caracas, Antonio Mugica
and Alfredo Anzola. Anzola also works as a Venezuela-based lawyer brokering international oil deals with the
Election Data Services, Inc., Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Indra
Cleveland law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey.
³With the combination of Sequoia and Smartmatic, both proven innovators with accomplished track records
in either the U.S. or abroad, we are creating the first truly global leader in providing voter-verified electronic voting Systems, Perfect Voting System, Sequoia Voting Systems (Sequoia),
systems,´ Blaine said in March 2005 when the merger was announced.
There is, however, nothing verifiable about the Sequoia voting system used in Cook County. The voter has no way of
knowing if his vote has been counted or how it was counted. UniLect Corporation, Caliper Corporation, ESRI, Inc., n-Tier Technology,
The absolute lack of transparency in U.S. voting systems yields unverifiable election results, which can only
be accepted on faith. In Chicago voters are asked to trust the results produced by malfunctioning machines operated
by a privately owned foreign company.
Quest Information Systems, VOTEC Corporation, VoteHere, Inc., Bureau
Asked about the nature of the foreign company that runs elections in Cook County, Scott Burnham,
spokesman for Cook County Clerk Orr simply said, ³Ask Sequoia´ and hung up the phone. Asked about the of National Affairs, Inc., CCH, Inc., Altria Corporate Services, Inc., CPS
ownership of the privately held company, Allen, who supervised the tally, refused to answer and handed the phone to
Michelle Shafer, the company¶s vice president and spokesperson.
Pressed about Allen¶s citizenship, Shafer finally admitted that the Sequoia employee who oversaw the tally Human Resource Services, ESRI, Inc. , Alpha Data Services, and the Board
was, indeed, a British citizen who had been assisted by a team of Venezuelans.
Dimas Ulacio, one of the Venezuelan technicians who worked in the tally area spoke with American Free
Press. ³Who really owns Sequoia?´ Ulacio was asked. ³Is Sequoia-Smartmatic truly a Venezuelan company or is it a
of Directors of each.
British-owned company masquerading as a Venezuelan company?´
Ulacio laughed but refused to answer.
While a high percentage of the precinct results²about 90 percent²are usually reported within one hour of
the polls closing, the Sequoia system failed to produce any results for nearly two hours. Only 44 percent of the
(B) Describe the structure, purpose, function and course of conduct of
precinct results had been reported four hours after the polls closed. the enterprise;
The widespread failures of the Sequoia voting system in the Cook County election, Shafer said, made for a
³very typical Election Day in a jurisdiction where they are changing voting technology.´ Rather than blame the
machines, Shafer blamed human error. (Issue #14, April 5, 2006) ±

RICO Statement Page 30 of 50 RICO Statement Page 31 of 50

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

RESPONSE: To control the outcome of elections on a state and national when acting on a ³bi-partisan´ basis by consent which omits the general

level, and unjust enrichment; in the matter of EVM state laws are delivering public notice and makes decisions in a star chamber.

too much control of a constitutionally protected right in the hands of private

companies and have weakened the vote verification process.
(C) State whether any defendants are employees, officers or directors of
the alleged enterprise;
(7) State and describe in detail whether you are alleging that the pattern of
racketeering activity and the enterprise are separate or have merged into one
entity.
RESPONSE: Once the EVM are acquired there will not be a difference between

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs believe there is an overlap among state officials the entities and the public and private side of state and national government;

through the NASS however have not coordinated the overlap between however at present plaintiffs do not know if the EVM entities are interdigitated

Defendants and above entities with New York State defendants, and are not informed of the relationship

(D) State whether any defendants are associated with the alleged
enterprise;
RESPONSE: Defendants are associated by the nature of the mandate of
Congress to purchase EVM and central database under the vague broad
definition of VAP.
(E) State whether you are alleging that the defendants are individuals or
entities separate from the alleged enterprise, or that the defendants are
the enterprise itself, or members of the enterprise; and
RESPONSE: there is a commercial relationship between the Defendants and
entities.
elsewhere except by press reports as with Chicago¶s March 2006 Election, that is
an important example in footnote #9.
(8) Describe the alleged relationship between the activities of the enterprise
and the pattern of racketeering activity. Discuss how the racketeering activity
differs from the usual and daily activities of the enterprise, if at all.
RESPONSE: In New York unlike in other states of the several states, that the
compliance process is tightly control by unelected ³bi-partisan´ insiders as
opposed to being done by ³non-partisan´ professional manner, or those elected
officials without an appearance of impropriety.

(F) If any defendants are alleged to be the enterprise itself, or members
of the enterprise, explain whether such defendants are perpetrators,
passive instruments, or victims of the alleged racketeering activity.
RESPONSE: The various Secretaries of states, Commissioners of the
various Boards are absolutely members of the enterprise, and especially
RICO Statement Page 32 of 50
(9) Describe what benefits, if any the alleged enterprise receives from the
alleged pattern of racketeering.
RESPONSE: Defendant natural persons as a matter of public employment operate
in a quid pro quo within the ³bi-partisan´ structure in New York, plaintiffs are not
RICO Statement Page 33 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
familiar with the public officials of the other states of the several states and
territories, but note that if not operating in a non-partisan fashion lack the
necessary ³sunshine´ to escape the appearance of impropriety.
(10) Describe the effect of the activities of the enterprise on interstate or
foreign commerce.
RESPONSE: The sale of EVM by agents of a foreign government especially
that of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, by active investment, empowers such
foreign government(s) with the capability to effect the outcome of state and
national elections, and creates the basis for every state of the several states to
become subject to the manufacturing requirements of countries and
government not under the authority and jurisdiction of the state and or
United States of America.
(11) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), provide the
following information:
(A) State who received the income derived from the pattern of
racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt; and
RESPONSE:
1. In the state of New York, it is believed that only the State has received the
$221 million in HAVA dollars as yet, however since the 1993
implementation of NVRA the costs for conversion to a central database on a
yearly tax levy basis have been levied paid and dispensed not only to ³bi-
RICO Statement Page 34 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
6. That private EVM entities, associated with NASS have received HAVA $$$
from other states of the several states and territories.
(B) Describe the use or investment of such income.
RESPONSE:
1. The $221 million received by the NYS BOE has accrued interest, and
Plaintiffs believe the interest is being spent for operations of NYS BOE
and related activities; plaintiffs do not believe any money has been
disbursed to the State sub-divisions yet.
2. Plaintiffs are not aware how the Election related levied funds paid for by
real property owners has been used; however, contend the funds became
fungible and could have been used for anything except NVRA, HAVA
and Elections costs because they were not earmarked or segregated.
3. Plaintiffs compare how local governments use of EL §4-138 levied
election funds that are questionably fungible in the respective
municipality, as Medicaid funds are paid after levy on real property
before a respective local government actually pays the New York
Commissioner of Finance for the Commissioner of Health overseeing
Medicaid funds, and as such there is not interim accountability
RICO Statement Page 36 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
partisan´ employees of the various Municipal Boards and State Board but to
many private consultants and contractors as well whose names not known at
this time.
2. As for the other states of the several states, who have received compliance
money a long time before New York, money has flowed for purchase of
equipment and compliance software and database outsourcing- however
exact amounts are not known at this time.
3. That NYS BOE has received payment from EAC approximately totaling
$221 million and placed under the control of the State Controller and
Commissioner of Finance in a commercial Bank account now accruing
interest
4. That Plaintiffs are not aware of the exact total received by the other states of
the several states and territories, however in fact is part of the public record
having been published in the Federal Register, and are not aware of the how
the individual sums are being utilized to date.
5. The NYS Sub-division local governments since implementation of the
NVRA in 1993 and since HAVA in 2002 have been on an annual basis
pursuant to EL §4-138 levying the costs of NVRA, HAVA compliance
along with other election costs upon real property within the respective
municipality.
RICO Statement Page 35 of 50
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT
(12) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), describe in
detail the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in or control of the
alleged enterprise.
RESPONSE:
a) That in New York, the ³bi-partisan´ nature of the Board of Elections both
at the State and Municipal level, in which 47 municipalities by operation
of law are a nullity under application and administration of the state
constitution; however, appear to be maintained by partisanship much like
appears in a plantation system rather than Homerule autonomous entities
serving the people within,
b) That such a contorted configuration of municipalities shown by the New
York Municipal Subdivision History 1683 thru 2006 Chart in paragraph
175 of the Amended Complaint compared with total population and
persons eligible to vote within each municipality since 1964, and by
operation of law New York absolutely precludes participation by nearly
40% of those Registered and or those entitled to register and vote, and
c) That in New York there is an absolute blur in the difference between
public and private interests in the operation of elections conducted by
local government similarly overlaps state control over ballot access that
circumvents municipal authority under the state constitution, and very
much resembles the blur of authority in the management of the biggest
RICO Statement Page 37 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

State Budget line item Medicaid that in 2005 spent $45.5 billion, and in 4. That according to 18 USC §1961(1)(F)

that regard January 2006 DOJ has been impelled to act, only after being 5. That in regards to patterns of fraud:

put through shear embarrassment to find that New York publicly and a.) 18 USC 1961(1) multiple acts in violation of a single statute, and or

privately have committed fraud abuse and profiteering that should be b.) multiple acts in violation of more than one statute

characterized as racketeering as well as false filings with the U.S. (i.)Any RICO pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering, and as

Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Treasury, such the patterns existence may turn on the meaning of the term,

which is the subject of the WDNY case 05-cv-395. and

(13) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), provide the (ii.) Beyond individual real and personal property used in transaction of
following information:
proprietary business, whether individual suffrage is proprietary
(A) State who is employed by or associated with the enterprise; and
property that as with any business may not be passed-on to
RESPONSE:
another, and the investment of such capital is spent at a primary
1. From the NYS BOE for two tears alone Peter Kosinski and now since
and general election that empowers the winning candidate with
late 2005 Stanley Zalen are active members of the NASS promoting
authority to fulfill promises made during the campaign that
NVRA and HAVA, traveling nationally and associating with
absolutely effect the individuals liberty and effectiveness of a
international efforts around oversight and control of election done by
citizen in association with like minded individual citizens similarly
OSCE / ODIHR associated with equipment manufactures.
invested.
2. That outsourcing of database and election management privatizes
(iii.) In New York the prima facie evidence of multiple and or false
otherwise public fiduciary functions;
registrations under the NVRA and HAVA having destroyed the
3. That without creating an actual cause of action under HAVA creates a
protective firewall afforded in the 1894 State Constitution with
firewall protecting the enterprise fraud from normal 42 USC 1983
exclusive municipal control over the original database has been
litigation requires RICO investigation methods.
RICO Statement Page 38 of 50 RICO Statement Page 39 of 50

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

eliminated as exampled in the Amended Complaint Background regarding the January 17 thru 20, 2006 Cooperstown New York meeting

examples in paragraphs 54 & 55, indicates the fiduciary duty of in Otsego County of the Organization of County Boards of

NYS BOE to maintain a central database to check for and prevent Commissioners sponsored by the voting machine manufacturers and

fraud and misrepresentation, would be similarly evidenced in every vendors http://www.ntsdata.com/nyseca/index.htm using questionable

state of the several states and territories. lobbying of municipalities, was witnessed by Dennis Karius, while at the

6. Under the Hobbs Act ± 18 USC 1961(1) (b) applies when: request of the EVM Vendors for example the Women¶s League were dis-

(A) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs delays or effects commerce invited.

or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by extortion b) That in the matter of public disclosure regarding the state responsibility

or conspiracy to do. to detect and prevent misrepresentation and fraud, is exampled by the

(B) (1) the term (Robbery) means the unlawful taking or obtaining of Florida Leon County elections supervisor who had determined that

personal property from the person under color of official right. Diebold had fraudulently maintained proprietary software which allowed

(B) State whether the same entity is both the liable ³person´ and the for fraudulent modification of vote results without detection, when
³enterprise´ under § 1962(c).
actually hacked was discovered, the software provider refused disclosure,
RESPONSE:
withdrew, and upon issuing new Request for Proposal (RFP) Sequoia and
a) There is a quasi-public side of state entity persons in the form of Election
ES&S when learning of the disclosure in the specification also withdrew
Board(s), Bureau(s) and Department(s) of Secretary of State, along with
refusing to allow review of proprietary programs that would allow fraud
the patronage structure created under Government control that enables
to occur undetected- just within the last two weeks Diebold has had
private participation by corporate entities whose employees and directors
second thought and has in fact complied and provided machines to Leon,
collaborate both publicly by public request for proposals (RFP) and
but neither Sequoia nor ES&S have done so in New York under the star
privately at private lobby events generally not open to the public - as
chamber process, as they refused in Florida.
evidenced by the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest
RICO Statement Page 40 of 50 RICO Statement Page 41 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

(14) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), describe in a) Disproportionate Dilution Diminished expectation of Vote effectiveness and
detail the alleged conspiracy.
strength of plaintiffs suffrage capital affected differently on a municipal by
RESPONSE:
municipal basis, statewide and nationally;
a) So-called ³Bi-partisanship´ by consent not competition barring participation by
b) The scheme to defraud absolutely offsets of votes imposed by citizen(s)
nearly 40% of the electorate establishes an inherent conspiracy for control,
multiple voting, the civilly dead voting and any alien voting and or registering;
especially when not done without sunshine, as referenced by the SOS about
c) loss or diminishment of real property and personal property value as a result of
³Executive sessions´ in the Amended Complaint on paragraph 181, in which
concealment and extortion involved in the local tax levy as under both EL §4-
star chamber control over patronage policy and purse in New York that since
138 and Medicaid cost imposition, without earmark and segregation;
the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in WMCA has created the basis for
(16) Describe the direct causal relationship between the alleged injury and the
backroom government by consent rather not competition - must require strict violation of the RICO statute.

scrutiny review of patterns and product of fraud under color of NVRA / HAVA; RESPONSE:

b) At the national level the private National Association of Secretaries of State a) Congress has used a vague broad use of VAP rather than the narrow CVAP that

under its chairwoman, the duly elected SOS of New Mexico herein joined would expressly be dependent upon a respective state constitution and related

herein by due service, with private corporate entities, coordinates public private laws.

interstate / international partnerships on basis that applies the glue for the deals b) The Florida 2000 Election process was rigged to produce the end result of

necessary for NVRA, OSCE/ODIHR and HAVA imposition to work outside of HAVA starting in 1994 by the Clinton administration whose intent with use of

elected representation and effective public oversight in the sunshine. OSCE / ODIHR personnel was to probe the weaknesses and opportunities to

(15) Describe the alleged injury to business or property. use the media to propagandize for passage HAVA to effect further top-down

RESPONSE: control over elections.

c) That Congress intended to circumvent the Federal Constitution Article I section

4 provision of equal time place and manner provision under State plenary
RICO Statement Page 42 of 50 RICO Statement Page 43 of 50

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

control starting no later than 1991 when the New Europe Charter was entered, US Citizen rights unequally protect and treating plaintiffs and those similarly

circumvented doing an Article 5 constitutional amendment with NVRA, next situated by New York State Defendants and would also cover U.S. Citizen

combined with bogus issues using the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) treatment interstate by those state Defendants of the several states to numerous

strawman, that with the Dayton Accords new borders provisional voting scam to name and that Federal Defendants per the Bivens(10) ruling violate 4th 5th 8th

now being used in New Orleans following major population relocation due to 9th 10th 13th and 15th as are all alleged in the Amended Complaint twelve

the Katrina Hurricane. injuries paragraph 208 thru 221,

d) The EVM industry ongoing coordination with the ³bi-partisan´ nature of the b) That in New York under NVRA and HAVA there is a conflict of interest with

conduct of elections which in many states especially New York bars non- ³bi-partisan´ provision of Elections which bar non-partisan participation that

partisan participation are working together to corner the permanent cash flow involves denial of equal treatment; that on its face requires strict scrutiny in

for the annual bottom-line made available at each and every local to national review of a product of fraud.

election as a captive profit center for private industry, even if nothing else as a c) That each Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a jus tertii class in 47

matter the appearance of impropriety undermining public confidence in of 58 municipalities with a board of elections within have no dedicated

elections are none the less intent on controlling the substantive outcome as representative voice in the state assembly for the Homerule interests of the

vendors with an inside political track. people within; until merged and or consolidated the municipalities are to be

e) Absolute refusal of the State BOE and NYSAG to prevent harboring of illegal deemed a nullity by proper administration and application of the state

aliens, illegal registration and vote fraud associated without a real time central constitution related laws.

database. d) That the unjust enrichment of New York Defendants in willful violation of

(17) List the damages sustained for which each defendant is allegedly liable. fiduciary duty in the matter of need to verify citizenship and cross check for

RESPONSE: 10
Federal civil rights violation - BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388
th th th
a) As a matter of civil rights injuries under color of the NVRA and HAVA related (1971) is a 4 and 5 amendment violation of civil rights by Federal officials as opposed to a 14
Amendment violation by State officials, - differentiated from the RICO matter of Bivens Gardens Office
Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Banks of Fla., Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 908 (11 Cir. 1998); see at 496-97 Sedima,
state law the amended complaint covers both the 14th amendment violation of S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3285 (1985) ± as both apply differently herein.
RICO Statement Page 44 of 50 RICO Statement Page 45 of 50
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

multiple residency registration with a central database, that since no later than 10% surcharge over above the rate of inflation upon plaintiffs¶ revenue and cost

implementation of the NVRA, the state of New York has promulgated dilution of living so that a person with a mean per capita income of say $24,000.00 per

and offset of Plaintiffs suffrage capital; and annum has a rate of loss of capital worth imposed at say $2,400.00 per year

e) As a simple compensable amount, as if the dollar figure were to be applied to compounded annually, pro-rated and accruing increasingly since 1996 that

say equal the total spent on campaign finance matters, both public and private would total an a significant sum;

expenditures for any general election by all candidate committees appearing on h) Variation in the intrastate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138

the ballot, is not at all a nominal amount place upon plaintiffs and those differently than in NYC;

similarly situated as part of total damages, and would have to be offset by a i) Variation in the interstate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138

commensurate amount for alternative results for competitive expectation of differently than in NYC, however is alleged to be increased overall to the state

plaintiffs vote effectiveness; of New York;

f) In New York actual financial injury must be factored into long-term neglect of j) The transfer of HAVA funds in the purchase of EVM effects the trade balance;

the ³bi-partisan´ to correct and implement not only the need for an economy of (18) List all other federal causes of action, if any, and provide the relevant
statute numbers.
scale that economic merger and consolidation of municipalities, but for reform
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs are not aware of any other than those six causes presented
of the Judiciary to provide equal plain speedy and efficient remedy in the
here, which involves 42 USC 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 (1988); 31 USC 3729 thru
various Judicial Districts pertaining to real property but in the 20 year neglect of
3733, and under the INA the Logan Act applies when aliens are enticed with social
budgetary reform and cost of government is a burden passed down to real
services, education, housing employment and citizenship privilege and harbored,
property owners differently on a municipal by municipal basis;
given sanctuary without permission of Congress, violates 18 USC 953.
g) Easily, the loss of Plaintiffs vote investment capital without free and fair
(19) List all pendent state claims, if any.
elections under New York ³bi-partisan´ autocracy as a parallel compared to the
RESPONSE: We are not aware of any in the State of New York Supreme Court;
Medicaid fraud proof established, is believed to impose no less than an annual
however, In California, paper voting is making a comeback. The Associated Press
RICO Statement Page 46 of 50 RICO Statement Page 47 of 50

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-CV-0080 RICO STATEMENT

reports in the Monterey Herald that seven California counties sued for using c) However, despite the censure NYC continues the ³don¶t ask don¶t tell´ policy

disputed Diebold touch-screen machines have removed themselves from the especially in regards to provision of education, Medicaid, involving Federal

lawsuit by promising to use paper ballots in their next election. Alameda County, matching assistance to minors within the K thru 12 school system operating

on the other hand, has chosen on its own to return to paper, as noted in The Contra under a state issued identification system (much like that imposed by HAVA)

Costa Times. In 2004, Alameda's previous vendor, Diebold, paid over two million with intent to circumvent the Social Security Act system to harbor illegal aliens,

dollars to settle a lawsuit involving false claims made when the machines were who according to the NYS Court of Appeals Decision in the CFE case in NYC

sold. The county hopes these problems "are behind them" as Election Day minor aliens constitute of 80% of all children in the system (notwithstanding

approaches. Plyler v Doe which is not meant to be enabling legislation merely and

interpretation narrowly defined for those plaintiffs that should be revisited);

(20) Provide any additional information that you feel would be helpful to the
Court in processing your RICO claim. d) That a seditious New York State Supreme Court Justice held the executive

RESPONSE: policy to withhold of drivers licensure from illegal aliens as unconstitutional

a) In regards to illegal provision of Medicaid to any illegal alien the state has and therefore a result there is no objective barrier for illegals to pose as US

recently had $32.5 million offset by the HHS; although the same state agencies Citizens in New York and elsewhere, and as such facilitates illegals registering

are not involved, nevertheless the sub-division municipalities are presenting and voting;

exhibiting a similar pattern of tax levy as with the EL §4-138 whose ongoing e) That Additional information that would be helpful for the Court is set forth in:

predicates are expected in provision of HAVA false billing. 1) the Chart of Challenged HAVA Funds Distribution Based upon the State of

b) That the city of New York in City of New York v. United States in SDNY Case New York Board of Elections 31 December 2004 Central Database for Voter

96-cv-7758 (JGK), and U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit 97-6162 (closed), has been Registration sorted by Percentage of Inactive Persons registered to vote in

admonished by the Federal courts for its ³don¶t ask don¶t tell´ policy as an one or more municipalities maintained by a total of 62 questionable Boards

unwarranted obstruction of INA in harboring illegal aliens;

RICO Statement Page 48 of 50 RICO Statement Page 49 of 50

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E
 EXTREME MAKEOVER: ALBANY a state of dysfunction

Excelsior, New York's motto of 'ever upward,' has evolved to mean ever
outward,' as tens of thousands of people flee Albany's tyranny; it's time to
get them back

By KEVIN WALTER
News Editorial Writer
4/30/2006
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060430/1071401.asp

The decision to move from New York could hardly have been more agonizing for Connie and
Tony Toledo, but they felt they had no choice. Tony had been laid off, and the state's hostile
business policies undermined the towing business he subsequently started. So the family left
Buffalo for North Carolina.

It was 2001 when Tony said goodbye to his lifelong hometown and Connie's adopted home of
15 years. The move devastated everyone: Tony, a product of Lafayette High School and a
devoted Bills fan; his father, Daniel, distraught over his son's departure; and the couple's oldest
child, Rachelle, a high school freshman and cheerleader who tumbled into a yearlong
depression.

"It was rough," remembered Connie.

The Toledos and other families whose experiences are recounted here are but a few of
hundreds of thousands of people who fled upstate New York over the past 40 years. They didn't
leave because of too much snow, or the Bills' Super Bowl frustrations, or lack of a new Peace
Bridge; they didn't decamp for Florida, North Carolina or Arizona because they liked hurricanes,
drought and wildfires.

They left to survive, to find work and an affordable cost of living, with a survivable tax burden.
They relocated to escape a state government that's beholden to special labor, lawyer and
lobbying interests and pays scant attention to taxpayers' needs.

It's not new that New Yorkers pulled up stakes - Excelsior, the state's motto, meaning "ever
upward," seems modified to "ever outward" - or that Albany's government continually
undermines its people. But the time is long past to try to fix it.

In this article and in editorials today through Thursday, The Buffalo News sets out to offer
solutions to a dysfunctional state government. They include a constitutional amendment on term
limits; objective redistricting to create competitive elections; further breaking the power of three
leaders in Albany; developing electoral accountability, rather than responsiveness to special
interests; and re-establishing a two-party system, with legitimate divergent philosophies that
EXHIBIT F give voters a choice and legislators a vision. Finally, and perhaps most doable, voters need to

1
shrug off their slumber and fight back, taking power and demanding meaningful reforms after
they throw the bums out.
For their part, the Toledo family tried to stay, wanted to stay. Unable to find work after he was
laid off from International Imaging - just eight months after the birth of the couple's third child -
Tony cashed in his retirement savings and borrowed $25,000 from his parents to start a towing
business. But he said that under the weight of the region's weak economy and New York's
exorbitant worker's compensation costs, the venture collapsed. They had to go.
Here is the difference between the economies of Buffalo and Greensboro, N.C. Once Tony
started looking for work there, it took only a couple of days to land a job and a relocation
package. He now works for Golden State Foods, a supplier to McDonald's, and Connie works
as an account representative for a national mortgage company.
Rachelle, now 18 and adjusted to her new life, is a college student (education costs are lower,
the Toledos say). Finally, Tony's parents, also lifelong Buffalonians, packed up and headed
South to be near their family.
It was an ordeal, its pistons driven by the Albany job-killing machine. Still, Connie said, the
Toledos agree that their anguish never altered this fundamental fact: Because of this region's
feeble economy and the obstacles New York puts in the way of business, they were left without
an alternative.
"It was the best decision we could have made," she said.
Numbers set the stage
The numbers only begin to tell the woeful tale of New York, but they make a stark beginning. The figures
- on tax burdens, public spending and population transfer, among others - outline a story of a government
run amok and a state run into the ditch.
But numbers are cold. They only hint at the repercussions they have dealt to the residents of
this woefully mismanaged state: fractured hopes, lost opportunities, divided families. The
reasons behind those misfortunes are multiple and complex, but from a public policy standpoint,
they distill to Albany's deluded belief that New York is still the Empire State, a realm so splendid
that Americans will pay any price to live within its golden borders.
The numbers give the lie to that milk-and-honey fantasy, as well. Here are some, from
Governing magazine's State & Local Source Book for 2005 (figures are per capita, unless
otherwise noted):
* Total tax revenue, state and local, was the nation's highest, $4,645.
* Property tax revenue was fifth-highest, $1,402.
2 3
It doesn't sound like a mother's fondest wish, but Kathleen Jarnot says she's glad her children moved
away.
Glad is a relative term, of course. Jarnot would rather her children lived nearby, but jobs are
scarce. Things would have been difficult for them had they remained in Western New York,
where the children and their parents were born. So her son Jeff left for Virginia while daughters
Susan and Jennifer headed west to California.
"We have wonderful colleges here, but the jobs are there, and I'm glad they went there," said
Jarnot, who lives with her husband Daniel in Cheektowaga.
Daniel Jarnot understands that reality, as well, but he is less forgiving of it. Not only are his
children far away, his only grandson lives in California.
"You lose the normal family life," he said. "I don't like it at all."
For his part, Jeff has few regrets about his move to Reston, Va., where he works in sales for
Oracle, the software giant. Now 36, he worked in sales here for 11/2 years after graduating from
the State University of New York at Potsdam, but soon realized opportunities for advancement
were scarce in Western New York.
In 1995, while visiting a friend in Reston, he saw that the Washington Post's "help wanted"
section was overflowing with ads. He quit his job, sent out six resumes and quickly landed a
new position after just two interviews.
"In Buffalo, you could spend a long time finding a job," he said.
Jarnot has lived in Virginia for 11 years and, but for lingering sorrow over leaving an area he still
loves, never looked back. Why would he? He is selling a house whose value has risen 300
percent since he bought it in 1997. In Cheektowaga, the sale price of the average single-family
home rose just 14 percent over the same period, according to the Buffalo Niagara Association
of Realtors. That's less than one-twentieth the rate of increase.
Badly out of step
New York didn't get this way by accident. In almost every way - economically, culturally, politically,
municipally - the state is in a class by itself. It contains within its borders extremes of wealth and poverty.
It was, and continues to be, a primary port of entry for immigrants. It includes a spectacularly complex
city that is far-and-away the nation's largest, an economic engine and power base unto itself.
As one former state legislator observed, it's no surprise that a state so steeped in diversity - and
in so many forms of it - would look different at the governmental level.
4 5
* Total spending was second highest, $10,376.
* State and local debt was second highest, $10,306.
* Welfare spending was highest, $1,699, even though the number of recipients per 10,000
residents was only 16th highest.
* K-12 education spending (state and local) was second highest, $2,001, even though school
enrollment as a share of total population was fourth lowest. Spending per-pupil was highest,
$12,059.
* The average pay of state and local employees was second highest, at $52,450.
* The state was 40th in "economic momentum," a ranking of one-year changes in employment,
personal income and population. (It's not about cold and snow, either. Wyoming, Minnesota and
New Hampshire ranked 16, 17 and 18. The Dakotas were 7 and 8.)
The consequences of such numbers are both pernicious and predictable. People are leaving.
New York's share of the national population has steadily eroded, from 9.8 percent at mid-
century to 6.5 percent last year, according to the U.S. Census.
Then, New York controlled 43 of Congress' 435 seats. Today it holds 29. That's a 32 percent
decline. Less representation, less power; less power, less money.
Growth is slow
It's not that the state isn't growing; it's just that others are growing much faster, a trend that is expected to
continue. Census projections are that from 2000 to 2030, New York will grow more slowly than all but
four states. Meanwhile, some areas within New York - including Buffalo - are, in fact, shrinking, leaving
fewer residents to pay the ever-rising tax bill.
New York is the alcoholic among the states, not simply unable to moderate its self-destructive
behavior but uninterested in doing so. What's needed is an intervention. New York needs to
treat not just the symptoms of its compulsion but the underlying disease. It needs to revitalize its
enervated democracy by injecting healthy doses of competition - which is to say, fear - into the
political process.
Independent redistricting, an effective Legislature committee system and a spirited opposition
party are three of the most important reforms needed, but none will happen unless voters
scream it into Albany's besotted face.
Otherwise, it's pass the bottle.
Families split up
But it's one thing to expect the occasional departure from national norms, and far more
consequential when government becomes a compendium of radical departures, most moving it
in damaging directions for its people's welfare.
How consequential? Enough to spawn a Legislature so deviant it has been crowned as the
country's most dysfunctional.
That's a disorder with its own consequences, including a penchant for restricting the flow of
information from, to and within the Legislature, and for delivering squeaky-wheel policies that
benefit favored groups even as they drive out jobs, opportunity and population.
Much of the reason for New York's idiosyncratic government traces to downstate, a region of
enormous political clout, vast disparities of wealth and about zero interest in Albany.
Overwhelmingly Democratic, it elects liberals who have so weighted state government to the left
that Republicans - never too conservative to begin with - are satisfied with playing me-too
politics.
Instead of offering a competing, perhaps healthier, vision of state government, the putatively
conservative party has at best surrendered and at worst joined the opposition. New York
Republicans are the ideological prisoners of their political adversaries, and content to be so.
Unchecked Republican control could be awful, too, of course (see Washington). The problem
arises from the failure of a democratic imperative: a vigorous opposition.
A spending machine
With virtually no political competition to restrain the wild horses of the Democratic left, state government
is a runaway spending machine devoted first to self-preservation, second to its sugar-daddy sponsors and,
lastly, to the New Yorkers they are sworn to represent (and then, often with an asterisk attached).
Consider:
* Spending: Even with two-thirds of the government in Republican hands (the party owns the
Senate and has held the governor's office since 1995), state spending has nonetheless risen by
an average of 6.5 percent a year, 21/2 times the average rate of inflation.
And that's with the conservatives holding sway. During the 12 years Mario M. Cuomo was
governor, when Democrats held the balance of power, annual spending increases averaged a
dizzying 11.6 percent percent, though the ratio to inflation was about the same.
And remember: Those feverish growth rates are for a state whose per-capita spending is
already the nation's second highest.
* Self-preservation: New York lawmakers are expert at drawing "designer districts" - with oddly
drawn boundaries whose purpose is to deliver to incumbents of both parties legislative districts
that only a cadaver could lose.
In complying with the constitutional requirement to ensure proportional representation, states
must draw new districts after each census. Like many states, though, New York turns what
should be a civic act into a political one, bending lines to pack enough partisans into any given
district that a candidate of the wrong party has no chance of winning. Democrats keep the
Assembly and Republicans the Senate.
As Barbara Bartoletti of the New York State League of Women Voters told a local audience this
year: "Your elected officials get to choose you before you choose them."
That's only the start of how lawmakers in New York maneuver to protect their electoral flanks.
Strategically lax rules on lobbying, fund-raising and ethics give them a huge advantage over
challengers, enough to discourage many potential opponents even from running.
In addition, New York is one of the few states with an unregulated system of "member items" -
tax dollars given to individual legislators to distribute as they see fit. It's a kind of legalized vote-
buying.
* Favored groups: If you're a health care worker, a trial lawyer or one of a few other special
interests, good news. The levers of influence are within your grasp. If you're but a taxpayer, or a
small business owner trying to make it in an unfriendly state, you'll have to get in line. Your
problems may not be completely irrelevant to lawmakers (then again, they may), but they are of
decidedly less interest.
A couple of examples: Until Congress invalidated an antiquated state statute last year, car
companies could be held liable, sometimes for millions of dollars, if one of their leasing
customers injured someone while driving the vehicle. Part of the reason that law remained on
the books is the political clout of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, which wanted to
retain a law that gave them easy access to potentially rich lawsuits. Assembly Speaker Sheldon
Silver, a lawyer, is associated with a personal injury law firm.
Even more scandalously, the state's most powerful health care labor union, SEIU Local 1199,
drove a massive increase in the state's Medicaid program a few years ago. Sitting at the public
negotiating table as Gov. George E. Pataki and the two legislative leaders hammered out the bill
was the union president, Dennis Rivera. The reason: State leaders, especially Pataki, were
intimidated by the public beating Rivera and his wealthy organization could give them. Rivera
and his interests cut to the front of the line.
* The public interest: Fair-minded people would acknowledge that the 1999 expansion of
Medicaid, which created an insurance program known as Family Health Plus, included a
legitimate public component - even if it was rammed through the Legislature for political reasons
with no hearings, no debate and no real sense of its implications. The program, serving New
York's working poor, had a March enrollment of more than half a million people.
Ah, but that asterisk. The program was, at its inception, an expensive payoff to an unelected
powerbroker. Hofstra University law professor Eric Lane is more caustic about it. A former chief
6 7
If that kind of overt criminality has largely bleached out of state government, its stain lingers in a
conspiracy of practices designed to stifle democratic debate by concentrating power in the two
legislative leaders.
Other, more legitimate reasons may also help explain that kind of autocratic power structure. By
some observers' reckoning, for example, the state's vast scale of social and economic diversity
requires a strong leadership model to prevent the chambers from splintering into hostile
factions.
Nevertheless, the parallels between the Legislature and the corrupt political boss system are
evident. In each, the leader calls the shots, and the followers - that is, the remaining 215 state
legislators - do as they're told, or else they're punished. They don't ask too many questions and
they don't have too much power, but they hold safe seats, draw healthy paychecks and, for
better or worse, leave some kind of mark on the history of New York.
"You can see Tammany Hall, without the corruption," said Lane.
A network of abuses
The Brennan Center for Justice detailed this and other government disorders two years ago in an
explosive report called "The New York State Legislative Process: An Evaluation and Blueprint for
Reform." The report, which famously (and accurately) tagged the New York State Legislature as the
nation's "most dysfunctional," contained a laundry list of offenses that empower the leaders, penalize
taxpayers and insulate the institution from the competition of adversaries and, worse, of ideas.
These include:
* A sham system of legislative committees that rarely considers pending bills and whose staffs
are beholden to each chamber's leader.
* An approval system that discourages or prevents debate on pending legislation.
* Unequal funding of legislators' staff costs, depending on their political party.
* Iron control by each leader over which bills make it to the floor for a vote. That ensures that
only bills the leaders favor can become law, and given the unhealthy influence leaders exert
over their timorous members, that every bill that comes to a vote passes.
Most broadly, the report cites five fundamental values served by a well-functioning legislature -
representativeness, deliberativeness, accessibility, accountability and efficiency - and concludes
that New York's Legislature flunks all of them. The report is available online at
www.brennancenter.org.
8 9
counsel to the State Senate minority and primary researcher on the report that tagged the
Legislature as "dysfunctional," Lane calls the Rivera power grab a "sleaze job."
If an essential part of lawmakers' job is to be good and honest stewards of New Yorkers' tax
dollars, then they failed. It's not a recent problem, either.
High taxes a burden
It didn't take Gary Newton long to figure out he was going to have to leave Western New York to pursue
a career in agriculture. Unable to find work after he graduated from the State University of New York at
Geneseo with a bachelor of science degree, he left Niagara County for the Peace Corps.
He returned to Middleport two years later but stayed less than half a year. With his best job
prospect setting out rat bait in Niagara Falls, he left again, this time to pursue his doctorate.
That was 27 years ago. In more than a quarter century, things haven't changed in upstate New
York. Or in Albany, which he believes shares responsibility for the region's economic blight.
"I have cousins and an aunt and uncle still in Western New York," said Newton, a researcher
and professor at Prairie View A&M University near Houston. "They complain about the high
taxes."
High is right, especially compared to Texas, with no income tax and property tax rates that
would make a New Yorker swoon. Newton and his wife own an 1,800-square-foot house that
sits on half an acre. Their combined property tax bill - county, city and school - is $1,500.
A quarter century on, Newton says he still misses the area, and as recently as a year ago was
looking for ways to return. A possibility at SUNY-Geneseo didn't pan out, so it's on to year 28.
Excelsior.
A history of corruption
A thread of corruption runs through the history of government in New York, especially over the past
century or so. And while today's corruption is less about criminality than it is about sustaining a
purposefully anti-democratic power structure, the roots of the tree reach deep into the soil of a felonious
past.
Tammany Hall is a prime example. The corrupt Democratic political machine that ruled New
York City politics for decades was a de facto influence on Albany, as well.
Under the influence of Tammany Hall and its then-leader, William Marcy Tweed - "Boss Tweed"
- the governor and Legislature passed laws specifically designed to give Tammany greater
ability to ply its corruption, including the outright thievery of public money.
The report caused a flurry of activity in Albany, where the state budget, late for 20 consecutive
years, arrived on time in 2005, as it did this year. And some legitimate reforms followed,
including an end to "empty-seat voting" in the Assembly. That's the process by which lawmakers
who sign in for the day were automatically counted as having voted with the majority unless they
make a point to show up and vote otherwise. The Senate's response was muddier, but
Bartoletti, of the League of Women Voters, said she's seen no substantive change.
But the history of Albany reform is to do as little as possible, declare a new day and go about
business as usual. That's what has happened since the detonation of the Brennan Center
report.
Departing is such sorrow
It pains Thomas Mullane that he had to leave his native Buffalo. And it distresses him that he
may never be able to return to an area he calls home to "some of the nicest people in the
world."
But in North Carolina, Mullane found professional success that he says would never have been
his had he remained in the economic wasteland of upstate New York. He also found lower
taxes, a friendlier business climate and citizens who do not make a lifelong project of hindering
their region's progress.
Mullane, his wife Kim and their two young children left Buffalo for Winston-Salem last May. The
39-year-old insurance investigator saw no prospect of professional advancement anywhere in
upstate New York and made the wrenching decision to leave behind not only the city he loves,
but his larger family.
It was the right choice, he said. In Winston-Salem, his family settled into a 2,100-square-foot
home, about 25 percent larger than the home he left but with a tax bill almost 60 percent
smaller.
"It's amazing to me," said Mullane, who keeps up on Buffalo. "Taxes are still in the forefront of
the news there, but they're not a story in North Carolina. They're just not an issue."
As with the Toledo family, the Mullanes' move had a domino effect. Not long after he left, his
wife's parents made the jump, too, partly to find work and partly to be near their grandchildren.
One family fled New York, pulling another in its wake.
Mullane says his mother still hopes he'll return to this area, but he's doubtful.
"I love Buffalo," he said, "and I like New York State . . . If they just made it friendlier to live there
. . ."
e-mail kwalter@buffnews.com
 EXHIBIT G
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)
JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et.al.
Plaintiffs}
v.
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS
WILKEY, et.al.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE RESPONSE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
STATE OF NEW YORK DEFENDANTS¶ COUNSEL¶S NOTICE OF MOTION TO
DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Accordingly, I, John Joseph Forjone, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:
1. I am a Plaintiff pro se without being an attorney and produce this response
declaration in opposition to the state of New York¶s Secretary of State Randy Daniels (now
Christopher L. Jacobs) and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, (NYS) Defendants¶ counsel, NYS
Assistant Attorney General Peter Sullivan¶s Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint filed pursuant to the Court¶s May 4, 2006 Text Order of all Defendants herein to
respond by June 1, 2006 accordingly.
2. That declarant is the co-chairman along with Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk of
the AD HOC NYS People¶s Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds
Distribution Equity Nationwide without an attorney as a jus tertii association and individually
jus tertii pursuant of a declaratory judgment in the matter of overly vague and broad use of the
Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow
respective state law determinant definition of ³Voting Age Population´ (VAP), as well as
being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA).
Forjone Declaration Page 1
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80
3. This Declaration is filed in conjunction with the Co-chairmen Relators¶ Law
Memorandum in Opposition to Dismissal and in support of a Declaratory Judgment and
equity relief with a Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance
plans in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and
penalties to be levied under the FCA.
4. On 19 September 2005 in conjunction with the Medicaid tax Levy Case Forjone
et.al. v. Leavitt et.al. WDNY 05-cv-395, Samantha Marie Forjone and I submitted an
application to the NYS Secretary of State, Defendant Randy Daniels, in the matter of FOIL
and NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 5A protection involving municipal overreaching by
Orleans County, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 1.
5. The New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A is as follows:
ARTICLE V-A.
MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS.
Section 53. Copies of documents and statements to be filed.
54. Resolutions concerning political matters.
55. Anonymous communications prohibited.
56. Offenses; penalties.
57. Additional penalties.
§ 53. Copies of documents and statements to be filed. Every existing
membership corporation, and every existing unincorporated association
having a membership of twenty or more persons, which corporation or
association requires an oath as a prerequisite or condition of
membership, other than a labor union, a fraternity or sorority having
chapters composed only of students in or alumni of colleges and
universities in this and another state or states, or a chapter of such
fraternity or sorority, or a benevolent order mentioned in the
benevolent orders law, within thirty days after this article takes
effect, and every such corporation or association hereafter organized,
within ten days after the adoption thereof, shall file with the
secretary of state a sworn copy of its constitution, by-laws, rules,
regulations and oath of membership, together with a roster of its
membership and a list of its officers for the current year. Every such
corporation and association shall, in case its constitution, by-laws,
rules, regulations or oath of membership or any part thereof, be
revised, changed, or amended, within ten days after such revision or
amendment file with the secretary of state a sworn copy of such revised,
changed or amended constitution, by-law, rule, regulation or oath of
membership. Every such corporation or association shall within thirty
Forjone Declaration Page 2
 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

days after a change has been made in its officers file with the
secretary of state a sworn statement showing such change. Every such
corporation or association shall at intervals of six months file with
the secretary of state a sworn statement showing the names and addresses
of such additional members as have been received in such corporation or
association during such interval.

§ 54. Resolutions concerning political matters. Every such corporation

or association shall, within ten days after the adoption thereof, file
in the office of the secretary of state every resolution, or the minutes
of any action of such corporation or association, providing for
concerted action of its members or of a part thereof to promote or
defeat legislation, federal, state or municipal, or to support or to
defeat any candidate for political office.

§ 55. Anonymous communications prohibited. It shall be unlawful for

any such corporation or association to send, deliver, mail or transmit
to any person in this state who is not a member of such corporation or
association any anonymous letter, document, leaflet or other written or
printed matter, and all such letters, documents, leaflets or other
written or printed matter, intended for a person not a member of such
corporation or association, shall bear on the same the name of such
corporation or association and the names of the officers thereof
together with the addresses of the latter.

§ 56. Offenses; penalties. Any corporation or association violating

any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than
ten thousand dollars. Any officer of such corporation or association
and every member of the board of directors, trustees or other similar
body, who violates any provision of this article or permits or
acquiesces in the violation of any provision of this article by any such
corporation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who becomes a
member of any such corporation or association, or remains a member
thereof, or attends a meeting thereof, with knowledge that such
corporation or association has failed to comply with any provision of
this article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

§ 57. Additional penalties. In addition to the penalties provided by

section fifty-six of this article, a violation of the provisions of this
article may be restrained at the suit of the people by the
attorney-general.

6. On 26 September 2005, an unnamed agent of the Office of the Secretary of State

responded to the application shown as EXHIBIT 1 with an unsigned letter denying both FOIL

and any obligation to respond under NYS Chapter 6 Article 5A, a copy herewith marked

EXHIBIT 2.

7. On 27 March 2006 in conjunction with the WDNY 05-cv-395 case following the

receipt of the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and sanction by Jeremy Colby who represents

Forjone Declaration Page 3

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

EXHIBIT 1

Forjone Declaration Page 5

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

EXHIBIT 2

Forjone Declaration Page 6

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

EXHIBIT 3

Forjone Declaration Page 7

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3. This Declaration is filed in conjunction with the Co-chairmen Relators¶ Law

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80 Memorandum in Opposition to Dismissal and in support of a Declaratory Judgment and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS) equity relief with a Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance
JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et.al.
Plaintiffs} plans in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and
v.
penalties to be levied under the FCA.
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS
WILKEY, et.al. 4. On 29 September 2005 Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier and I submitted an application
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x to the NYS Secretary of State, Defendant Randy Daniels, in the matter of FOIL and NYS

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK RESPONSE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 5A protection involving municipal overreaching by the city of
THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEFENDANTS¶ COUNSEL¶S NOTICE OF MOTION
TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT New York, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 4.

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury: 5. An unnamed agent of the Office of the Secretary of State responded to the

1. I am a Plaintiff pro se without being an attorney and produce this response application shown as EXHIBIT 4 with an unsigned letter denying both FOIL and any

declaration in opposition to the state of New York¶s Secretary of State Randy Daniels (now obligation to respond under NYS Chapter 6 Article 5A, with the identical language of

Christopher L. Jacobs) and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, (NYS) Defendants¶ counsel, NYS EXHIBIT 2.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sullivan¶s Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended 6. On 14 May 2006 in conjunction with the WDNY 05-cv-395 case following the

Complaint filed pursuant to the Court¶s May 4, 2006 Text Order of all Defendants herein to receipt of the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and sanction by Defendants¶ counsel Jeremy

respond by June 1, 2006 accordingly. Colby who represents the County of Orleans, and Dudek the County Legislature

2. That declarant is the co-chairman along with Plaintiff John Joseph Forjone of the Administrator who also serves as a Member of the Board of Directors of the New York

AD HOC NYS People¶s Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Municipal Insurance Reciprocal (NYMIR) and NYMIR Insurance Risk Assessor, and in

Distribution Equity Nationwide without an attorney as a jus tertii association and individually WDNY 06-cv-80 also represents various Municipalities who are underwritten by the NYMIR

jus tertii pursuant of a declaratory judgment in the matter of overly vague and broad use of the who had referred Jeremy Colby to represent its clients as approved counsel in lieu of each

Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow respective County Attorney, and in the matter of investigating a ³conflict of Interest´ with that

respective state law determinant definition of ³Voting Age Population´ (VAP), as well as in mind as such I obtained a copy of the latest published NYS Department of Insurance Audit

being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA). of NYMIR for the Year 1999, a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 5.

Strunk Declaration Page 1 Strunk Declaration Page 2

 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80
7. The NYMIR website is linked to that of the NYS Association of Counties,
physically the Directors of both entities occupy the same headquarters near Albany Municipal
Airport.
8. According to the NYS DOI 1999 Audit of NYMIR shown as EXHIBIT 5, the
Table of Contents on page 2 in the matter of ³Conflict of Interest´ on Page 15 Item Paragraph
Item G the report states quote:
9. The NYS DOI 1999 Audit of NYMIR, shown as EXHIBIT 5, in the Summary and
Comment Section on page 24 reiterates quote:
10. On 5 April 2006 Newsmax.com published an Article entitled Non-Citizens
Expected to Get Voting Rights in NYC reported by Carl Limbacher, a copy herewith marked
EXHIBIT 6.
11. On 28 April 2006 the Office of the New York State Attorney General issued a
press release entitled STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL¶S OFFICE
REGARDING MAY 1 "NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS , a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 7.
Strunk Declaration Page 3
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80
12. On 12 May 2006 I received from Plaintiff Gabe Razzano a copy of the NYS AG
FOIL Response letter #03363 dated 25 September 2003 therein with a copy of 1 October
2002 Assurance of Discontinuation settlement in lieu of litigation between NYS AG and ADC
Contracting and Construction, Inc. who had employed illegal aliens and covered in the
October 3 Press Release by the NYSAG, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 8.
13. In light of the RICO Statement in the Forjone v EAC case WDNY 06-cv-80
requiring demonstration of a pattern of conduct by Attorney General Spitzer as part of the
enterprise in support of Harboring Illegal Aliens as a part of Racketeering Activity in
violation of :
18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in
connection with identification documents)
18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens)
18 USC §1341 (mail fraud)
18 USC §1343 (wire fraud)
18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully)
18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim )
18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents)
18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) ± (interstate and foreign travel in aid
of racketeering Enterprise)
18 USC §1957 ± (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from specific
unlawful activity)
14. As such I have done a first approximation statistical study of the annual press
releases by the NYS AG Spitzer from 1999 thru 2006 currently totaling 1922.
15. The two categories studied are AG Spitzer's political decisions to act in the matter
of Medicaid Fraud and recovery of Alien Labor "wages" . With particular note is the rate of
percentage change as a result of the whistleblower Medicaid Fraud case Forjone v Leavitt
WDNY 05-cv-395, wherein both the Medicaid and HAVA cases both involve harboring of
illegal aliens by the AG et.al.; the chart follows:
Strunk Declaration Page 4
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80
EXHIBIT 4
Strunk Declaration Page 6
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

REPORT ON EXAMINATION

OF THE

NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INSURANCE RECIPROCAL

AS OF

DECEMBER 31, 1999

DATE OF REPORT DECEMBER 21, 2000

EXHIBIT 5
EXAMINER VERONICA DUNCAN-BLACK

Strunk Declaration Page 7

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATE OF NEW YORK

ITEM NO. PAGE NO. INSURANCE DEPARTMENT
25 BEAVER STREET
1. Scope of examination 2 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004

2. Description of Reciprocal 3 December 21, 2000

A. Management 4
B. Territory and plan of operation 7 Honorable Neil D. Levin
C. Reinsurance 8 Superintendent of Insurance
D. Significant operating ratios 13 Albany New York 12257
E. Abandoned property 13
F. Custodian agreement 14
G. Conflict of interest 15 Sir:
H. Accounts and records 15
Pursuant to the requirements of the New York Insurance Law, and in compliance with the
3. Financial statements 18
instructions contained in Appointment Number 21592 dated September 7, 2000, attached hereto, I have
A. Balance sheet 18
B. Underwriting and investment exhibit 20 made an examination into the condition and affairs of the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal as of

4. Losses and loss adjustment expense 22 December 31, 1999 and respectively submit the following report thereon.

5. Market conduct activities 22

6. Compliance with prior report 22 The examination was conducted at the Company’s home office located 377 Oak Street, Garden

7. Summary of comments and recommendations 23 City, New York 11530.

Wherever the designations “the Reciprocal” or “NYMIR” appear herein without qualification, they

should be understood to indicate the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

Wherever the designation “NYSLGF” appear herein without qualification, it should be understood

to indicate the New York Local Government Services Foundation, Inc., Attorney-in-Fact for the New

York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

2
Wherever the designation “WRM” or the “Manager” appear herein without qualification, they
1. SCOPE OF EXAMINATION
should be understood to refer to Wright Risk Management Company, Inc., Manager for the New York

Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

The prior examination was conducted as of December 31, 1994. This examination covers the five

year period from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999 and was limited in its scope to a review or

audit of only those balance sheet items considered by this Department to require analysis, verification or

description, including: invested assets, losses, and loss adjustment expenses. The examination included a

review of income, disbursements and Reciprocal records deemed necessary to accomplish such analysis or

verification and utilized, to the extent considered appropriate, work performed by the Reciprocal’s

independent public accountants. A review or audit was also made of the following items as called for in

the Examiners Handbook of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners:

History of Reciprocal
Management and control
Corporate records
Fidelity bond and other insurance
Territory and plan of operation
Market conduct activities
Growth of Reciprocal
Business in force
Reinsurance
Accounts and records
Financial statements

A review was made to ascertain what action was taken by the Reciprocal with regard to comments

and recommendations contained in the prior report on examination.

This report on examination is confined to financial statements and comments on those matters

which involve departure from laws, regulation or rules, or which are deemed to require explanation or

description.
 3 4

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECIPROCAL A. Management

(i) Board of Governors

The New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal is an insurer, as defined in Section 107(a)(37) of
Pursuant to a declaration executed by the Superintendent of Insurance and Section 6102 of the
the New York Insurance Law and organized pursuant to the provisions of Article 61 of the New York
New York Insurance Law a board of governors was elected to act on behalf of the subscribers with powers
Insurance Law. As provided by the provisions of Section 6102(b) of the New York Insurance Law the
to supervise and control the Attorney-in-Fact and to control investment of the assets of the reciprocal
declaration creating a municipal reciprocal was approved by Superintendent on August 23, 1993. The
insurer, along with such power as may be conferred by the articles of association and the Subscribers’
Reciprocal was licensed on August 31, 1993 and commenced operations on the same day.
Agreement. The Articles of Incorporation and the Subscribers’ Agreement specify that the board of

governors should consist of no fewer than nine members. As of December 31, 1999, the board of
The Reciprocal was organized to provide a market source for New York State counties, towns,
governors was comprised of thirteen members.
villages, cities or district corporations organized and existing under the Finance Law of the State of New

York. NYMIR’s policyholders engage in the business of inter-insurance on the reciprocal plan, through
As of December 31, 1999, the members of the board of governors together with their residence
an Attorney-in-Fact. Each policyholder is a subscriber and only policyholders may be subscribers. The
and principal business affiliations were as follows:
subscribers share proportionately in all losses, expenses, and profits of the reciprocal, based on the

percentage their premium represents to the total written premium by NYMIR. To provide surplus,
Name and Residence Principle Business Affiliation
NYMIR requires each subscriber, as a prerequisite to the initial purchase of an insurance policy, to
Kenneth Charles Andrew Town Councilman,
contribute to the surplus of NYMIR in accordance with such plan as developed by its Board of Governors. Dewitt, New York Town of Dewitt

Subscribers are required to contribute 20% of their initial surplus contribution or 8% percent of gross Robert James Bondi County Exective,
Mahopac, New York Putnam County
premiums in each of the first five years, or at their option accelerate such contributions.
Stanley John Dudek Chief Administrator,
Medina, New York County of Orleans

In accordance with Section 6102(12) of the New York Insurance Law, NYMIR has selected not to Robert Watson Elliot Mayor,
Croton, New York Village of Croton-On-Hudson
be subject to coverage by the Property/Casualty Insurance Security Fund under Article 76 of the New
Sandra Lynn Frankel Supervisor,
York Insurance Law. Accordingly, NYMIR issues assessable policies which provide for unlimited Rochester, New York Town of Brighton

contingent several liability for assessment of its subscribers. John Joseph Gilfeather Supervisor,
Red Hook, New York Town of Red Hook

Gale Marie Hatch Village Clerk/Treasurer

Ilion, New York Village of Ilion

5 6

contracts necessary for the operations of NYMIR. In March 1995, a formal agreement was executed by
Name and Residence Principal Business Affiliation
NYMIR to confirm the appointment of NYSLGF as the Attorney-in-Fact.
John Russell Lapointe Supervisor,
Putnam, New York Town of Putnam

John Charles Layne Mayor, The members of the board of directors and the officers of NYSLGF as of December 31, 1999 are
Airmont, New York Village of Airmont
as follows:
Dominic Francis Mazza County Administrator,
Avon, New York Livingston County Directors

Thomas Richard Moran Supervisor, Jeffery Haber

Java Center, New York Town of Java Edward Farrell
Robert Gregory
Jon Raymond Stead Clerk of the Board,
Johnstown, New York Fulton County
Officers
William John Wood City Clerk,
Cortland, New York City of Cortland G. Jeffery Haber President
Edward Farrell Vice-President
Robert Gregory Secretary and Treasurer
The minutes of all of the meetings of the board of governors held during the examination period

were reviewed. The review indicated that the board held twenty regular meetings during the period, (iii) Management Agreement

January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999, and that such meetings were well attended by the members. Pursuant to a management agreement dated August 27, 1993, Wright Risk Management (f/k/a

Wright Municipal Company, Inc.) was appointed to manage the day to day operations of NYMIR and to

The principal officers of the Reciprocal as of December 31, 1999 were as follows: assist the Attorney-in-Fact and the board of governors in the performance of their responsibilities pursuant

Name Title to the Subscriber’s Agreement and the New York Insurance Law. This agreement was renewed in 1998

Dominic F. Mazza President with an effective date of July 1, 1998, for a five year term. In accordance with the terms of the new
John Gilfeather Vice- President
Gale Hatch Secretary agreement, the general scope of services to be rendered by the Manager includes staffing and facilities,
Sandra Frankel Treasurer
underwriting and policyholders services, engineering and management services, claims and loss control

(ii) Attorney-in-Fact Agreement services, and accounting services. The agreement also states that WRM shall receive a fee of 15.5% of all

The New York State Local Government Service Foundation, Inc. (“NYSLGF”), a New York not- gross written premiums, except that the fee shall be 17.5% of gross premium for any new business for the

for-profit corporation, was appointed as the Attorney-in-Fact for NYMIR pursuant to an organization first year only.

meeting held on August 24, 1993. This appointment authorized the Attorney-in-Fact to enter into all
 7 8

In addition, the management agreement contains a provision regarding the settlement of claims. The Reciprocal is licensed to write business only in the State of New York. Most of its business is

This provision, however, is not specific as to WRM’s responsibility for the run-off of NYMIR’s claims in produced either directly or through a network of brokers.

the event of termination of the management agreement. It is recommended that the Reciprocal take the

necessary steps to amend its management agreement to provide more precise wording in regard to WRM’s It was noted in the prior report on examination that the Reciprocal was accepting policy

responsibility for the running-off of both known and incurred but not reported claims in the event that the applications and collecting premiums for certain lines of business that it was not licensed to write (boiler

management agreement is terminated. and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine insurance) and remitting such premium amounts to

other insurance entities. It was recommended in the prior report on examination that the Reciprocal

B. Territory and Plan of Operation refrain from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers, and that they devise an alternative method of

As of the examination date, the Reciprocal was licensed in the State of New York pursuant to enabling their policyholders to obtain boiler and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine

Article 61 of the New York Insurance Law to transact only the kinds of insurance as defined in the coverage.

following numbered paragraphs of Section 1113(a) of the New York Insurance Law:

Paragraph Kind of Insurance It was noted during this examination that the Reciprocal has partially complied with the above

4 Fire recommendation. The Reciprocal is now licensed to write boiler and machinery and inland marine
5 Miscellaneous property
6 Water damage business. The Reciprocal, however, continues to accept applications and premiums for fidelity and surety
7 Burglary and theft
8 Glass insurance and a certain parts of inland marine insurance for which it is not licensed. It was noted that the
9 Boiler and machinery
10 Elevator premium collected for these lines of business have been reduced substantially. It is, however, again
13 Personal injury liability
14 Property damage liability recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the prior report on examination recommendation in that
19 Motor vehicle and aircraft
physical damage the Reciprocal should refrain from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers, and devise an
20 Marine and inland marine
alternative method of enabling its policyholders to obtain fidelity and surety, inland marine (earthquake)

insurance coverages.

Based upon the line of business for which the Reciprocal is licensed and pursuant to the

requirements of Article 61 of the New York Insurance Law, the Reciprocal is required to maintain surplus C. Reinsurance

to policyholders in the amount of $1,800,000. The Schedule F data as contained in the Reciprocal’s annual statements filed for the years within

the examination period was found to accurately reflect its reinsurance transactions.

9 10

The examiner reviewed all ceded reinsurance contracts effected during the examination period. As of the examination date, the Reciprocal had the following working excess of loss and quota

All of these contracts contained the required standard clauses, including insolvency clauses meeting the share reinsurance program in place:

requirements of Section 1308 of the New York Insurance Law.

Type of Contract Limit and Retention

It was noted that two of the Reciprocal’s automatic facultative agreements (first property excess of Property

loss and casualty excess of loss) included an offset clause that was not compliance with Section 7427 of First Property Excess of Loss

the New York Insurance Law. The clause in the contract reads as follows: “ In the absence of applicable Four Layers
Automatic facultative reinsurance and
law, either party may offset mutual debts and credits.” It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend the Facultative property reinsurance
100% Authorized
captioned agreement to include the following wording, “In the event of the insolvency of either party to
Limit of $50,000,000 blanket limit risk or per
occurrence excess of $100,000 blanket limit risk per risk
or per occurrence, subject to an occurrence limit of
$1,250,000.

this agreement then offsets shall be allowed to the extent permitted by the provisions of the New York The captioned property automatic facultative reinsurance treaty provides four layers of coverage.

Insurance Law Section 7427”. Layer one is placed at 100% percent. The second, third and fourth layers are placed at 75%, 86.67% and

75%, respectively with the automatic facultative treaty and 25%, 13.33% and 25%, respectively with a

A review of the Reciprocal’s boiler and machinery reinsurance agreement shows that such contract facultative property agreement directly placed with American Re-Insurance Company.

was still in draft form and was not signed by each respective party. Chapter 22 of the National

Association of Insurance Commissioners Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual states the Type of Contract Limit and Retention

following: Boiler and Machinery

“…if a contract entered into, renewed or amended on or after January 1, 1994 has not been Equipment Breakdown (Boiler and Machinery)
finalized, reduced to a written form and signed by the parties within nine months after the commencement Quota Share Excess of loss Treaty
of the policy period covered by the reinsurance arrangement, then the arrangement is presumed to be
retroactive and must be accounted for as a retroactive reinsurance contract.” Section A
100% Authorized Limit of up to 95% part of $5,000,000, net loss per
policy per accident.
A review of Schedule F, Part 3 of the Reciprocal’s annual statement shows that the amounts ceded
Section B
and recoverable under this agreement are not material and no change has been made to the financial Limit of $25,000,000 net loss per risk per occurrence
excess of $5,000,000, net loss per policy per accident.
statements in this report. It is, however, recommended in the future that the Reciprocal comply with

Chapter 22 of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Accounting Practices and Procedures

Manual and record its reinsurance transactions accordingly.

 11 12

Type of Contract Limit and Retention

Type of Contract Limit and Retention
Casualty
First Casualty Excess of Loss (Policy limits
equal $1,000,000)
100% Authorized Limit of $750,000 ultimate net loss each and every
occurrence excess of $250,000, ultimate net loss each
and every occurrence.
Casualty Excess of Loss
( Umbrella Policy)
General Liability
100% Authorized Section (i)
100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s net
retained for an amount of $900,000 in excess of
$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000 each
occurrence, per person or organization personal
advertising and products completed operations annual
(aggregate) and the first $2,000,000 annual (aggregate).
Section (ii)
100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s net
retained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 in
excess of $1,000,000 each occurrence, per person or
organization personal and advertising injury and
products completed operations annual aggregate
(general) and amounts of up to $18,000,000 excess of
$2,000,000 annual aggregate (general).
Automobile
Section (i)
100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s net
retained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of
$100,000 as respects the first $1,000,000, each
occurrence.
Section (ii)
100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s net
retained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 in
excess of $1,000,000, each occurrence.
Public Officials Liability
Section (i)
100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s net
retained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of
$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000, any one
claim and the first $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
Section (ii)
100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s net
retained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 in
excess of $1,000,000, any one claim and amounts of up
to $9,000,000 in excess $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
Law Enforcement Liability
Section (i)
100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s net
retained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of
$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000, each
occurrence and the first $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
Section (ii)
100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s net
retained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 in
excess of $1,000,000 each occurrence and amounts of
up to $9,000,000 in excess $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
Casualty catastrophe excess of loss (clash
cover)
100% Authorized Limit of $1,000,000 excess of $1,000,000, ultimate net
loss each occurrence.
The reinsurer’s liability is limited to $1,000,000 in any
one occurrence and is limited to $3,000,000 in respect to
all losses in any one contract period.
Health Care Facility
Health care facilities professional liability
100% Authorized A maximum limit of 90% of 1,000,000 any one loss any
one insured, subject to $3,000,000 in the aggregate any
one insured.

13 14

D. Significant operating ratios been unclaimed for a three- year period. This filing is required by all companies regardless of whether

they have any abandoned property to report.

The following ratios have been computed as of December 31, 1999, based upon the results of this

examination:
It was noted that the Reciprocal did not file an Abandoned Property report with the state

comptroller’s office as required by Section 1316 of the Abandoned Property Law for any of the years
Net premiums written in 1999 to surplus as regards policy holders 96.14%
under examination.
Liabilities to liquid assets (cash and invested assets less investments in
affiliates) 68.47%

Premiums in course of collection to Surplus as regards policyholders 1.59% It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the Abandoned Property Law and file the

required reports.

The above ratios fall within the benchmark ranges set forth in the Insurance Regulatory

Information System of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). F. Custodian Agreement

As of the examination date, the Reciprocal’s securities were held with a bank pursuant to a

The underwriting ratios presented below are on an earned/incurred basis and encompass the five- custodial agreement. A review of the Reciprocal’s custodial agreement indicated that the agreement was

year period covered by this examination: lacking several protective covenants that this Department deems necessary to safeguard the Reciprocal’s

assets, as follows:

Amounts Ratios 1. The bank shall have in force, for its own protection, Bankers’ Blanket Bond
Insurance of the broadest form available for commercial banks and will continue to
Losses incurred $14,059,463 37.74% maintain such insurance. The bank will give the insurer 60 days written notice of any
Loss adjustment expenses incurred 12,416,912 33.34 material change in the form or amount of such insurance prior to termination of this
Other underwriting expenses incurred 10,008,819 26.87 coverage.
Net underwriting gain (loss) 763,444 2.05
2. Maintain records sufficient to verify information that the insurer is required to
Premiums earned $37,248,638 100.00% report in Schedule D of the Annual Statement blank of the Insurance Department of the
State of New York.

E. Abandoned Property 3. Furnish the insurer with the appropriate affidavits in the form as may be
acceptable to the New York Insurance Department in order for the securities referred to in
Section 1316 of the Abandoned Property Law requires insurance companies to report to the such affidavits to be recognized as admitted assets of the company.

comptroller’s office annually on or before April 1 any properties that are deemed abandoned and have 4. There should be a provision in the agreement that would give the insurer the
opportunity to secure the most recent report on the review of the custodial system of
internal controls, pertaining to custodian record keeping, issued by internal or independent
auditors.
 15 16

It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its custodial agreement to include the above ii. Regulation 30

provisions in order to provide its assets with the necessary safeguards. A review of the Reciprocal’s compliance with the Department Regulation 30 was performed as

part of this examination. Regulation 30, Part 107.3 states that the composition of each expense group shall

G. Conflict of Interest be categorized under investment expenses, loss adjustment expenses, taxes, general expenses, and

The Reciprocal adopted a policy statement pertaining to conflict of interest for its directors and acquisition, field and collection expenses. Management has indicated that, “NYMIR pays contractually

management. It was, however, noted that the Reciprocal failed to provide conflict of interest statements to agreed upon fees to two entities: Wright Risk Management Company and The New York State

its directors and officers for the calendar years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Government Services Foundation.” NYMIR records it entire management fee paid to WRM in its

underwriting and investment exhibit – Part 4 Expenses, under the captioned category – general expense

It is recommended that the Reciprocal require its directors and officers to complete conflict of and acquisition, field and collection expense or other underwriting expense. The annual statement for

interest statements on an annual basis. NYMIR does not include any allocation of fees paid to the entities for the administrative functions that

carried out on behalf of NYMIR.

H. Accounts and Records

Based upon the Management’s representation and a review of the expenses reported in its filed
i. Cash
annual statements, it appears that the Reciprocal did not comply with Department Regulation 30. It was
In reviewing the cash on hand and on deposit it was noted that a discrepancy existed between the
also noted that the Reciprocal did not provide a proper allocation of its expenses as required by the
Reciprocal’s authorized signature listing and the banking institution’s listing for specific cash accounts.
National Association Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) - Annual Statement Instructions. The annual
The Reciprocal’s cash represents an important part of its assets and it is extremely vital that the proper
statement instructions provide specific instructions for the allocation of expense payment made to any non-
internal controls be in place.
affiliated entity that provides management, administration, or services in whole or part to a Reciprocal’s

business or operations.
It is recommended that the Reciprocal review and update its authorized signatories with the

appropriate banking institution.

It is recommended that the Reciprocal undertake a study to determine the proper amounts to

allocate between expenses classified pursuant to Department Regulation 30, Part 107.3 and comply with

the NAIC Annual Statement Instructions with respect to expense classification accordingly. It is also

17 18

recommended that the Reciprocal comply with Regulation 30, Part 107.4(e)(1), which states in part “that

the method and bases followed in allocation to expense group shall be described, kept and supported.” 3. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

A. Balance Sheet

The following shows the assets, liabilities and surplus as determined by this examination and is the

same as reported by the Reciprocal on its December 31, 1999 annual statement.

Ledger Non-ledger Not-Admitted Admitted

Assets Assets Assets Assets Assets

Bonds $19,439,603 $ $ $19,439,603

Cash & Short-term
Investments 2,456,782 2,456,782
Agents’ balances or
uncollected premiums:
Premiums and agents’
balances in course of
collection 170,289 53,944 116,345
Premiums, agents’ balances
and installments booked but
deferred and not yet due 612,271 612,271
Reinsurance recoverable on
loss and loss adjustment
expense payments 13,472 13,472
Interest, dividends and real
estate income due and
accrued 330,270 330,270
Fees 420 46 374
Recoverables __________ (426) _________ (426)

Total assets $22,692,417 $ 330,264 $ 53,990 $22,968,691

 19 20

B. Underwriting and investment exhibit

Liabilities Surplus as regards policyholders increased $4,863,139 during the five-year examination period,

Losses $ 7,865,917 January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999.

Loss adjustment expenses 4,177,190
Contingent commissions and other similar charges (311,131)
Other expenses 200,104
Unearned premiums 2,420,374 Statement of Income
Excess of statutory reserves over statement reserves 1,285,000
Total liabilities $ 15,637,454
Underwriting Income

Surplus Premiums earned $ 37,248,638

Deductions:
Gross paid in and contributed surplus $ 3,721,046 Losses incurred $ 14,059,463
Unassigned funds (surplus) 3,610,191 Loss adjustment expense incurred 12,416,912
Other underwriting expense incurred 10,008,819
Surplus as regards policyholders, December 31, 1999 7,331,237 Total underwriting deductions 36,485,194

Total liabilities and surplus $ 22,968,691 Net underwriting gain 763,444

Investment Income

Net investment income earned 3,674,232

Net realized capital gains 50,958

Net investment gain 3,725,190

Other Income

Miscellaneous 26,776

Total Other Income 26,776__

Net Income $ 4,515,410

Note: The Reciprocal is exempt from federal, state and local income taxes.

21 22

4. LOSSES AND LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSES

Capital and Surplus Account

The examination amount for loss and loss adjustment expense reserves, $7,865,917 and
Surplus as regards policyholders, December
31, 1994 per prior report on examination $ 2,468,098 $4,177,190 respectively, are the same as those reported by the Reciprocal as of December 31, 1999. The

Gains in Losses in examination analysis was conducted in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and
Surplus Surplus
practices and was based on statistical information contained in the Reciprocal’s internal records and in its
Net income $ 4,515,410 $
Unrealized capital gains 282,074 filed annual statements as verified by the examiners.
Change in not admitted assets 53,990
Change in excess of statutory reserve over
Statement reserve 1,257,000
Surplus paid in 3,176,854 5. MARKET CONDUCT ACTIVITIES
Change in capitalization receivable 1,788,511
Prior year adjustment ___________ 11,698__
In the course of this examination, a review was made of the manner in which the Reciprocal
Total gains and losses $7,974,338 $3,111,199
conducts its business and fulfills its contractual obligations to policyholders and claimants. The review
Net gain in surplus 4,863,139
was general in nature and is not to be construed to encompass the more precise scope of a market conduct
Surplus as regards policyholders, per report on
Examination as of December 31, 1999 $ 7,331,237 investigation which is the responsibility of the Market Conduct Unit of the Property Bureau. No problems

were encountered during this review.

6. COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR REPORT ON EXAMINATION

The prior report on examination contained four recommendations and comments. The current

status of these matters is as follows (page numbers refer to prior report):

ITEM PAGE NO.

A. Territory and Plan of Operation

It is recommended that in the future the Reciprocal should refrain 8

from collecting premiums on the behalf of other insurers, and that
they devise an alternative method of enabling their policyholders to
obtain boiler and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine
coverage.

The Reciprocal has not complied with this recommendation.

 23 24

ITEM PAGE NO. ITEM PAGE NO.

B. Maintenance of Subscribers’ Separate Account C. Reinsurance

1. It is recommended that NYSIR comply with Section 6112(a) of 12 It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its first casualty excess 9
the New York Insurance Law and with Item 5.2 of the of loss and casualty excess of loss agreement to include the
subscribers’ agreement and keep a separate account for each appropriate offset language pursuant to Section 7427 of the New
individual subscriber. York Insurance Law.

The Reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.
2. It is recommended that NYSIR comply with Item 5.3 of the 12
subscribers’ agreement and render a statement to each subscriber
showing a summary of collective transactions of the Reciprocal
and also a statement of subscriber’s separate accounting.
The Reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.
It is recommended that in the future the Reciprocal comply with 9
Chapter 22 of the NAIC accounting practices and procedures manual
and record its reinsurance transactions accordingly.
E. Abandoned Property
It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the Abandoned 14
Property Law and file the required reports.

C. Losses and loss Adjustment Expenses F. Custodian Agreement

It is recommended that the Reciprocal should report all losses and 16 It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its custodial agreement 15
loss adjustment expenses gross of all unfunded deductibles. to include the provisions as provided in Section 2(F) herein in order
to afford its assets the necessary safeguards.
The reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.
G. Conflict of Interest
7. SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Reciprocal require its directors and 15
ITEM PAGE NO. officers to submit conflict of interest statements on an annual basis.

A. Management H. Accounts and Records

It is recommended that the Reciprocal take the necessary steps to
amend its management agreement with Wright Risk Management to
provide more precise wording in regard to Wright Risk’s
responsibility for running off both known and incurred but not
reported claims in the event that the management agreement is
terminated.
B. Territory and Plan of Operation
It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the prior report
on examination recommendation in that the Reciprocal should refrain
from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers and devise an
alternative method of enabling its policyholders to obtain fidelity and
surety, and inland marine(earthquake) insurance coverages.
7 i It is recommended that the Reciprocal review and update its 15
authorized bank signatories with the appropriate banking institution.
ii It is recommended that the Reciprocal undertake a study to determine 16
the proper amounts to allocate between expenses classified pursuant
to Department Regulation 30, Part 107.3 and comply with the NAIC
Annual Statement Instructions accordingly.
iii It is also recommended that the Reciprocal comply with Regulation 16
8 30, Part 107.4(e)(1) and provide proper supporting documentation for
its expense allocation.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/
Veronica Duncan-Black
Senior Insurance Examiner

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) SS.
)
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

VERONICA DUNCAN-BLACK, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the foregoing report submitted
by her is true to the best of her knowledge and belief.

/S/
Veronica Duncan Black

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this day of 2001.
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

Non-Citizens Expected to Get Voting Rights in NYC

NewsMax ^ | April 5, 2006 | Carl Limbacher
Posted on 04/05/2006 12:16:42 PM PDT by Icelander

Legislation granting non-citizens the right to vote is expected to pass in New York City this year,
immigration rights advocates tell the Amsterdam News.

"We¶re very excited and very optimistic that this will pass," New York City Councilman Charles Barron
said at a recent press briefing. "We see this as the historical launching of something that should have
happened a long time ago," the outspoken Democrat added.

Dubbed the "Voting Rights Restoration Act," the measure would permit immigrants who have a green
card to vote in municipal elections, including for mayor, comptroller and city council, after having lived
in the city for six months.

The New York Coalition to Expand Voting Rights sees the measure being extended one day to state
and even federal elections. "There is nothing in either the U.S. or the New York State Constitution that
prevents us from expanding the franchise to include non-citizen residents," a spokesman for the group
argued in January.
Story Continues Below

Advocates claim that 22 states and federal territories allowed non-citizen voting during the 18th and
19th centuries. In New York, non-citizen residents were denied the right to vote in 1804. According to
the Caribbean news service, Heartbeat News, the measure's impact on New York City elections would
be substantial, adding up to 1.5 million voters to rolls. Most of the new voters, experts predict, would
cast their ballots for Democrats.

While New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has voiced opposition to the proposal, City Council
Speaker Christine Quinn told the Amsterdam News that she's "open to talking about passage."

In a statement issued by her office, City Council Member Melissa Mark Viverito praised the measure,
explaining:

"East Harlem, Mott Haven and the Upper West Side are home to at least 25 thousand non-citizens of
voting age who contribute in countless ways to the economic, social and cultural vitality of District 8
and NYC as a whole. Unfortunately they are not allowed to directly participate in choosing the
municipal representatives who make the policies that affect their daily lives."

EXHIBIT 6
Strunk Declaration Page 8 Strunk Declaration Page 9

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

Department of Law Department of Law

120 Broadway The State Capitol
New York, NY 10271 Albany, NY 12224

For More Information: For Immediate Release

(518) 473-5525 April 28, 2006

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL¶S OFFICE REGARDING

MAY 1 "NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS"

This Office has received inquiries about the legal obligations of employers to accommodate
employees¶ requests to take time off to participate in activities scheduled for May 1
recognizing the contributions of working immigrants to the national economy and local
communities. Some businesses will be closing for the demonstrations, while others will
remain open.

My office has received information that some employers are threatening to fire or take other
action against employees who take time off for this purpose. There have been reports in the
press that workers who attended previous demonstrations were fired solely for their
attendance at those events.

Federal labor law protects every employee¶s right to engage in concerted activities for
"mutual aid and protection," including calling for change in existing laws to improve working
conditions. The courts have held that participation by employees in demonstrations and rallies
like those planned for May 1 are protected activities under that provision.

Employers may impose reasonable requirements needed to keep their businesses functioning,
and employees must comply with those requirements. However, if adverse action, including
discharge, is taken against employees solely because of their participation in these activities,
the employer may be found to have violated the rights of those employees and could be
subject to legal action.

Employers need to carefully consider what reasonable limitations on their employees¶

participation are truly necessary to the functioning of their businesses. Employers and
employees are urged to cooperate to avoid violations of law.

---- 30 ----

EXHIBIT 7
Strunk Declaration Page 10 Strunk Declaration Page 11
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-80

EXHIBIT 8.
Strunk Declaration Page 12
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 1 of 9 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 3 of 9 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 5 of 9 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 7 of 9 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 73 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 9 of 9

Plaintiffs:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
John Joseph Forjone ± Medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com
Dan Delplato Jr. - Dandelplatojr@yahoo.com
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80
Gabe Razzano - Captgabe1@yahoo.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Ed Person Jr. ± raptorprimo2002ad@yahoo.com In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)
JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et.al.
Defendants Counsels: Plaintiffs}
v.
Mary Pat Fleming U.S. Attorney's Office Federal Centre 138 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202
Peter B. Sullivan New York State Attorney General 107 Delaware Avenue Fourth Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS
David W. Kloss Kloss & Stenger 69 Delaware Avenue Suite 1003 Buffalo, NY 14202 WILKEY, et.al.
Jeremy A. Colby Webster Szanyi, LLP 1400 Liberty Bldg. Buffalo, NY 14202
Defendants.
Joseph F. Reina Erie County Department of Law 69 Delaware Avenue - Suite 300 Buffalo, NY 14202
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Michael E. Davis Monroe County Department of Law 39 West Main Street - Room 307 Rochester, NY 14614
Kathleen M. Dougherty Onondaga County of Department of Law John H. Mulroy Civic Center 421 Montgomery Street - 10th Floor PLAINTIFF STRUNK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF
Syracuse, NY 13202
Thomas Simeti County of Rockland Department of Law 11 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MAKE A CONSOLIDATED REPLY OF
Carol Fumanti Arcuri Office of the Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue 6th Floor - Room 600 White Plains, NY EXPANDED LENGTH WITH EXHIBITS
10601
Aaron J. Marcus Broome County Attorney's Office 44 Hawley Street P.O. Box 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902 Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:
Michael G. Reinhardt Ontario County Attorney's Office 27 North Main Street -4th Floor Canandaigua, NY 14424-1447
John V. Hartzell Jefferson County Attorney's Office 175 Arsenal Street Watertown, NY 13601 1. That I am a plaintiffs pro se without being an attorney, who was the party who
Alan R. Peterman Hiscock & Barclay, LLP One Park Place 300 South State Street P.O. Box 4878 Syracuse, NY 13221-4878
Tina M. Wayland-Smith Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC 60 East State Street Sherrill, NY 13461 entered the remark with the Court in regards to request for a Special Master, Stay in lieu of
Francine A. Chavez NM Attorney General's Office P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504
Wylie E. Kumler Office of the Attorney General of Texas 300 W. 15th Street - Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 any associated report and for a consolidated response to the Defendants several motion to
Diana L. Varela Assistant Attorney General Attorney for State of Arizona 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926
Thomas J. Cawley, Esq. Sullivan County Department of Law County Government Center 100 North Street -P.O. Box 5012 dismiss the amended complaint recorded as such at docket item 73.
Monticello, NY 12701
Aven Rennie, Esq. Mcgavern, Mcgavern & Grimm, LLP 1100 Rand Building 14 Lafayette Square Buffalo,, NY 14203 2. Subsequent to the Court text order of defendants to response to the Remark very
Stephen M. Sorrels Feldman, Kiefer & Herman, LLP 110 Pearl Street - Suite 400 Buffalo, NY 14202
Joshua J. Hicks Senior Deputy Attorney General Civil Division 100 North Carson Street Carson City, NV. 89701-4717 numerous responses were received accordingly between.
Eric J. Wilson Assistant Attorney General the State of Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-
4096 3. Permission to submit a consolidated Reply of expanded length with exhibits to
the state of CALIFORNIA, Secretary of State 1500 11th Street Sacramento, California 95814
Bill Lockyer Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-255 26 Defendants Responses shown at Docket Items 76 thru 96 as provided pursuant to the Court
Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr. Assistant County Attorney- Suffolk County Attorney¶s Office H. Lee Dennison Bldg. 100 Veterans
Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099 Stay Order and Text Orders shown Docket items 24, 27 and 75 respectively.
Ester Miller, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Nassau County Attorney¶s Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501
4. I herewith submit the original of my consolidated reply entitled Plaintiff Strunk
For the information of:
Consolidated Reply to Defendants Responses to the Remark Request for a special master,
Todd D. Valentine Esq. New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben St. Albany, NY, 12207
Robert K. Dornan - 31341 Andres Pico Road San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 stay and consolidated response to Defendants¶ MTD the Amended Complaint declared
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)
JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et.al.
Plaintiffs}
v.
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS
WILKEY, et.al.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff Strunk Consolidated Reply to Defendants Responses to the Remark
Request for a special master, stay and consolidated response to
Defendants¶ MTD the Amended Complaint
I am Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se without being an attorney, hereby declares and
certifies under penalty of perjury that this is my consolidated reply to Defendants various
Responses to the Remark request for a special master, stay and consolidated response to
Defendants¶ MTD the Amended Complaint shown as Docket Item 73, that by leave of the Court
on 12 June by text order of defendants were to respond by 5 July, as the excerpt of the Docket
item 75 below shows.
06/09/2006 73 Plaintiffs Request for a Stay of Response to Motion of Several State Defendants and
for Consolidated Response to Motions of Municipal Defendants (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service) (JDK, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
06/12/2006 75 TEXT ORDER Defts to file response to plaintiffs' motion, item number 73, on or
before 7/5/2006. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 6/12/2006. (Baker, J.)
Modified on 6/12/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 06/12/2006)
I reply to each and every Response to the Remark chronologically according to the order of
Docket entry provided from June 12 thru July 6 with a Reply Summary thereafter as follows:
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 1 of 42
Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
6. The lack of vital records is germane to the statutory, corporate, quasi corporate or
even simple association of its agents showing the public fiduciary nature of Each agent bound to
the people they serve by oath when missing or transferred to the care private entity association or
lobby group requires a statutory response of both State Defendants under CPLR 1012, whether
or not one is a Republican and one is a Democrat running for Governor, we are suppose to have a
government of laws not men.
7. The NYS Association of Counties is a very influential lobbying group with its
own non-profit insurance company NYMIR originally based in Nassau County now serving
some 600 municipal clients, and that beyond the aegis Department of Insurance, both the SOS
and the NYSAG also oversee such through Corporate and Charities Bureau.
8. When a significant number of entities are clients of the New York Municipal
Insurance Reciprocal herein, the Court as well as Plaintiffs must be apprised of the relationship.
9. To the extent that it appears that the unelected insurance carrier board of directors
directs the affairs of each local government unbeknownst to the people resident within such
entities increasingly suffer loss of real property as a result, especially stretches credulity when
records held by a private entity exempt from FOIL.
10. On the face of the Amended Complaint in the best of all possible worlds the NYS
SOS and AG are statutory defendants under CPLR 1012, each is bound to perform statutory
tasks of office in a nonpartisan manner, and as such one certainly expects a statutory defendant
to have a duty to determine whether or not any suspect county / municipal is in compliance by
operation of law in application of the State Civil Rights Law, and not merely leaving loose
oversight in application of Election Law to a semi private State Board of Elections that bars
participation of nearly 50% of all U.S. Citizens entitled to register and vote that all relates to both
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 3 of 42
Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
06/13/2006 78 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by County of Sullivan.(DLC)
(Entered: 06/15/2006)
1. Mr. Thomas J. Cawley on 1 June responded to the 4 June text order of defendant
to respond to the Amended Complaint and as such the Sullivan County Attorney requested
permission to file a MTD the Amended Complaint belatedly.
2. To wit neither I nor any of the Plaintiffs, I have spoken with have objection to the
appearance and filing of the MTD belatedly.
3. Sullivan County is an extremely important party to this case and is centered at the
controversy referenced by Mr. Colby below in regards to the need to bring the Federal and State
provision of plain speedy and efficient remedy up to date as well as the fight that I and my
associates have been waging to protect the people¶s suffrage, first amendment provision of
speech in the legislature and autonomous Homerule effectiveness in real property and other
matters long abandoned since Nelson Rockefeller greased the skids for kleptocracy backroom
dealing statewide and nationally.
06/14/2006 77 DECLARATION signed by Peter B. Sullivan re 73 Remark filed by The Secretary
of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012, The
Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR
1012 filed by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney
General per CPLR 1012, The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State
Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
4. Mr. Sullivan on 14 June responded promptly with leave of the court to my remark
request for a special master, stay and consolidated response to the various Defendants' MTD.
5. If correlation in the FOIL delay with filing deadline may simply be failure to meet
the 5 day deadline with a 5 week response that would somehow require NYS CPLR Article 78 to
apply is laughable. Especially when in fact Plaintiffs got a response with no answer, that
although late was an extraordinary response points to an enigma.
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 2 of 42
Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
the State Constitution and statutory obligation of each municipal / county / agent defendant.
11. Is it hubristic contempt not to assist the Court to determine if each entity is
properly configured to apply for Federal funds under HAVA in the first place?
12. When there is appearance of impropriety in a county / municipality maintaining
boards of elections within under questionable circumstances isn¶t it the duty of the Secretary of
State and Attorney General to investigate and report to the public interest in the matter?
13. In part we use the False Claims Act because the state of New York to date has no
False Claims Act for partisan reasons going to that impropriety.
14. Mr. Sullivan argues in paragraph 8 that Amended Complaint be decided from the
fours corners principle. Notwithstanding Mr. Sullivan¶s reference in paragraph 6 to the current
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in which he speaks is already affirmed in his MTD as
unintelligible.
15. As such, counsel may not have both sides of his argument, for my understanding
of the four corners principle requires any subject document be intelligible for it to apply- or does
counsel now withdraw the MTD.
16. Mr. Sullivan argues in paragraph 9 that expenses for a special master would be
borne by parties pursuant to FRCvP Rule 53(h) therein objects at the suggestion. But does he
also object to State Defendants performing the role required under CPLR 1012?
17. If defendants refuse to do their duty, the expense of a special master is absolutely
to be borne solely by their gross negligence.
18. In that context of the foregoing discussion I certainly don¶t see how it is
unreasonable to assume that Plaintiffs would have been able to amend the complaint in even
more concise a manner if the Secretary of State had responded to the 27 March FOIL instead of
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 4 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
waiting until after the May 1 filing deadline to make the May 6 statutory response and or the 23. To wit I did, and was seated next to Joel Graber of the NYS AG office on 7 June;

NYS Attorney General had devoted more effort to his fiduciary responsibilities and heightened a copy of seat designation herewith marked EXHIBIT A-1.

care of both the Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A and related laws to be measured by 24. As I had expected the State legislature was not only tardy on the matter of

expressed terms of the State Constitution mandates - however ignored. meeting the amicus invitation deadline, but split along Democratic partisan lines in favor of

taking more real property upstate from the sheeple by expanding the Democratic Party class
06/16/2006 80 DECLARATION signed by Jeremy A. Colby re 8 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint,,,,
Emergency Stay Motion filed by County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of
preference.
Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of
Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County of
25. The kleptocracy is observed to outrageously operate with bipartisan consent not
Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex,
County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, competition, a duopoly acting as one monopoly, that would have judicial primaries imposed
County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County
of Tioga, County of Warren in Further Support of County Defendants' Request to favoring the wealthy upstate and downstate as well.
Enjoin Plaintiffs as Vexatious Litigators. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Colby, Jeremy)
(Entered: 06/16/2006) 26. Here in Brooklyn as observed elsewhere in the State the kleptocracy has operated

19. Mr. Colby on 16 June responded to my remark representing an ever growing for four decades without State oversight, still continues to flout the law as the trial evidence in

number of municipalities whose appearance it seems is that of the NYMIR insurance carrier the Torres case shows flourishes in the city of New York with impunity.

providing liability coverage of public servants bound by oath of office and undertaking required 27. The Attorney for the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal, whose bottom-

by statute. line income depends upon it¶s clients annual premium payment, appears with a conflict of

20. On 30 May I filed the Amicus referenced by Mr. Colby at Second Circuit after interest to maintain each client municipality dressed in habit only- the state constitution takes

both: having been denied intervenor status in Eastern District by Judge Gleeson also taken on precedence over any habitual statutory abuse of authority that may have existed say in 1821.

appeal; and I was motivated if at all possible, to keep the State legislature honest to force 28. However nearly two hundred years later we need to sort out fact over fiction,

submission of an amicus on the EL §6-124 Judicial Convention matter by 2 June 2006. despite protestations from agents of the New York State Association of Counties business lobby;

21. To wit the State Legislature amicus was late and my Amicus was on time. The 29. Where both the Secretary of State and Attorney General each take their oath

Clerk of the Court phoned me on 31 May urging that I file a T1080 motion supporting seriously under CPLR 1012 are bound to clarify that statutory authority, and if not, certainly the

paperwork by 1 June 2006. New York State Court of Appeals would have sorted out the expressed State Constitution where

22. To wit I did and motion was approved on 2 June for Amicus status. On 2 June the any statutory boundary applies under State Constitution Articles III, VI, and IX for local

Clerk told me to arrange a reservation for court room seating at the 7 June oral argument. government, accordingly also applies to 28 USC 112 and or modification.

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 5 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 6 of 42

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

30. Certainly with the demise of Vaudeville entertainment and weekend racing at be properly addressed otherwise? Plaintiffs are operating on a shoe string budget, and I

Monticello, that still curiosity surrounds why Defendant Sullivan County occupies both the 3rd don¶t believe there is a college degree among us, certainly is no defense, but is reason

Department in Northern District, however is sequestered in Southern District as if by the enough to understand how this case was initiated in such an unorthodox way to protect
nd
gambling lobby were part of 2 Department ± no small discrepancy when considering the long individual propriety property and liberty. I contend that not one of us is frivolous in this

bout of new found tribal exhumations of late that has found by apparent sober séance a vision or any other matter;

quest for tribal offspring, that has focused offshore investments to conjure and allege trespass to I certainly wouldn¶t be here otherwise, as a long personal court record since 1996

the six nations treaty of 1784. is there to support. We have each affirmed and verify herein that our suffrage first

31. The state of New York remains at the heart of offshore investment and China amendment guarantee is preservative of individual liberty and that our posterity is at

policy to this day, as it had been starting before it inception in 1683. To try to separate stake. So with all that in mind we had to effect proper due process for all state defendants

international from domestic, past from present, would render RICO matters inexplicable. of the several states to form a class of the various states under provisions of the False

32. Although I believe Mr. Colby would speak off the record differently than for Claims Act related to HAVA according to current State and Federal Rules, and

express goals of the NYMIR employer; however, based upon the actual record of this and related Therefore we had to devise a way to invite voluntary joinder of all New York

proceedings, he appears conflicted for his clients. subdivision municipalities as willing defendants, even going so far to direct alternate

First in retrospect of Forjone v Leavitt WDNY 05-cv-395, Mr. Colby represents appearance service away from the clerk of the court so that each municipal attorney

Mr. Stanley Dudek that was Administrative Director of the Orleans County Legislature would have to voluntarily appear without further action on plaintiffs part.

who promptly resigned from that post when duly served with the complaint therein. As such all but a few have joined and as the record shows Mr. Colby between

However continues to maintain his NYMIR Board of Directors employment as Risk February 17 until the Docket item #8 on March 13, 2006 appeared at the behest of each

Assessment Underwriter for all 600 insured municipalities, and as such as then draws County Attorney of Allegany, Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston,

attention to the arbitrary lack of Orleans County real property assessment oversight. Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Putnam, Tioga, and Warren County, and that at

Second, the difficulty of initiating this case with so many defendant parties in the the direction of all fourteen attorneys filed an emergency motion to Stay that resulted in

matter of the simple relationship of Bottom-up suffrage and Homerule to that of the the Order shown as Docket item 24 on 29 March.

questionable top-down regimen being imposed under NVRA and now HAVA, I know Third, beyond the fact of all Fourteen County attorneys voluntarily appearing in

would challenge even the largest law firms, how else would such all encompassing issue the case, that under the stay without permission of the Court, Mr. Colby then solicited

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 7 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 8 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
eleven more County Attorneys to voluntarily appear using his services totaling twenty- Buffalo must be determined by the undertaking insurance carrier (later determined to be

five clients as listed in Docket item 80 above. NYMIR when Mr. Spring¶s secretary returned my subsequent phone call left on the

Fourth, beyond the fact of Mr. Colby soliciting eleven additional clients insured answer machine, told me the carrier¶s name is New York Municipal Insurance

by NYMIR, the Association-in-fact by its agent wants plaintiffs sanctioned to pay for Mr. Reciprocal.)

Colby¶s personal gain for what we contend is his professional transgression against not 33. I deny what Mr. Colby in paragraph 4 wrongly states quote ³In other words, Mr.

only his clients while in contempt of Court cannon of ethics, by his actual vexatious Strunk suggests that the Western District of New York does not exist.´ There are ³no other

harassment of plaintiffs to take our property wants our liberty taken too. words´, and

Fifth, without getting into the response to each motion to dismiss by the various 34. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit

counties reserving such as it relates to HAVA specifically and the matter of VAP (Voting same for brevity and assert that there is similarity as in formation of any sovereign nation with

Age Population) associated with harboring of aliens, as if ³America´ in HAVA applied to that of Vermont from that of New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Vermont was a

the American Western Hemisphere instead of just U.S. Citizens 18 years or older without fully autonomous and sovereign country for fourteen years before joining the union goes to my

being civilly dead. understanding of the ripeness principle that delineates when matters are subject to judicial

Mr. Colby has got Fulton County as a NYMIR insured client that is expressly review and when they aren¶t.

different than any other municipality in the state of New York mix of Subdivision 35. I believe Federal deference to any state constitution definition of county

because it is the expressed lower limit of size for determining the legitimacy of any legitimacy per se is a ripe equity matter that goes to judicial provision of plain speedy and

municipality clearly expressed in the State Constitution Article III Section 5, expressly efficient remedy.

mandates that ³ «Hamilton and Fulton shall elect together«´ however don¶t, and 36. Therefore, ripeness of the issue mandates a hearing in conjunction with that of the

That we contend that Hamilton is not even entitled to any Board of Elections at NVRA and HAVA matters devised by Congress that have so affected provision of the people¶s

all, MUST depend upon that created under Election Law only in Fulton. I spoke with the bottom-up suffrage in every Homerule municipality under the state constitution still with plenary

Fulton County Attorney, the Honorable Arthur Spring, in early March after receiving his control over suffrage expressly guaranteed by Article 1 Section 4 of the US Constitution.

notice of acceptance of alternative service acknowledged 28 February 2006 (a copy 37. The 1947 statute 28 USC 112 defers to state legislative authority given it by the

herewith marked EXHIBIT B-1); and respective state constitution, and is notwithstanding the New York Legislature gerrymandered

During the phone call, Mr. Spring told me that the matter of actual appearance in nugatory kleptocracy, nevertheless must follow the express terms of the state constitution - this

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 9 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 10 of 42

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

Court must make a declaratory judgment in this regard. 44. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit

38. Arguendo, Congress has no authority to regionalize state associated Federal same for brevity and assert that To the extent Mr. Marcus is new to this matter this reply may be

judicial process without taking express authority with regard to the state constitution and helpful for him.

associated due process as one continuous interrelated inseparable whole.

06/23/2006 82 AFFIDAVIT re [75] Order, Set Deadlines Affidavit of Alan R. Peterman, Esq. in
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Special Master by County of Lewis.
39. Now in 2006, forty plus years after WMCA v Lomenzo with county Homerule
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Peterman, Alan) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
consolidated under a CEO mayor in the city of New York, renders all New York Districts
45. Mr. Peterman representing Lewis County adopts the arguments of Mr. Sullivan
discombobulated; and therefore Congress, the state Legislature as well as this Court must take
from the submission shown as Docket item 77, and the position of Broome County affirmation of
direction from the respective state constitution.
Mr. Marcus shown as Docket item 81 is adopted only to the extent that payment of a special
40. However this Court in a res novo original case, not a pendent matter, may choose
master would be borne by defendants, and without mention of DOJ appearance would otherwise
not to listen to the New York State Court of Appeals when there is no precedent effecting
not oppose a special master.
Federal jurisdiction.
46. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
41. In a de facto manner, Western District of New York as well as every other District
same for brevity and assert that I take exception to the point by Mr. Peterman in his paragraph 4
exists per se, but we contend each must be in compliance with the State Constitution expression
metaphorical description of the complaint and amendment were it limited, for in comparison of
of County, isn¶t done.
the characteristics as somehow being an environmental hazard that would further ³muddy the
42. This is a matter of form follows function not as Mr. Colby wrongly alleges as
waters´ without also seeing the benefit of stirring such waters and to drain the swamp too.
form over function (substance).
47. If to the contrary, the borders of the legitimate municipalities were redrawn to
06/22/2006 81 DECLARATION signed by Aaron J. Marcus filed by County of Broome, County of
meet the requirements of the State Constitution, in fact granted that act would certainly be
Broome Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Stay (No. 73) filed by
County of Broome, County of Broome. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of hazardous to the existing kleptocracy.
Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
48. However, such consolidation and or mergers would beneficially cleanup the
43. Mr. Marcus on 21 June filed a response to my Remark in opposition to Plaintiffs
political/economic environment that is making life unlivable here in New York, so much so, that
request for a special master and stay of a consolidated response to the various MTD. Although
unbearable misery is chasing productive generations elsewhere in record numbers, while the
Mr. Marcus alleges he doesn¶t understand what plaintiffs are requesting he opposes it no matter
kleptocracy outrageously gives safe harbor to illegal aliens for reaping unjust enrichment.
what it is; except for the matter that a consolidated response seems to make sense to him as

expressed at paragraph 15.

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 11 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 12 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
arguments set forth in Dockets items 77, 81 and 82 without mention of the appearance by DOJ.
06/29/2006 84 AFFIDAVIT re [75] Order, Set Deadlines Affidavit of Thomas Simeti, Esq. in Response
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Special Master and Extension of Time by
52. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
County of Rockland, County of Rockland filed by County of Rockland, County of
Rockland. (Simeti, Thomas) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
same for brevity and assert that this filing by Mr. Colby is more measured and unique from his
06/29/2006 85 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by County of Rockland re 84 Affidavit, (Simeti, Thomas)
(Entered: 06/29/2006) previous filings and apart from other counsels argues the show cause order is not pre-mature, and

further argues in three points at page 2 that notwithstanding mention of the proposed RICO
49. Mr. Simeti on 29 June in response to the remark adopted the argument made by
statement that somehow a lack of information as to the nature of Defendants compliance with
Mr. Sullivan for NYS Defendants shown as Docket item 77, also concurs with opinions of Mr.
state law should pose no special hardship for plaintiffs to be able to respond, and
Peterman at Docket item 82 and the affirmation (sic) Declaration of Mr. Marcus on behalf of
53. That Mr. Colby speaking for his clients does not oppose plaintiffs consolidated
Broome County, and without mention of the DOJ appearance, is in opposition to a special master
immediate response to the extent that County Defendants¶ specific arguments are addressed; and
or additional time to respond to various MTD.
as a third point offers Plaintiffs counsel on how to prepare and organize limits on who may be
50. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
named a party to the proposed RICO statement.
same for brevity and assert that Rockland County is a State Constitutionally compliant / non-
54. That Mr. Colby on 1 June filed the MOL in support of the MTD the amendment
conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering is entitled to a Board of Elections within,
complaint shown as Docket 67, and that admittedly his clients would be greatly affected by the
and that the process of determining current statutory compliance of other 47 municipalities
findings of the NYS Defendants while performing their duty under CPLR 1012 accordingly.
alleged in violation of state constitution would significantly benefit from NYS Defendants
55. That Mr. Colby may represent the entity clients in whatever form they may be
fulfillment with duties associated with CPLR 1012, and or a special master as the court would
deemed to be associated in, however what is an absolute surety, is that the interests of the people
deem necessary to provide both width and depth of certainty to render a decision herein.
resident within are not served by Mr. Colby¶s efforts nor are they assisted to find out in a plain
06/30/2006 86 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 73 Remark to Plaintiffs' Letter Dated May 31,
2006 by County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of speedy manner in hopes of obtaining any efficient remedy without the relief requested by
Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of
Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Plaintiffs being granted by the Court accordingly.
Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton,
County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida,
56. What Mr. Colby has failed to mention is that Plaintiffs FCA based complaint is
County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County
centered around the various states questionable filing for HAVA funds alleged done with
of Warren. (Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

malicious use of VAP involving inter alia harboring of aliens, a federal felony consistently
51. Mr. Colby on 30 June in support of his declaration of June 16 shown as docket
having gone unpunished as seen in the record of the, proceeding of the Honorable Robert K.
item 80 filed in opposition to my request for relief in the remark at docket 73. Therein adopts the

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 13 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 14 of 42

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

Dornan out in California in 1996 and thereafter with malicious complicity of Newt Gingrich, matter of municipal provision of Homerule bottom-up suffrage and effective autonomous

Thomas Foley and others bent of aiding and abetting such felonies participated without representation in the state legislature and state political parties either at the state executive or

immunity protection in the enterprise, municipal committee level.

57. Thereby is to be proof at trial of both pattern and conduct of nullifying and 63. It appears to me that the only relief available for ensuring compliance absent

offsetting racketeering activity affecting plaintiffs¶ franchise as well as those similarly as a class waiting another five years of unbearable corruption until the State Legislature with a new Federal

yet to be determined. apportionment would somehow miraculously act spontaneously.

58. That when the so-called central databases on a state by state and federal level are 64. Notwithstanding if Mr. Spitzer were somehow to endeavor by his second term as

rendered virtual, and there is a due diligence worthy of public service to compare the actual governor to circumvent the state legislature as promised, without cooperation of the legislature or

record with that database, until that autocracy decides to reverse forty years of non-compliance of its own making, then it is

59. That there has not been proper Fiduciary statutory oversight and heightened the Federal Court system under authority developed after Baker v Carr of 1962 for Tennessee

standard of care adequate to prevent a product of fraud, is the case starting not later than 1993 political districts that must take this res novo matter and make the renewed VRA section 5 real.

with implementation of NVRA; and

07/05/2006 88 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Remark filed by County of Onondaga. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service)(Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
60. Therefore, with time being of the essence as the events unfold, Plaintiffs needed

to file both a timely complaint with all its obvious shortcomings explained below, and now the 65. Ms. Dougherty on 3 July responded without adopting any specific argument and

proposed RICO statement that would not have been necessary had there been Fiduciary due or position of other defendants nevertheless is in opposition to a special master as well as the

diligence in effect. additional time to which respond to the various motions for making a response.

61. As for the New York state Constitutional authority granted to each and every duly 66. However, does not oppose a consolidated immediate response separate from the

constituted municipality to reapportion the respective political districts by March 1, 2006, issue of a special master for the purposes of expediting review of sufficiency of the amendment

regretfully that time deadline is passed for all but those having appeared before 1 March; and complaint.

62. By our record of defendants¶ counsels appearance only a handful of duly 67. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit

constitute municipalities appeared in time - one of whom is Fulton that must elect together with same for brevity and assert that Onondaga is a State Constitutionally compliant / non-

Hamilton ± nothing is done nor does NYMIR and or NY Association of Counties dependent conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering nevertheless is entitled to a Board of

upon a steady cash flow annually want to have any compliance with the state constitution in the Elections within that in the process of determining the current statutory compliance of the other

47 municipalities alleged in violation of the state constitution would significantly benefit by

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 15 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 16 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
either New York State Defendants fulfillment with duties associated with CPLR 1012 and or a and a consolidated response to defendants MTD to date. Mr. Sorrels adopts the arguments of Mr.

special master as the court would deem necessary to provide both width and depth of certainty Colby with various NYMIR clients, Mr. Marcus of Broome, Mr. Peterman of Lewis, and Mr.

to render a decision herein. Simeti of Rockland.

71. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
07/05/2006 89 DECLARATION signed by Carol F. Arcuri re 73 Remark filed by County of
Westchester, County of Westchester with attached Certificate of Service filed by
same for brevity and assert that
County of Westchester, County of Westchester. (Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
72. I believe it was in January 2006 that the attorney for Columbia County called me
68. Ms. Arcuri on 5 July in response to the remark joined in and adopted the
in reference to my attempt to no avail to obtain a set of summons in order to service his and other
argument made by NYS Defendants in Point II of their Memorandum shown as Docket item 29
counties in the related case Loeber v. Spargo NDNY 04-cv-1193, and what did I mean by my
as well as the Declaration with MOL for the MTD dockets items 60 and 61, and the Declaration
reference to the term ³gaming the system´ regarding HAVA billing.
of Mr. Marcus on behalf of Broome County, without mention of the DOJ, in opposition to a
73. At that time I assured him that the use of the word gaming, as in the ³bad man
special master combined with a motion to dismiss of its own on the basis of alternate service.
principle´, was meant to connote walking the broad line within the vague legal area created by
69. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
Congress in HAVA, was not formally intended to be used in regards to his RICO understanding
same for brevity and assert that I deny Ms. Arcuri¶s allegation in paragraph 10 that regarding
of the term that seemed to concern him the most.
adequate notice of wrongdoing by Westchester despite plaintiffs clearly establishing that it is a
07/05/2006 91 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Special Master and for
State Constitutionally compliant / non-conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering
Consolidation of Plaintiffs' Response filed by State of Arizona. (DLC) (Entered:
nevertheless is entitled to a Board of Elections within that in the process of determining the 07/05/2006)
74. To the extent that Ms. Varela has adopted the argument of Mr. Sullivan as to a
current statutory compliance of the other 47 municipalities alleged in violation of the state
special master and or additional time required for due process associated with duties under CPLR
constitution would significantly benefit by either New York State Defendants fulfillment with
1012, the appearance of Ms. Varela although quite welcome and substantive in regards to the
duties associated with CPLR 1012 and or a special master as the court would deem necessary to
ongoing conflict between EAC and Arizona¶s plenary responsibility to safeguard elections visa
provide both width and depth of certainty to render a decision herein.
vi Proposition 200.
07/05/2006 90 DECLARATION filed by County of Columbia, County of Columbia in Response to
75. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
Plaintiffs' Application filed by County of Columbia, County of Columbia. (Sorrels,
Stephen) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
same for brevity and assert that Plaintiffs welcome and support the great state of Arizona¶s

70. Mr. Sorrels on 5 July responded to my remark with a general opposition to any efforts to defend U.S. Citizens suffrage under express use of the VRA that affirmatively protects

relief requested by Plaintiffs in regards to a special master, stay pending a special master report against felonious theft of U.S. Citizen Rights - unlike what is being done in other named states
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 17 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 18 of 42

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

including the state of New York. autonomous to New York U.S. Citizens must be respectfully ignored or even stricken, that until

76. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the affirmative aspects of proposition 200, the the State Defendants reverse their gross dereliction of duty they are unable to represent the

entire registration database must be made retroactive to all Arizona registered voters not just interests of the People of the State of New York in a non-partisan manner.

those newly registering and or voting for the first time, as must be the case nationwide in each 82. However in contrast to the extent that Arizona respectfully submits on page 3

state of the several states. counsel to construe plaintiff request for consolidation I agree and have not heard disagreement

77. I believe a prudent application of special master provisions to protect U.S. Citizen from the other Plaintiffs.

bottom-up suffrage in New York is a matter of 9th 10th and 11th amendment protection with
07/05/2006 92 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 73 Request for Appointment of a Special Master and
request for a Stay to Respond to each State and County through a consolidated
immunity from interference by Arizona and or any other state or foreign diversity challenge for
response pending determination of the parties filed by State of New Mexico. (DLC)
(Entered: 07/05/2006)
that matter; and therefore Arizona¶s challenge to our request for substantive due process ignored

by New York State Defendants is to be stricken aside from the HAVA / FCA matter. 83. Ms. Chavez has adopted both the argument of Mr. Sullivan as well as that of Mr.

78. However, of benefit to Arizona and other states of the several states, is the proper Colby as to all other relief and sanctions against me and other Plaintiffs who I do not speak for

configuration of New York bottom-up versus top down suffrage that must be settled before a without mention of the response by DOJ.

declaratory judgment on use of the VAP formula if at all; and 84. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit

79. Further, in the event proper bottom-up configuration of New York subdivisions is same for brevity and assert that the onerous nature of the New Mexico response absolutely

deemed paramount then it must be decided first to resolve the proper redistribution and or offset requires plaintiffs be afforded an opportunity to respond to New Mexico motion to dismiss

of HAVA funds; and separate and apart from this reply to the response to the remark requesting a special master and

80. Then furthermore, this case would proceed accordingly whether with a proper or additional time required for due process associated with duties under CPLR 1012, that the

determination of New York subdivision provision of suffrage by Mr. Sullivan¶s clients as is their response in regards to special master must be entirely stricken from the record as violative of

duty under law, and or otherwise done by a special master, may very well result in Arizona U.S. Citizens autonomous rights here in New York.

HAVA funds increase that it otherwise would not have received under certain categories of 85. On Page 3 Ms. Chavez confirms that we have not duly served the amended

HAVA reimbursement- that is unless the Court deems a national special master needed rather complaint and as such Plaintiffs in keeping with the stay and voluntary appearance scheme

than fiduciary duty done by DOJ and EAC. described above, await direction by the Court, and would duly serve the amended complaint

81. Separate and apart from the Special Master issue, Arizona¶s position on matters accordingly.

86. However, due to the voluntary nature of the New York state subdivision
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 19 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 20 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
appearance we believe is unnecessary, disruptive to the court calendar and counterproductive to 93. Moreover the DOJ has no basis to interfere in the affairs of the State of New York

our efforts to both streamline and consolidate this action, which if it proceeds under the FCA / unless it would want to start rigorously enforcing both the voting rights and INA for a change in

HAVA matter, Plaintiffs know is far more complicated than the simple procedural matters before my lifetime.

the Court. 94. Otherwise, the DOJ comments on Plaintiffs request of process in state matters of

87. However, the recalculation process would involve an order that such be operation of law and Homerule autonomy are beyond DOJ authority and must be stricken from

preformed by the DOJ and EAC rather than by us. the record in as far as they are not germane to the decision of this court as to whether it will order

the NYS Defendant to perform their Fiduciary duty or be subject to pay for the task performed
07/05/2006 93 REPLY/RESPONSE to re [75] Order, Set Deadlines RESPONSE BY FEDERAL
DEFENDANTS filed by the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney
by a special master jointly acceptable to Plaintiffs.
General Alberto Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1)(Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
95. In the matter of Ms. Fleming and Mr. Herren Jr. Support a consolidated response
88. Ms. Mary E. Fleming of the DOJ WDNY Office and Mr. T. Christian Herren Jr.
to the various MTD on a briefing schedule determined by the court we concur subject to the
Attorney from the DOJ Voting Rights Section in Washington D.C. representing the Federal
wisdom of the court in this matter. I have been a criticizing DOJ process since 1999, and started
Defendants on 5 July jointly filed a MTD the Amended Complaint (Docket Item 91) and as such
speaking with Joseph Rich in 2003 before he retired walking where few go.
we reserve our right to respond at a latter date with leave of the Court.
96. This case is about a FCA theft of HAVA funds by a malicious racketeering
89. In addition Ms. Fleming and Mr. Herren Jr. on 5 July also filed a response to the
enterprise, initiated by conduct and unjust enrichment starting not later than with implementation
remark; therein they consider frivolous my request for a special master and associated stay.
of NVRA in 1993 and no one in government wants to hear that, especially the gatekeepers DOJ.
90. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
07/05/2006 94 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Remark, [75] Order, Set Deadlines Motion to
same for brevity and assert that the DOJ just made an appearance blocked my efforts in Albany
Appoint Special Master filed by The City of New York, The duly elected Borough
to seek to expose the concealment to keep the people in each municipal entity in the dark also. President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of
Service)(Kloss, David) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
91. Why is it too much to ask government at every level to operate according to law
97. Mr. Kloss representing the city of New York (NYC) and Borough president
and to provide every citizen with an intelligible answer to be able to form an informed judgment?
Markowitz on 3 July filed response to the remark therein merely reprise the adequacy of both the
92. That when a person seeks information on the conduct of government at the local
Complaint and whether or not the Amended Complaint would survive Federal review of rules.
clerks office and is told to ask the Department of State and is then told by the DOS to go to a
98. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
private lobby group who is manipulating due process from behind the scenes and is immune
same for brevity and assert that the matter of the transparency of the municipality of NYC is
from FOIL requests well the DOJ better sit up and take a lesson herein.
clearly challenged in the original Complaint and continued in amendment. Mr. Kloss has not

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 21 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 22 of 42

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

established a direct interest other than passage of time how verifying the compliance of 47 or so direct knowledge on the retail and wholesale provision of false documents and harboring with

municipalities or what ever they are outside of NYC would adversely impact NYC when in fact intent to commit a felony in NYC and that he has not done nor will assist Homeland Security in

NYC is already alleged to violate the one-third of the senators provision of State Constitution preventing such crimes complained of herein by me and other Plaintiffs as a class similarly

Article III as a res novo matter to which Mr. Kloss nor anyone else especially NYS DOS and Ag situated being injured by not only the violation of the State Constitution but by substantive

have responded to. racketeering acts being in effect no different had they been done by agents of Tyson Foods and

99. The fact that there is a clear well established pattern of conduct by a racketeering or Mohawk Industries both are extreme examples of an Ultra Vires enterprise racketeering and

enterprise here in NYC, although at the municipal government level at the center, to the extent felonious fraud injuring and targeting U.S. Citizens specifically (a copy of the New York Post

that enterprise members have been found some to have been convicted and incarcerated since no Article published 6 July is herewith marked EXHIBIT C-1); and

later than the mid eighties, the facts must be put before this court in the matter of malicious 104. Further the Associated Press on 5 July publishes Mayor Bloomberg¶s hubristic

facilitating of harboring the presence of illegal aliens in NYC. statements as a slap to the face of all U.S. Citizens, is treason against the nation as a whole, and

100. The malicious intent is well beyond the one-third of the senators Rule, it effects shows how entrenched the enterprise is and how long it has been operating with impunity. A

illegal unjust enrichment not only at the state legislative, executive and judicial level but in the copy of the article herewith marked as EXHIBIT C-2, reports that Mayor Bloomberg said New

illegal creation of EL §2-104 illegal county committees of state parties referenced in the Amicus York City is home to more than 3 million immigrants and that a half-million of them came to the

Exhibit submitted herein by Mr. Colby, and that the enterprise by use of illegal aliens to nullify country illegally, said:

and offset U.S. Citizen suffrage and autonomy rights associated with proprietary property here in "Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders ... our city's
economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were
NYC is most certainly actively engaged in racketeering here Brooklyn and other NYC boros. deported," Bloomberg said. "The same holds true for the nation."

101. As further example of the ³Don¶t ask Don¶t Tell´ policy as to illegal aliens 105. Even in the matter of a broad application of hardship provisions for illegal aliens

continuing since no later than the 1980 Federal Census starting with Mr. Edward I Koch is done Section 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §1182(i), that allows for

as a continuous unbroken pattern of felonious conduct harboring and facilitating illegal aliens to any illegal alien petitioner to establish extreme hardship for a "qualifying relative." goes to the

vote through the present Mayor Michael Bloomberg. anchor baby issue, and

102. Mayor Bloomberg on 5 July testified under oath at the US Senate Judiciary 106. That Mayor Bloomberg¶s statements are outrageous admission under oath that

Committee hearings on so-called Immigration reform with Mr. Specter presiding in Philadelphia. requires action herein against his transgression, and are indicative of the pattern of conduct that

103. In the first instance Mayor Bloomberg testified under oath that HE had and has goes to theft of U.S. Citizen proprietary property involved by the illegals and the enterprise

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 23 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 24 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
acting in concert has been established by 2nd Circuit in addressing an issue of first impression, in 111. Plaintiffs have alleged no less than substantive violation of NYS Civil Rights Law

which the circuit said it could not review such a denial because it was a "discretionary judgment" Chapter 6 Article 5A (CRL), by both SOS Daniels and NYSAG Spitzer, and with even more

committed to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Zhang v. Gonzales, 04-2503-ag. machinations have materially participated as willing participants in the enterprise and

107. Just because Mayor Bloomberg wrings his hands in concern, as done on WABC racketeering activity with harboring of Illegal Aliens associated with plaintiffs injury directly

radio recently, because of his questionable fears that without illegal aliens grooming his along with those similarly situated, and

membership and use of country club greens, may somehow threaten his golf game, does not 112. That when public officials maliciously substantively deny due process in regards

negate the fact that U.S. Citizens from the inception of this nation are quite capable of doing to the sanctity of the municipal provision of suffrage for the people resident within who have in

dirty work and as I personally do hang sheetrock, clean out septic tanks, picking crops and cut effect been reduced to peons on plantations not municipalities subject to princes and

grass, despite the Mayor¶s rationalization otherwise. principalities violate US Citizens 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th 8th 9th 10th 13th amendment rights as guaranteed

108. That given his latest admissions under oath Mr. Bloomberg needs to be a and protected for equal treatment under the 14th herein denied by the SOS and NYSAG.

Defendant herein proposed Racketeering matter before this court review as prima facie evidence 113. Other than express requirements of the State Constitution and related law the

of breach of his Fiduciary duty in very much the same was as for the factual allegations against Pattern of offending conduct by Secretary of State and secondarily that of the Attorney General

both SOS and NYSAG are failing I n their fiduciary duty to U.S. Citizens resident in New York. is to be found in the Fiduciary Duty under NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A- that

109. I emphasize that the one area of law in which both have a clear fiduciary duty to each and every supposed municipality since the 1777 founding must be duly recorded and

enforce Plaintiffs civil and fundamental rights is located under State Civil Rights Law and maintained, whether as a quasi-corporation, full corporation and or association as defined by the

whereby Mr. Bloomberg as has been the case of mayors before him obstructs just in that regard, statute. That the CRL clearly establishes a clear standard of review and performance for both the

can not be over emphasized. SOS and NYSAG who are alleged to have not only failed, but have acted individually in a

110. As with the mandatory existence of the Secretary of State (SOS) historically since partisan manner in breech of their oaths of office.

the April 20, 1777 founding of the state of New York, as the Federally essential State voice 114. The Recent conviction of Clarence Norman in the matter of the Brooklyn

mediating the external affairs of the State per se is the essential party defined in Federal Law and Democratic Committee business should have been on the immediate agenda of both the SOS and

State Law that by operation of the Constitution under article I, II and VI, predates that of the NYSAG, beyond that of the District Attorney.

Attorney General and under girds the legitimacy and broad definition of ³Fiduciary Duty´ 115. However, policing outrageous conduct wasn¶t on the agenda and is still ignored as

separate and apart from that of the ³Chief Law Enforcement Officer´ the Attorney General. if EL §2-104 and §4-100 matters were of little or no consequence to the State¶s future.

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 25 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 26 of 42

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

116. The Brooklyn Democratic Party or any other ³municipal / county´ like party Suffolk country club oligarchs whose backroom obsessions include cheap green fees on golf

committee under EL §2-104 is not similarly situated with a Homerule municipality, must not courses polluted by the chemical industry.

exist in the first place and therefore has no authority except under that created under EL §2-100 122. The public record is replete with proof that Mr. Spitzer has rearranged subsidy for

there should not be any New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, Staten Island County committee the greens with cheap labor, 9th hole vistas clear of residential clutter with manicured wind break

within NYC must only have one (1) EL §2-104 committee with all the necessary Assembly plantations stocked with chirping birds and wildlife free from commoners and taxes whose elite

Districts leaders and Election District structure duly elected according to law, shamelessly divisive entities are guarded by the Charity Bureau.

violated and ignored by both the state and federal courts to plaintiffs¶ detriment and injury. 123. NYC needs the same standard of review as an out of control nugatory entity that

117. An FRCvP Rule 9 special master is required to straighten out the mess that NYC the duopoly has used to loot U.S. Citizen Property upstate.

is presently injuring everyone statewide reimbursed under Rule 53(h) absent other relief.
07/06/2006 95 REPLY/RESPONSE to re [75] Order, Set Deadlines Motion to Appoint Special
Master filed by State of Texas. (Kumler, Wylie) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
118. That beyond the CRL matter, if this is not the place to be vituperative I don¶t

know where else to do it with any meaning and effect. It appears that had Mr. Spitzer 124. Mr. Kumler on 5 July in the Texas Response to the Remark similarly has adopted

distinguished himself while at the Manhattan District Attorney Morgenthau¶s office, he would both the argument of Mr. Sullivan as well as that of Mr. Colby along with other Defendants as to

have taken the bosses job or become a Judge like Sonia Sotomayer. all other relief and sanctions against me and other Plaintiffs who I do not speak for, however fails

119. However as the son of a Democratic Party fund raiser, beyond just being a rich to mention the response of the DOJ.

mans son like Mr. Trump, Mr. Spitzer politically seeks the lowest common denominator while 125. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit

serving the elite with a vengeance. That by extortion threatens the struggling middle class that same for brevity and assert that Mr. Kumler has not replied to the matter of Texas 2004 HAVA

would drag them into costly court actions for obtaining out of court settlements, knowing juries over billing using inflated registrations as recorded by the Texas Board of Elections on its own

would throw such cases out. statistics website, and that Mr. Kumler has not established a direct interest in the state of New

120. As such like Mr. Sheldon Silver, Mr. Spitzer serves the same Wall Street crowd York subdivision compliance matter for a request of Special master in lieu of the NYS DOS and

who¶s Mid-Hudson and Suffolk County courtiers demand arbitrary governance by consent not AG performance of their Fiduciary duty therefore should be deemed advisory at the most for Mr.

competition. Kumler has not established any equity hardship other than passage of time.

121. However Mr. Spitzer, unlike Mr. Silver who merely has to sit in his chamber just 07/06/2006 96 DECLARATION re 73 Remark filed by County of Madison, County of Madison
Affidavit in Opposition filed by County of Madison, County of Madison. (Attachments:
says no, must as an Attorney General without portfolio actively pander to the privileged and # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wayland-Smith, Tina) (Entered: 07/06/2006)

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 27 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 28 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
126. Ms. Wayland-Smith representing Madison County on 6 July filed a combined 132. When presented herein will established both a pattern and conduct involving not

MTD the Amended Complaint and opposition to plaintiffs request for relief detailed by the only that the NVRA motor voter but creation of HAVA will prove certain establishment of the

remark shown as Docket item 73 updating the MTD and associated filing from 17 May shown as fraud enterprise both harboring and participating in felonious registration and facilitation of

Docket items 40 through 42. In doing so argues for dismissal with prejudice that Plaintiffs voting by illegal aliens and aliens in general beginning in California no later than with

provide response to Madison County absent mention of the subject of a consolidated response implementation of the NVRA Motor voter registered voters there and elsewhere; and alleges

unlike that even done by Mr. Colby. corporations are actually billing the Federal treasury for grant money to do such crimes.

127. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit 133. I did not have enough detail to include specifics of the enterprise in 1996 in the

same for brevity and assert that Ms. Wayland ±Smith appears for Madison voluntarily in proposed RICO Statement other than general reports by press and journalists.

whatever form its agent may associate, not only is in non-compliance with the state constitution, 134. As such the fortuitous response by Mr. Dornan clarifies the chain of events, by

is not entitled to a Board of Elections and or any EL §2-104 county committee within. trial, public record and investigation by authorities to meet the requirement of civil RICO now

128. Like Mr. Colby¶s representation of his clients Ms. Wayland-Smith does not on-going with HAVA False Billing as relates to felonious facilitation of aliens and illegal aliens

represent the interest of the people resident within ± there is a substantive fundamental conflict to participate in state and federal elections.

of interest to be resolved. 135. Participation in such fraud on a large scale with facilitation and protection under

The Honorable Robert K. Dornan (US Congress from 1977 thru 1997) public officers and the media control, that predicates done openly with impunity is fraud that has

Requests Leave to Intervene as of Right both nullified and offset U.S. Citizens suffrage and autonomy and or expectation of an effective

129. Since I made the remark shown as Docket item 73, on 12 June the Honorable participation on a targeted basis and

Robert K. Dornan phoned me in conjunction with a 17 April 2006 letter I sent cold to his 136. that now with HAVA nearly in place the rush by seditious public officials for

California address (a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT D-1 inviting him to testify on his own imposing the American Union without borders is so mature, that I am willing to allege with

behalf regarding the 1996 contested election featured in John Fund¶s book ³Stealing Elections´. certainty that the HAVA battle to arrest state control over suffrage is actually drawn upon

130. The 1 May Amended Complaint filing was without Mr. Dornan¶s involvement. elimination of national and state border lines under secret agreements entered unilaterally by Mr.

131. Because his case went through the California State appellate court system and Bush as done with the Dubai secret deals, now has created a new American Union eliminating

then was deferred to the U.S. House Congressional Committee to resolve the outcome with a borders between the U.S.A. with Mexico to the south and Canada to the North.

supposed plenary investigation of fraud, the record there is flawed intentionally, and 137. My perception of what is happening before our eyes has become so mainstream

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 29 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 30 of 42

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

that to characterize an interpretation of Help AMERICA to Vote Act is to literally be just what it dead and as such so would the utility of the U.S. Constitution and Union as well ± is that simple.

says. To help Americans without regard to nationality as a borderless regional component 144. Mr. Dornan has expressed to me in several phone conversations startling proof

known as North America and Central America including the USA Canada and Mexico to vote as meeting federal rules of evidence that involves Newt Gingrich, Thomas Foley, and various other

if U.S. Citizens were nation less, and rather than to be known as ³Help U.S. Citizens Vote Act´. duopoly members of Congress that have until now facilitated illegals and the alien vote.

138. Based upon the Arizona Proposition 200 battles between Arizona and the EAC Remarkably as with any high crime, misdemeanor, bribery are certainly the most seditious acts.

and DOJ, there are other states that have awakened to the matter too not joined herein. 145. However, the crime of treason is the worst crime expression of treachery in the

139. Arizona wants to ask anyone to prove U.S. Citizenship before registering and U.S. Constitution; it seems without a statute of limitation per se.

voting accordingly and the EAC considers it somehow violates ³the Help America to Vote Act´ 146. Mr. Dornan has convinced me by numerous phone conversations that the

as if the American Union crowd includes Mr. Wilkey- by not considering US Citizens only. corroborating evidence available in the public record including at the Immigration Naturalization

140. It is that simple. The entire border control effort by concerned US Citizens trying Service now known as I.C.E., the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, makes the proposed

to protect U.S.A. sovereignty has run a snag with Mr. Bush¶s one-world corporate friends, who RICO statement solid, and spans racketeering enterprise activity from 1993 under NVRA

would be properly termed the universal golf and country club set. through to the present HAVA alleged false claims on both state level national and international

141. There are very wealthy groups who collectively control and operator without need level and as such Mr. Dornan issued a letter for me to serve accordingly, a copy herewith marked

or want of borders, and as such operate globally as if they do not exist or should be eradicated. EXHIBIT D-2.

142. The U.S.A. and states borders within for protection of US. Citizens are 147. The Press has reported the influence of aliens upon the on-going effects of

recognition of each citizen¶s individual rights that come from a god not of flesh and blood districting in Texas in a Washington Times Article entitled Washington Times: Fallout felt

governments, principalities and princes, separate from tyranny of the majority. from Texas redistricting ruling by Hugh Aynesworthy who reports, a copy herewith marked

143. As in the union organizing song one must ask. Which side are you on? National EXHIBIT D-3 ; and

borders under a constitutional republic which protects individual rights separate from those of 148. In the matter of the on-going invasion of aliens in California and the efforts to

the majority because they come from a god or as the Demoncans / Republicrats or Monopolistic provide suffrage there as was done from 1993 onward through the disenfranchisement proven in

duopoly operating like the fabled wizard of OZ / 1984 big brother insisting all the while that we the Dornan 1996 Election debacle, a 7 July 2006 Reuters News article entitled Powerful Latino

have a Constitutional Democracy with not only majority rule where only government determines DJs to Mount Immigrant Voter Drive reports on the matter still being done for nearly fifteen

what individual rights are. Because since the efforts of sedition since the sixties, god is deemed years with impunity, a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT D -4.

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 31 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 32 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

EXHIBIT A-1

EXHIBIT A-1

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 34 of 42

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

EXHIBIT B-1 EXHIBIT C-1

MIKE'S 'GREEN CARD' ALARM

By STEPHANIE GASKELL Post Correspondent

July 6, 2006 -- PHILADELPHIA - Fake green cards are a "dime a dozen" on the streets, Mayor Bloomberg
testified yesterday before a Senate Committee - after a Post investigation revealed how easy it is to buy
the forged documents.

Bloomberg testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee field hearing held by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that
it's all too easy to get - and use - the fake documents.

"Fake green cards are a dime a dozen," Bloomberg said in an emotionally charged, 16-minute speech at
Independence Hall.

"You can buy one for $50 to $100. Fake Social Security cards are also easily obtained. And for $125
cash, you can get both cards."

"Such a deal!"

The Post reported yesterday that one of its reporters was able to get a high-quality, forged green card
and Social Security card for $110 - in under three hours.

Bloomberg said yesterday he wasn't surprised by the paper's findings.

In fact, he joked that Post reporter Douglas Montero, who was able to buy a set of fake cards in Queens,
paid too much.

"It looks to me like they paid retail because my understanding is that, for half the price, they could've
gotten just as good a green card or Social Security card or driver's license," Bloomberg told reporters
after testifying.

"The truth of the matter is, you can buy fake IDs everyplace for next to nothing," he said.

Bloomberg blamed the federal government for turning a blind eye.

"The federal laws prevent employers from being able to check to see whether the ID is legit," he said,
referring to legislation passed in 1986 that required employers to request identification, but didn't give
them the authority to verify whether it's real or forged.

Bloomberg said the current laws are a joke.

"As a business owner, I know the absurdity of our existing immigration regulations all too well," he said.
EXHIBIT B-1

Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 35 of 42 Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 36 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
"Employers are required to check the status of all job applicants but not to do anything more than eyeball
their documents."
He added, "In fact, hypocritically, under a federal law that Congress wrote, employers are not even
permitted to ask probing questions."
A clearly frustrated Bloomberg urged Congress to create a better identification card for workers - one that
can't be forged.
"In theory, we already have such a card - it's called your Social Security card. But being a government
product, naturally its technology is way behind the times," said the billionaire mayor.
"By taking advantage of current technology, we can provide the federal government with the tools
necessary to enforce our immigration laws," he said.
The mayor added that he'd like to see the federal government create a biometric card that contains the
individual's fingerprints or DNA.
"I want to be clear - this is not a national ID card, as some have suggested," Bloomberg said. "This is
simply a Social Security card for the 21st century."
Bloomberg also said there must be "stiff penalties for businesses that fail to conduct checks or ignore
their results."
But Bloomberg also said the city's economy would collapse if illegal immigrants were deported en masse.
He testified that the Big Apple is home to more than 3 million immigrants, and a half-million of them came
to the country illegally.
"Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders . . . our city's economy would be a shell of
itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported," Bloomberg said.
"The same holds true for the nation."
Bloomberg had harsh words for a recent amendment added to a House appropriations bill that would link
security to whether a city or state reports illegal immigrants to the government.
Currently, the city reports illegal immigrants only if they are arrested for a crime.
"There is already too much politics in homeland security funding, which is one reason why New York has
consistently been shortchanged of the money we need to protect our city," Bloomberg said.
"But this would really take the cake." With Post Wire Services stephanie.gaskell@nypost.com
EXHIBIT C-1
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 37 of 42
Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
EXHIBIT D-1
EXHIBIT D-1
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 39 of 42
Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
EXHIBIT C-2
Bloomberg: Economy would fail if illegal immigrants were deported
By KIMBERLY HEFLING
Associated Press Writer
July 5, 2006, 11:22 AM EDT
PHILADELPHIA -- The economy of the country's largest city and the entire nation would collapse if illegal
immigrants were deported en masse, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a Senate committee
hearing Wednesday.
Testifying before the panel in Philadelphia, Bloomberg said New York City is home to more than 3 million
immigrants and that a half-million of them came to the country illegally.
"Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders ... our city's economy would be a shell of
itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported," Bloomberg said. "The same holds true for
the nation."
The hearing, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was one of several being held
nationwide as Congressional Republicans take to the road to discuss overhauling the nation's immigration
laws.
Specter and fellow senators are trying to build support for a Senate bill that would allow a majority of the
illegal immigrants in the country to eventually become legal permanent residents and citizens after paying
at least $3,250 in fines, fees and back taxes and learning English.
A competing bill passed by the House focuses on enforcement and has no provision for illegal immigrants
or future guest workers.
Bloomberg encouraged Congress to offer those in the country illegally an opportunity to earn permanent
status.
"Members of the House of Representatives want to control the borders. So do all of us here," Bloomberg
said. "But believing that increasing border patrols alone will achieve that goal is either naive and
shortsighted or cynical and duplicitous. No wall or army can stop hundreds of thousands of people each
year."
The House and Senate have passed differing legislation on immigration and must negotiate a final bill to
be sent to President Bush, who supports a guest-worker program and path to citizenship for illegal
immigrants.
Republicans in Congress plan several hearings around the country on immigration.
EXHIBIT C-2
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 38 of 42
Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
EXHIBIT D-2
EXHIBIT D-2
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 40 of 42
 Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
EXHIBIT D-3
Washington Times: Fallout felt from Texas redistricting ruling
By Hugh Aynesworthy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 3, 2006
DALLAS -- Last week's Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the 2003 Tom DeLay-led Texas
redistricting coup was a distinct victory for the Republican Party, but it could spawn some interesting
fallout.
There was only one instance in which the court said the Republican gerrymandering could not be
upheld -- District 23, which sprawls from San Antonio to far West Texas. The court criticized the
redrawing of a second district, District 25, which meanders from Austin to the Mexican border, and said it
expected that district would be somewhat redrawn.
Despite the fact that the redrawing of district lines took months to accomplish -- resulting in the defeat
of a half-dozen Democratic congressional incumbents throughout the state -- a panel of judges
overseeing the changes is making sure they are determined well before this November's elections.
Within hours of the ruling, a federal judge from Texas' Eastern District ordered that all participants in
the lawsuit claiming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated must have new maps and arguments
submitted to the court within two weeks. Oral arguments are scheduled for Aug. 3 in Austin.
In making District 23 voter alignment comply with the Voting Rights Act, some predict that several
additional districts will have to be retooled.
"Anyone who thinks there isn't going to be a ripple effect when countless counties are traded with other
congressional districts is not seeing the big picture," said Rep. Henry Bonilla, the current District 23
congressman.
Despite slight realignment in several other districts to make the Bonilla district acceptable, the new map
is not expected to alter the course of growing Republicanism throughout Texas. The worst that could
happen from the Republican viewpoint, several political analysts say, is that Mr. Bonilla might lose the
reconstituted 23rd District.
Most Hispanics in Texas still vote Democratic, and Mr. Bonilla has not been overly effective at courting
them. However, he has repeatedly predicted he will win his seat again, if by a smaller margin.
The Republican redistricting effort in 2003, strongly guided by Mr. DeLay, reconfigured District 23 to
protect Mr. Bonilla, who had barely eked out a victory against Laredo Democrat Henry Cuellar in 2002.
It shifted about 100,000 Hispanic voters in Webb County -- Mr. Cuellar's stronghold -- out of Mr.
Bonilla's 23rd District to a newly configured district to the east of Laredo, the 28th.
Though the court said the dilution of Hispanic voters from Mr. Bonilla's district was unlawful, it did not
suggest how the situation should be rectified.
Both Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Cuellar prefer that they not be thrown in the same district.
"Laredo is not the only magical place where you can get Hispanic voters," Mr. Cuellar said last week.
Meanwhile, Democrat Lloyd Doggett, of the 25th District, expects there will be major changes in his
district also.
"I don't think this is a matter of mere tweaking," he said.
EXHIBIT D-3
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 41 of 42
Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80
EXHIBIT D-4
Powerful Latino DJs to Mount Immigrant Voter Drive
By REUTERS
Published: July 7, 2006
Filed at 10:04 p.m. ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two Latino radio hosts credited for mobilizing hundreds of thousands this
year in pro-immigrant protests said on Friday they would join the drive to increase the Hispanic and
immigrant vote in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
Los Angeles disc jockeys Piolin (Tweetybird) and El Cucuy (the Bogeyman) said they will work with the
National Council of La Raza and other organizations to push Latino immigrants living in the United States
to become U.S. citizens and register to vote in time to cast ballots in 2008.
Immigration promises to be one of the big issues in the 2006 mid-term congressional elections and the
2008 presidential election as the future of some 12 million undocumented immigrants divides Congress
and President George W. Bush's Republican Party.
An estimated 8 million Latinos are legal residents in the United States who qualify for naturalization as
U.S. citizens, including 3 million in California alone, activists said.
National Council of La Raza president Janet Murguia said Spanish-language radio DJs could help add at
least another 3 million Latino voters to the 7.5 million who cast ballots in 2004, helping to elect more pro-
immigration politicians.
``With the huge march on March 25, the Los Angeles DJs showed the power to mobilize the community,''
said El Cucuy, whose real name is Renan Almendarez Coello, referring to the 500,000 marchers who
rallied in Los Angeles on March 25 in what is believed to be the nation's largest pro-immigrant protest.
``The big difference now is that we are united and fighting for the same objective,'' said Piolin, also known
as Eddie Sotelo.
Both Mexican native Piolin and Honduran-born El Cucuy said they had once been illegal immigrants in
the United States.
Reuters/VNU
EXHIBIT D-4
Strunk¶s Reply to Defendants¶ Response to Remark - Page 42 of 42
ATTACHMENT (VII)(D) Pg.1of2

Voting Access Rights Struggle

i'

-.,.-
·f
::-...."
u.s. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Office of W Assistant Atsomey General Washington. D.C. 20530

JAN 10 2006

The Honorable Eliot Spitzer

Attorney General
The Capitol
, Albany, New York 12224-0341

Todd Valentine, Esq.

General Counsel
New York State Board of Elections
40 Steuben Street
Albany, New York 12207

Dear Messrs. Spitzer and Valentine:

I have authorized the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of the United States against the State of
New York as well as the New York State Board of Elections, et al, pursuant to Sections 301 and
303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of2002 ("HAVA'j, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481 and 15483(a).
Section 401 ofHA VA, 42 U.S.C. § 15511, authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action in
federal district court for such declaratory and injunctive relief as is necessary to carry out the
requirements of TitIe ill ofHAV A.

Section 301 ofHAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15481, sets forth voting systems standards for all
,. states for each voting system used in an election for Federal office. Among other things, Section
301 requires that voting systems provide a mechanism for a voter to verify and, where necessary,
a
correct his or her ballot, notify voter of an overvote, produce a permanent paper record with a
manual audit capacity, comply with federal error rate standards, and provide for accessibility for
voters with disabilities or with alternative language needs. Section 301 became effective on
January 1, 2006. '

Section 303(a) ofHAVA, 42 VB.C. § 15483(a), requiresall states except a state which
does not maintain voter registration for elections for federal office to implement a single,
uniform, official,centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list for use in
elections for Federal office; Among other things, this list must be defined, maintained and
ad:ministered at the state level, must contain the name and registration information of every

76
 Pg. 2 of 2

-2-

legally registered voter:in the state, must have a unique identifier for each voter, must be
coordinated with other state databases, must meet list maintenance, technological security and
accuracy requirements, and must meet verification requirements for all new registered voters.
Section 303(a) became effective in New York on January 1, 2006, since New York: applied to the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission for a waiver of compliance.

As you are aware, attorneys from the Civil Rights Division have met with the staff of the
State Board of Elections, as well as staff from the State Legislature, on several occasions over the
last two years to discuss New York's efforts to comply with HA VA's mandates. At those
meetings, as well as :innumerous telephone conversations, and also in written correspondence,
we have expressed our concerns about the lack of progress made by New York in moving toward
run HA VA compliance. It is beyond dispute that New York is notnow in compliance with either
the statewide voter registration list requirements of Section 303(a) ofHA VA, or the voting
system standards of Section 301 ofHA VA. In fact, based on information we received at our
most recent meeting on December 2, 2005, it .is clear that New'York is not close to approaching
full HA V A compliance and, in our view, is further behind :in that regard than any other state in
the country.

We are hopeful that we will be able to resolve this matter through a negotiated consent
decree rather than through costly and protracted litigation. We request that you contact us. as
soon as possible to indicate whether the State is willing to enter into negotiations fora fair and
equitable settlement of this matter that will remedy these violations. To that end, we are
prepared to meet with the State promptly to discuss terms of a possible consent decree. We are
prepared to file a complaint if the matter is not resolved expeditiously.

Please contact Brian Heffernan (202-514-4755) :in our Voting Section, concerning the
State's intentions or for any questions you may have. We look forward to working with you to
achieve a prompt resolution of this. matter.

Sincerely,

cc: Honorable George E. Pataki

77
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -2-
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
to Section 401 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15511, which authorizes the Attorney General to bring this
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) suit to enforce HAVA.
Plaintiff, )
) 5. Defendant State of New York is a State of the United States of America and is
v. ) Civil Action No.
) subject to the requirements of HAVA, including specifically those requirements with respect to
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF )
ELECTIONS; PETER S. KOSINSKI ) voting system standards and a computerized statewide voter registration list in elections for
and STANLEY L. ZALEN, Co-Executive )
Directors of the New York State Board of ) Federal office. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481, 15483(a), 15541.
Elections, in their official capacities; and, )
STATE OF NEW YORK; ) 6. Defendant New York State Board of Elections (the “SBOE”) is a subdivision of
)
Defendants. ) the Executive Department of the State of New York and is responsible for, among other things,
____________________________________)
taking official action on behalf of the State to comply with the requirements of HAVA. N.Y.
COMPLAINT
Election Law §§ 3-100, 102, 104, 107; 2005 N.Y. Laws, Chapters 24 and 181.
Plaintiff, the United States of America, alleges:
7. Defendants Peter S. Kosinski and Stanley L. Zalen are the Co-Executive Directors
1. The Attorney General of the United States hereby files this action on behalf of the
of the SBOE and each is sued in his official capacity. Defendants Kosinski and Zalen are
United States of America to enforce the requirements of Sections 301 and 303(a) of the Help
responsible for coordination of State responsibilities under HAVA. N.Y. Election Law § 3-100.
America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), with respect to the conduct of elections for Federal office
8. The State of New York is scheduled to conduct two elections for Federal offices
in the State of New York. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481 and 15483(a).
in 2006: a primary election for Federal offices in the State on September 12, 2006, and a general
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
election for Federal offices in the State on November 7, 2006.
2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345,
HAVA’S VOTING SYSTEM AND VOTER REGISTRATION LIST MANDATES
and 42 U.S.C. § 15511.
9. On October 29, 2002, HAVA was signed into law by the President. 42 U.S.C. §§
3. Venue for this action is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern
15301-15545. Title III of HAVA (Sections 301 to 303) includes certain “uniform and
District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 1391(b).
nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements” which apply in
PARTIES
elections for Federal office. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481-15483.
4. Plaintiff United States of America seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant
10. Section 301 of HAVA, entitled “Voting Systems Standards,” contains

-3- -4-

requirements that “[e]ach voting system used in an election for Federal office” must meet no centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list defined, maintained, and

later than January 1, 2006. Section 301 applies to all States. 42 U.S.C. § 15481. administered at the State level." Section 303(a) applies to all States that require voter

11. Among other things, Section 301 of HAVA requires that voting systems used in a registration for elections for Federal office. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a).

election for Federal office must: 13. Among the requirements of Section 303(a) of HAVA for the statewide voter

(a) provide a mechanism for a voter to verify and, where necessary, correct his or registration list are the following:

her ballot, including notification of, and the opportunity to correct, any overvote, 42 (a) The list shall serve as the single system for storing and managing the official

U.S.C. § 15481(a)(1); list of registered voters throughout the State, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A)(i);

(b) produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity, 42 U.S.C. § (b) The list must contain the name and registration information of, and must

15481(a)(2); assign a unique identifier to, each legally registered voter in the State, 42 U.S.C. §

(c) provide for accessibility for voters with disabilities in a manner that provides 15483(a)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii);

the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) (c) The list must be coordinated with other agency databases within the State, 42

as for other voters, 42 U.S.C. § 15481(a)(3); U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A)(iv);

(d) provide for accessibility, consistent with the requirements of the Voting (d) Any election official in the State, including any local election official, must

Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., for voters with alternative language needs, be able to obtain immediate electronic access to the information contained in the list, and

42 U.S.C. § 15481(a)(4); all voter registration information obtained by any local election official must be

(e) meet a specific error rate standard in counting ballots established by the electronically entered into the computerized list on an expedited basis at the time the

Federal Election Commission, 42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(5); and, information is provided to the local official 42 U.S.C. §§ 15483(a)(1)(A)(v)-(vi);

(f) have a uniform and nondiscriminatory definition of what constitutes a vote (e) The State must provide the necessary support so that local election officials

and will be counted as a vote for each type of voting system, 42 U.S.C. § 15481(a)(6). are able to enter voter registration information on an expedited basis, 42 U.S.C. §

12. Section 303(a) of HAVA, entitled “Computerized Statewide Voter Registration 15483(a)(1)(A)(vii);

List Requirements,” requires that “each State, acting through the chief State election official, (f) The list must serve as the official voter registration list for the conduct of all

shall implement in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, a single, uniform, official, elections for Federal office in the State, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A)(viii);
 -5- -6-

(g) Election officials shall perform list maintenance with respect to the Time to Waste, A Report from the New York State Attorney General's Office, available at

computerized list on a regular basis, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15483(a)(2) and 15483(a)(4); http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/feb/feb07a_05.html.

(h) The State must coordinate the list with State agency records on felony status FEDERAL FUNDING PROVISIONS OF HAVA

(where required by State law) and death, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(2)(A)(ii); 16. Pursuant to HAVA, the federal government for the first time in our Nation’s

(i) The State must ensure that the name of each registered voter appears on the history provided federal funding to State governments for the conduct of elections for Federal

list, only voters who are not registered or not eligible are removed from the list, duplicate office.

names are eliminated from the list, and eligible voters are not removed from the list in 17. The State of New York has received roughly 221 million dollars in federal funds

error, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15483(a)(2)(B) and 15483(a)(4); under HAVA. This funding includes the following:

(j) The list must provide that no application for voter registration shall be (a) $16,494,325 pursuant to Section 101 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15301, for

accepted or processed unless it includes a driver’s license number, for persons who have activities to improve the administration of elections;

a driver’s license number, or the last four digits of the social security number, for persons (b) $49,603,917 pursuant to Section 102 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15302, for the

who do not have a driver’s license number. For persons who do not have these numbers, replacement of punchcard or lever voting machines;

the State must assign a unique identifier, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(5)(A); (c) $153,414,430 pursuant to Section 251 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15401, for

(k) The State must enter into agreements to match information from the list meeting the requirements of Title III of HAVA;

against the State motor vehicle authority database, and the federal social security number (d) $1,354,703 pursuant to Section 261 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15421, for

database, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(5)(B). assuring access to the voting process for individuals with disabilities; and,

14. New York is covered by and was required to comply with the requirements of (e) $161,597 pursuant to Section 291 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15461, for assuring

Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA with respect to elections for Federal office on and after access to the voting process for individuals with disabilities;

January 1, 2006. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481(d), 15483(d)(1)(B), 15541. 18. Pursuant to Section 102(d) of HAVA, if the State of New York fails to replace

15. The State of New York has recognized that it has not taken the actions necessary some or all of the punchcard or lever voting machines in the State in time for the primary

to achieve timely compliance with the requirements of Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA, for election for Federal office in September 2006, HAVA contemplates that the State must return

example, in reports issued by the State chief law enforcement officer. See Voting Matters II, No some or all of the $49,603,917 in federal funding received pursuant to Section 102, to the extent

-7- -8-

of the non-compliance with that provision. 42 U.S.C. § 15302(d). requirements of Section 301 of HAVA in a timely manner. These failures include, but are not

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - SECTION 301 OF HAVA limited to, the following:

19. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through (a) The SBOE has not approved for use in the State, as required by State law, any

18 of this Complaint. voting system which complies with the requirements of Section 301 of HAVA;

20. The State of New York presently does not have voting systems in place for the (b) The SBOE has not promulgated, as required by State law, any final rules and

conduct of elections for Federal office which comply with all of the voting system standards set regulations which govern voting systems in the State; and,

forth in Section 301(a)(1)-(a)(6) of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15481, including a uniform and non- (c) The SBOE has not contracted or allowed, as required by State law, for

discriminatory definition of what constitutes a vote for each category of voting system used in procurement of any voting systems in the State which comply with the requirements of

the State. Section 301 of HAVA.

21. The State of New York’s existing voting systems for use in elections for Federal 24. As a result of the failure of the Defendants to take the actions necessary for

office do not comply with Section 301 of HAVA in several respects, including but not limited to, approval and acquisition of voting systems, as set forth in Paragraphs 22-23 above, no voting

the requirement that voting systems provide accessibility for persons with disabilities, and the system is available for purchase or lease and use in each polling place in each local jurisdiction

requirement that voting systems produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity. in the State of New York which conducts elections for Federal office that meets the

requirements of Section 301 of HAVA.

22. Pursuant to New York State law, the SBOE has a number of specific 25. The failure of defendants to take the actions necessary for approval and

responsibilities regarding voting systems used in the State. This includes, but is not limited to, acquisition of voting systems, as set forth above, constitutes a violation of Section 301 of the

responsibilities for: examination and approval of voting systems, promulgation of regulations HAVA, 42 U.S.C. §15481.

regarding voting systems, contracting for acquisition of voting systems, review of the choice of 26. Unless and until ordered to do so by this Court, Defendants will not take timely

voting systems by local jurisdictions, calculation of the distribution of federal funds under actions necessary to ensure that voting systems meeting the standards set forth in Section 301 of

HAVA for purchase of voting systems, and notification to the state comptroller to release funds HAVA will be available and used in all jurisdictions in the State of New York by the time of the

for payment of purchase contracts for voting systems. 2005 N.Y. Laws, Chapter 181. first election for Federal office in the State in 2006.

23. Defendants have failed to take the actions necessary for the State to meet the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - SECTION 303(a) OF HAVA
 -9- - 10 -

27. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 31. The failure of the Defendants to take the actions necessary for the development

18 of this Complaint. and implementation of a statewide voter registration list in the State of New York, as set forth

28. Pursuant to New York State law, the SBOE is responsible for the development and above, constitutes a violation of Section 303(a) of HAVA.

implementation of the statewide voter registration list as mandated by Section 303(a) of HAVA, 32. Unless and until ordered to do so by this Court, the Defendants will not take timely

42 U.S.C. § 15483(a). actions necessary to ensure that a statewide voter registration list meeting the requirements of

29. Defendants have failed to take the actions necessary for the State to meet the Section 303(a) of HAVA is operational throughout the State of New York.

requirements of Section 303(a) of HAVA in a timely manner. These failures include, but are not PRAYER FOR RELIEF

limited to, the following: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff United States of America prays that this Court:

(a) Defendants have not published rules and regulations, required by State law, A. Declare that the Defendants are not in compliance with Sections 301 and 303(a)

governing the implementation and operation of the statewide voter registration list; of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481 and 15483(a), with respect to implementation of HAVA’s voting

(b) Defendants have not issued the Request for Proposals (RFP) or other system standards and computerized statewide voter registration requirements in elections for

document necessary under State law for contracting with an entity or entities to develop and Federal office;

implement a statewide voter registration list; B. Enjoin the Defendants, their agents and successors in office, and all persons

(c) Defendants have not established the technical requirements, or built the acting in concert with any of them from failing or refusing promptly to comply with the

technical infrastructure, necessary for implementation of the statewide voter registration list; requirements of Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA;

and, C. Order the Defendants, their agents and successors in office and all persons acting

(d) Defendants have not entered into an agreement with the federal Social in concert with any of them promptly to develop a plan, within 30 days of this Court’s order, to

Security Administration and established the necessary infrastructure to match information from remedy the demonstrated violations of Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA, fully and completely

the statewide voter registration list against the federal social security number database. in time for the first election for Federal office in 2006.

30. As a result of the failure of the Defendants to take actions as set forth in Paragraph Plaintiff further prays that this Court order such other relief as the interests of justice may

29 above, there is no statewide voter registration list in the State of New York which complies require, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.

with the requirements of Section 303(a) of HAVA.

Dated: February ___, 2006

ALBERTO GONZALES
Attorney General

By:

/s/
_______________________
GLENN T. SUDDABY WAN J. KIM
United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
By:
/s/ /s/
_______________________ _______________________
BARBARA D. COTTRELL JOHN K. TANNER
Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Voting Section
James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse
445 Broadway, Room 218 /s/
Albany, NY 12207-2924 ________________________
(518) 431-0247 (telephone) T. CHRISTIAN HERREN JR
(518) 431-0429 (facsimile) chris.herren@usdoj.gov
Bar Roll No. 101411 BRIAN F. HEFFERNAN
brian.f.heffernan@usdoj.gov
Room 7254--NWB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-4755 (telephone)
(202) 307-3961 (facsimile)
 --
--. -..l.: 1-i032S&416 May. 27 2868 06:SPM P2
' c t Ef 2E : 3 : 0 6 e Carl Persop 212-307-02+7
? *3

Wixh wfsrcncc w rhc NAM lrpon Sa;lun 111Bcrc@~& P a l A Sytt#m qfU.9

G U W ~ W pr~-qpqh3 di1:10WC USCE 3P00 Coparhha Ducmnent". mi 1
r~iUcamct in w u m i r ~dUf the s v e d SEDW QL'thO Unirai SW with ~ L L ' D B ~ buttom-
up m~rroliu provision ofdoctioar *men not m y to tbe awmds, md k v f o m l h w
r;urrioarr perroi- w ch:s c d States btc d y ndvivury and were nor &f d n g ?

I.- in W o a V EIeetoral R@~~rfcrrcrin Paat G &CW ofUbjuuUrs in W o o a r u

r l s ~ d cr-0401
~ w ~ ~ hm ~ 24 July MCH rhr. NNASS %IcomCSCF inrmwhud
OW~SS. ..",
with whzJ sty OV# tnat of the &&w S&SU law with jlniudictim
b o a he NASS opnrtc to gram swb m t b h f y with tbe - ~ x o J ? d do t kOSCE
&DUCK b v c w abide by thu pnrtic* stme w f b ititrw
~ -5 wthority?

F& in SoctionYI Orher Fhdnp Pm E in @toRII~@lomof Ihgrhritict

w&at if my alkgatiaw were -ti* aad mraniDo?ful?As you am OWLYC yry
~~ mwt bg m u d d in subrmMivt duo pisccaa, aad when my olficitrlu tbil to
tblluw -& erithaut being wpuloci by OSCE is m . 0 ot'a ~ d~ & w o n
i t s e 1 f . d i s e v o a ~ ~ concern-
r m OSCX jervwldnlytofurthadicnrpt
~ v n ( i b t ' i rdb?
r t k c h prwws done by OSCE p c d ; d m y my ~ l s n m hi
gem1;~lr: bccau~~:2k?Cliodslwva b#n coaduacd b e ~ ~sinix 1789,f wc arc o ly~ t
m mcrghg dammcy. wad any i n l d b u x is jeditiaus at L#rt uodcx F d d Isw.
Tkd u s o f W c & d dmbaucby the OSCE or my o t b - ~W orgmixation
vduthu far mznumcirl'activity?soliciting LUt4 or poliLicrl i M - r e p h i by s w
andfcxkidkwira v e r y ~ p r i v a c y r ~ t b b ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ t s m e t u p s L ; W h d J L s t h c
O g E ygvurl~tu A with &C Ii*?

IboHsb#1LI~yioj~bytlu:iJ~opc#zionofdcaioasdrrpmchhsw
amcum OW e dl U.S. C i W have in the clocljloll pmaais; und
c ~ n f i b c that
;~rs~Iteq~arrrruwwtiorrrYourHoraar\obrc~~~~sbo~
 WEBSTERS z m LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Jeremy A. Colby
Partner
Admitted in NY and MA

December 17,2009

VIA E-filing
- -
Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn - ___ _ - -- -- -- - -- - -
James-7. Foley-U.S. courthouse
445 Broadway, Room 509
Albany, NY 12207

Re: Forjone v. State of California et al.

Case No.: COG-cv-1002

Dear Judge Kahn: v

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

Very truly yours,

***Request for a conference is
DENIED without prejudice.
/s/ Jeremy A. Colby
-
Jeremy A. Colby

U.S. D i s t r i c t Judge
D a t e d : December 30, 2009
Albany, NY

1400 Liberty Building ~kffalo,New York 14202

Tel: (716) 842-2800 Fax: (716) 845-6709
jcolby@websterszanyi.com