OSC W Amended Complaint and CIVIL RICO Statement W-Response To NYS MTD WDNY 06-Cv-0080 Preliminary Statement 10 822

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

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
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 (“
HAVA”
),
P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 and as relates to Article 1 Sections 2 and 4 compliance with the
State of New York Constitution and Laws as a sovereign state among several sovereign states’
Amended Complaint Page 1 of 62

constitutions and related laws, and as a matter of any state and or subdivision / person, territory
that makes a false claim, as defined under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 USC §3729 thru
§3733, as well as Racketeering provisions of 18 USC §1961 thru §1968 as done under color of
HAVA for Federal Treasury reimbursement certification review by the United States Department
of Justice (DOJ) for the United States Election Assistance Corporation (EAC).
VENUE
2. Venue is properly found in this District and this Division under 28 U.S.C.A.
§§1391(b) and §1393(a) and 18 USC §1965 as a statewide HAVA funds distribution matter to be
heard by a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel in that this Court comprises the District and Division
in which Erie county among other State Subdivision Defendants that maintain their official
residence and in which the claims arose under color of the 1993 NVRA in the 42 USC §1973gg,
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 with
available remedy as of right adopted by the New York State Election Law (“
EL”
) §2-100, §4-
100, §4-138, §5-210, §5-211, §5-213, §6-134, §6-138, §6-147, §6-154, §6-156.
That additional State and Federal Defendants are necessary parties arising after the enactment of
the 2002 HAVA, with significant occurrences and transactions with supplemental injuries arising
first on January 1, 2006 by failure of the State Board of Elections to maintain a virtual real-time
duplicate central data base to verify the actual active voter registration in any and all
municipalities with control over the Bottom-up original voter registration data base; and by
failure of the EAC to also maintain a duplicate certified central national data base capable of
checking the legitimacy of actual active voters nationwide in each and every state and territory
totaling FIFTY-FIVE (55).

That this matter has related active cases with different issues:
a) in Western District of New York Forjone v. Leavitt 05-cv-395 before the Honorable
Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara with an interlocutory appeal dismissed by 2nd Circuit
case 05-4513-cv, with motions pending involving 28 USC 2284;
b) in Northern District of New York Loeber v. Spargo 04-cv-1193 before Judge
Lawrence E. Kahn with an appeal wrongly pending before the Second Circuit in case
05-6956-cv and dismissal of an Original Proceeding 05-6539-op with a motion for en
banc on procedural matters pending involving 28 USC 2284;
c) in Northern District of New York USA v. New York State et.al. 06-cv-263 before
Judge Gary L. Sharpe in the matter of New York not meeting the January 1, 2006
HAVA deadline- and where Plaintiffs are denied intervention with prejudice.
d) in Eastern District of New York Torres et.al. v NYS BOE et.al. 04-cv-1129 before
Judge John Gleeson with a January 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order and
Preliminary Injunction with significant elements effected by redistricting, Strunk was
denied intervention status.
e) in Northern District of New York Fitzgerald et.al. v. NYS BOE et.al. 02-cv-926
before Judge Norman A. Mordue with amended complaint in the matter of the NVRA
and HAVA involving ballot access and lockbox restraint, effected by the decision of
Judge Gleeson in the EDNY case Green v NYS BOE 02-cv-6465 with 2nd Circuit
upholding permanent injunction on N.Y. voter registration in November 2004.

PARTIES
3. At all times relevant to the instant action of all PLAINTIFFS, hereinafter known as
“ ,“
Plaintiffs” ,“
Eligible Voters” PEOPLE”(1) “ ,“
U.S. Citizens” ,“
whistleblowers” relators”are
U.S. Citizens entitled and or duly registered voters as “

active voters”per Election Law §5-213
organized under EL §4-100 within a legitimate NYS municipality of the State of New York, by
individual “
relator”affidavit of verification attached, are part of a class of state U.S. Citizens jus
tertii of the PEOPLE without any control over patronage, policy, and purse, who are pro se
without an attorney, per 18 USC §1964(c) hereby complain of Defendants as persons defined by
31 USC §3729 thru §3733 under the False Claims Act (FCA) and 18 USC §1962(a)(b)(c)(d).
4. John Joseph Forjone, 5367 Upper Holley Road mailing address POB 28 Clarendon
NY 14429 Phone: 585-721-7673, injured in County of Orleans with George D. Maziarz 62nd SD
and Charles Nesbitt 139th AD
5. a.) Dan Del Plato Jr., 50 Chandler Avenue, Batavia, N.Y. 14202, Phone:
585.343.5283 e-mail 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 “ Local Government”definition of the “
PEOPLE”(d) Whenever
used in this Article the following terms shall mean or include… (3) “
PEOPLE.”Persons entitled to vote as
provided in section one of Article two of this constitution.

7. Edward M. Person, Jr., 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon N.Y. 11703 Phone
631-667-7316, injured in County of Suffolk, Owen H. Johnson in 4th SD & Andrew P. Raia 9th
AD with real property in the 6th AD.
8. Christopher Earl Strunk, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238
Phone 845-389-0774, injured in City of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn, Velmanette
Montgomery in 18th SD and Roger L. Green in the 57th AD.
9. Plaintiffs are associated with The AD HOC NYS People’
s Bottom-up Suffrage and
Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide (“

AD HOC U.S.
Citizens”
) for this suit as of right seeking remedy individually jus tertii (third party status created
by malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty) within a respective municipality of residence
as an unincorporated association that would be granted recognition by the NYS Civil Rights
Consolidated Law Chapter 6 Article 5A (CRL) with twenty or more members.
10. The United States ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (“EAC“),
Address United States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite -
1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202)
566-3127 E-mail Address 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 (“ ,“
Respondent” ,“
U.S. Attorney General” , collectively as “
DOJ” Defendants”or
“
Respondents”
), serves at the pleasure of the President with advice and consent of Congress has

offices other than Washington D.C. in every State and here in this venue such ancillary office is
located at the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, 138 Delaware
Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202; The United States Attorney General has the duty and
authority to defend the Federal Constitution, Congressional Law, Civil Rights Law, the Voting
Rights Act Immigration and Nationality Act, HAVA, and Public Officers with duties during
good behavior;
12. At all times relevant to the instant action of all STATE DEFENDANTS, hereinafter
known as “ , and Collectively as “

State Defendants” Defendants”each state of the several states to
numerous to name each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively:
a) the state of CALIFORNIA, the Secretary of State at 1500 11th Street Sacramento,
California 95814, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I"
Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 (916) 445-9555
b) the state of OREGON, the Secretary of State at Room 136 State Capitol Salem,
OR 97301 Fax: (503) 986-1616, and the Attorney General at the Department of
Justice 1162 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Fax: (503) 378-4017 TTY: (503)
378-5938
c) the state of NEVADA, the Secretary of State at 101 North Carson Street, Suite 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

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 (“ ,“

Respondent” ,“
Defendant” Attorney
, collectively as “
General” ,“
Respondents” Defendants”
), with offices located at the State of New
York Capitol Albany New York 12224 and per CPLR 1012 is vested with the authority to defend
the State Constitution, Civil Rights Law and Public Officers with duties during good behavior;
14. THE NEW YORK SECRETARY OF STATE individually and as a public officer,
is the Secretary of the State of New York is a Republican Party member duly appointed and
serves at the pleasure of Governor (“ ,“

Defendant” ,“
Secretary of State” SOS”
, collectively as
“
Defendants”
), with offices located at The New York State Department of State 41 State Street
Albany, NY 12231, is a member of NASS and by law is the Public Officer charged with
responsibility to safeguard civil rights under CRL to review for compliance and repository for
all, incorporated and unincorporated association due process including 58 municipalities with
Boards of Elections within, safeguards all records for New York;
15. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, created under EL §3-100
two “
bi-partisan”co-chairman and two “
bipartisan”commissioners with jurisdiction and
authority over every one of the 58 Municipal Boards of Elections, along with every Corporation
Counsel of every Municipality including the Board of Elections, of the city of New York, by
their special counsel Todd Valentine Esq. with place of business located at 40 Steuben Street
Albany, New York 12207-2109.

16. At all times relevant to the instant action all MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS,
hereinafter known as “ ,“
Municipality” ,“
Municipalities” ,“
County(s)” Municipal Defendant(s)”
,
“ ,“
State Subdivision(s)” ,“
person(s)” , collectively as “
HAVA claim filers” Defendants”
, are to
maintain an elected local government legislative body per NYSC Article IX and maintain a
Bottom-up data base of real property owners subject to real property tax levy under EL §4-138
and as such use a municipal board of elections per Election Law to maintain original records
database of real property owners and qualified voter registrations and voting records of duly
registered voters as “
active voters”per Election Law §5-213 organized under EL §4-100 resident
within a NYS municipality of the State of New York; and that each exists with a state
constitution Article III suffrage and Homerule autonomy conformance mandate of the State
Legislature for protection of the People’

s speech and association by a dedicated representative in
the Assembly by no less than two (2) ADs coterminous and compact within each such
municipality and
17. That Eleven (11) Municipal Defendants, including the city of New York and the
People resident in the NYC Boro of Brooklyn represented by natural Person of the Brooklyn
Borough President, are entitled to a municipal Board of Elections a municipal entity created by
the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX and Article II accordingly for the People
within ERIE, MONROE, ONONDAGA, ALBANY, DUTCHESS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND,
WESTCHESTER, NASSAU, SUFFOLK:
a. Erie County Attorney Frederick A. Wolf, Esq. 69 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, New
York 14202 phone - 858-2200, fax - 858-2281
b. Monroe County Attorney Daniel M. DeLaus, Jr., Esq. Law Department Room 307
Monroe County Office Building 39 West Main Street Rochester, New York
14614 Phone: (585) 753-1380 Fax: 753-1331 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

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;
(“Defendant” ,“
NYC” ,“Person” ) with place of service at the NYC Corporation
Counsel. Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 100
Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0995
j. Nassau County Attorney, Lorna Goodman, Esq. 1 West Street Mineola, NY
11501 (516) 571-3056
k. Suffolk County Attorney, Christine Malafi, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Building 100
Veterans Memorial Hwy PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 (631)853-
4049 FAX 853-5169
17. Each of Forty-seven (47) Municipalities without sufficient total persons excluding
the civilly dead resident within for the People therein to have Homerule with at least two (2)
Assembly Districts coterminous within as such are null municipal entities historically created by
the neglect of the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX, Article II and Article III
accordingly for the People with a nullity municipal Board of Elections including NIAGARA,
ORLEANS, GENESEE, WYOMING, ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CATTARAUGUS,
CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, CORTLAND, CHENANGO, COLUMBIA, TIOGA,
TOMPKINS, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, BROOME, LIVINGSTON, ONTARIO, YATES,
SENECA, WAYNE, OSWEGO, JEFFERSON, LEWIS, MADISON, HERKIMER, OTSEGO, ST.
LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA,

WASHINGTON, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER, DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON,
FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN:
l. Niagara County Attorney Claude A Joerg, Esq. Courthouse, 175 Hawley Street,
Lockport NY 14094-2740 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

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

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; (“ ,“

Defendant” Boro President”
,
collectively as “ , “
Defendants” ,“
State Defendants” ,“
State Public Officer” Public Officer”
) with
place for service at Brooklyn Borough Hall, Brooklyn New York 11201;
BACKGROUND FACTS
19. The 1973 / 1975 Helsinki Accords under the auspices of NATO (North Atlantic
Treaty Organization) in combination with the 1966 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

issued by the United Nations, is being utilized to modify suffrage here in New York and each
state of the several states and territories of the United States.
20. The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was adopted by a summit meeting of most
European governments in addition to those of Canada, the United States and the Asian countries
of the former Soviet Union, in Paris on 21 November 1990.
21. The Charter of Paris was established on the foundation of the Helsinki Accords, and
was further amended in the 1999 Charter for European Security. Together, these documents form
the agreed basis for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
22. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is an
international organization for security; in its region, OSCE is concerned with early warning,
conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.
23. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has 55 participating states
from Europe, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Central Asia and North America, with agents
operating with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and whose Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights is the oldest OSCE institution, established in 1990.
24. OSCE is based in Warsaw, Poland, and is active throughout the OSCE area in the
fields of election observation, democratic development, human rights, tolerance and non-
discrimination, and rule of law.
25. OSCE/ODIHR has observed over 150 elections and referenda since 1995, sending
more than 15,000 observers.
26. OSCE/ODIHR has operated outside its own area more than once. Notably a 43-
member OSCE team offered technical support for the October 9, 2004 presidential election in
Afghanistan, as well as with multiple inspection teams inside the United States.

27. The 1991 “
Copenhagen Declaration”on International Standards of Elections
associated with the OSCE created after the so-called collapse of the USSR (actually seen as a
shift in war by alternative means) follows the script of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe
that adopts the Helsinki Accords’human rights goals ratified by the U.S. Senate except for those
Copenhagen Declaration articles that are not self actuating and unenforceable unless adopted by
each of the several states in suffrage matters.
28. The unenforceability of the Copenhagen Declaration entered by President George
H.W. Bush and the Federal Executive in 1990 requires that of 53 Articles the first 27 Articles
are not self-actuating, because nearly exclusively the 50 States who are not party to the treaty
per se individually in each state legislatures in the name of the people within control suffrage.
29. Under the Federal Constitution Article I Sections 1, 4, 8-18, Article II Section 1-4,
Article IV, Article V, Article VI, Article VII limits the power of Congress in keeping with the
spirit of the Copenhagen Declaration as an Extension of the CSCE Helsinki Accords with the
OSCE / ODIHR overtly interfering with elections under the NVRA and HAVA empowers the
Federal Judiciary to hear specific grievance under 42 USC 1973gg.
30. In 1993 the National Voter Registration Act “

Motor Voter”“
Registration by Mail”
was enacted as a self-fulfilling design by Congress to circumvent state sovereign control over
suffrage and create a central voter registration data base for those states maintaining such and
nationally supposedly to prevent the ongoing interstate and intrastate abuse of “

One Person One
, and thereby a “
vote” real time”state central data base, done nationally breaks the status quo.
31. Enactment of NVRA is adopted from the language of the Copenhagen Declaration
despite the non-self actuating aspects, nevertheless mandates state compliance without an
amendment to the Federal Constitution.

32. The Nov. 21, 1995 Dayton Accords were created as an extension of the Helsinki
Accords and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, that brought forth Copenhagen and NVRA;
33. That the Dayton Accords are an social engineering experiment intended to afford
suffrage to otherwise questionable transient persons deemed resident in the New state (Bosnia
Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia) therein requiring provisional voting at a general election,
which has since been adopted by HAVA;
34. And Furthermore like boiling a frog the provisional voting experiments by the OSCE
/ ODIHR in Bosnia under the Dayton accords, are now being used to further impose top-down
control over the outcome of elections in every state of the several states, that as of October 29,
2002 Congress enacted Help America to Vote Act (“

HAVA”
), P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 as a
questionable mandate under Article 1 Section 4 to carry forward the state by state requirement
for a central voter databases that was to be done by January 1, 2006 for the November 2006
national elections, with final system operations due in 2008.
35. As enticement for cooperation of the southwest border states Congress created an
overly broad HAVA reimbursement formula based upon “

Voting Age Population”(VAP); and
by vagueness and cynical interpretation would include all persons enumerated in the 2000
Census who are 18 years of age and older whether citizens or not, rather than “
Citizens Voting
Age Population”(CVAP) that does not include non-citizens, the civilly dead and those U.S.
Citizens otherwise not entitled to register to vote.
36. Nowhere in the United States does a non-citizen have a civil right to vote in any
Federal Election at the state level and therefore VAP must only be defined as CVAP.
37. New York only uses those U.S. Citizens who are registered to vote, and is not
interested in those citizens who aren’

t registered- e.g. no non-citizen is of voting age.

38. the States of CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS,
OREGON all require that only US Citizens be allowed to vote would violate their own state
constitutions and election laws by using VAP under the broad definition used by Congress to
raid the US Treasury of HAVA Funds disproportionately from New York and other states with
less non-citizens or otherwise more honest in filing for HAVA certification and funds.
39. The September 2005 report by the American University Commission on Federal
Election Reform and Center for Democracy & Election Management whose Co-Chairmen James
E Carte and James Baker III report on the public confidence in the election system in Section II
for Voter Registration and Identification state quote that “

under the National Voter Registration
Act, names are often added to the list, but counties and municipalities often do not delete the
names of those who moved.. Inflated voter lists are also caused by phony registrations and
efforts to register individuals who are ineligible…. At the same time, inaccurate purges of voter
lists have removed citizens who are eligible and are properly registered. …[T]he quality of voter
registration lists probably varies widely by state. Without quality assurance, however, cross-
state transfers of voter data may suffer from the problem of ’ …”

garbage in, garbage out’
40. In New York we have bottom-up suffrage in supposedly Homerule municipalities
with a BOE within that is to maintain the original voting records, and each such municipality
outside the city of New York provide funds for expense of all elections by a real property tax
levy under EL §4-138.
41. In New York 47 municipalities of 58 by mis application and administration of the
State Constitution and Elections Laws do not have at least two (2) Assembly Districts
coterminous within as required by the State Constitution Article III Section 5, as such are a legal
nullity and do not even qualify for having a municipal board of Elections within.

42. As a top-down matter, the New York state Election Law §4-100 requires that each
“
Election District”as a single polling place with at least one voting machine have 950 Active
Voters per EL §5-213 each for equal time place and manner of suffrage- the status quo in New
York as a rule fails to provide equity as such.
43. As a result of the April 22, 2002 redistricting using the 2000 Census by the State
Legislature, Governor, Secretary of State, have continued since the WMCA v. Lomenzo , 377
U.S. 633 (1964) US Supreme Court case to mis administer and apply the State Constitution
and related laws as applies to Municipal boundaries, Election Districts, Assembly Districts,
Senate Districts, Congressional Districts and Judicial Districts statewide using total population
without giving deference for actual citizens eligible to vote and there by gerrymander vote
effectiveness.
44. That each legitimate state subdivision municipality with a legislative body and board
of elections within, in which there are eleven legitimately formed, had until March 1, 2006 to
declare its intention to redraw their own Senate, Assembly, Legislative and Election Districts
within in order to comply with administration and application of equal time place and manner for
bottom-up suffrage within in a fight for more HAVA funding.
45. Despite adequate notification to each and every one of the 58 state subdivision
municipalities named as defendants herein, not one of the municipalities has expressed intent to
reconfigure any districts coterminous within.
46. That NYC is too large in population size by proper application and administration of
the State Constitution and Laws shall not have 1/3 and or ½ of all the State Senators- does;
47. That the State BOE and the State of New York failed to meet the HAVA deadline of
January 1, 2006 to create a central data base which is the subject of a case before the Honorable

Gary L. Sharpe in NDNY 06-cv-263.
48. the State BOE knows an active ongoing central data base, as opposed to the present
once every two years as a snapshot, would entail detecting Election Law Article 17 illegal
interstate / intrastate multiple voting, domicile residency and uncovering the civilly dead and
thereby greatly reduce the number of both active and inactive voters on the registration roles and
thereby decrease the amount of HAVA money due the state.
49. The HAVA penalty, and lack of interstate and intrastate HAVA funding equity means
that real property owners are not equally treated on a municipal by municipal basis and some of
which will lose real property in smaller municipalities as a result of the increased burden
imposed by the HAVA mandate of as much as a 500% Tax Levy increase.
50. Plaintiffs in the Western part of the state as in the Eastern part, on an intrastate basis
want equity with all other parts of the state in HAVA funding missing since 1994, and
51. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that New York suffers interstate injury is caused by
loss of HAVA funds when California etcetera use a broad interpretation of VAP versus CVAP
contrary to its own election laws and constitutions in seek HAVA funding; New York gets less
funds than it should be entitled to.
52. An Erie County BOE audit as with the other municipalities with a BOE to numerous
to name, report that Erie County is unable to pay for compliance with the HAVA without raising
real property taxes or getting more of a share of HAVA money now going to California and
other states making false claims under HAVA, and in that regard the 27 January 2006 Erie Board
Of Elections Audit Released Written by Press Release at Cost, Free!!
http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=898
Erie County, NY - Our review determined that the Boards staffing structure of 36 full-time
employees is sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate part-
time and seasonal employees, said Poloncarz. However, our auditors determined that the Board
does not have sufficient funding for part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities

and that additional funding will likely be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the
Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
Erie County Comptroller Mark C. Poloncarz today issued an audit of the Erie County Board
of Elections (Board) for the period starting October 1, 2004 and ending September 30, 2005. The
review was initiated by Comptroller, Poloncarz's predecessor in October 2005 at the request of
the Erie County Legislature and Executive. The audit examined staffing and operational issues
relating to the conduct of elections.
"Our review determined that the Board's staffing structure of 36 full-time employees is
sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate part-time and
seasonal employees” , said Poloncarz.
"However, our auditors determined that the Board does not have sufficient funding for
part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities and that additional funding will likely
be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)."
Poloncarz expressed concerns over the Board's ability to conduct, within its current
appropriation, the February 28th Special Election for the New York State Senate, September
Primary Election, and November General Election. Poloncarz stated, "The Board's 2006 Budget
appropriation is not sufficient to meet the new expenses incurred by the County under HAVA, and
additional funding will be necessary." The audit reports that HAVA costs to Erie County in 2006
will be at least $1.4 million, and likely higher.
HAVA is the federal legislation passed in the wake of the 2000 Presidential Election
requiring state and local elections officials to implement certain procedures to safeguard
elections. In New York State, this includes transferring election responsibilities and those
respective expenses from cities and towns to the County.
53. In the September 2005 GAO Report 05-956 on ELECTIONS it found that:
Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems

Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed
While electronic voting systems hold promise for improving the election process, numerous entities have
raised concerns about their security and reliability, citing instances of weak security controls, system design
flaws, inadequate system version control, inadequate security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor
security management, and vague or incomplete voting system standards (see below for examples). It is
important to note that many of these concerns were based on specific system makes and models or a
specific jurisdiction’
s election, and there is no consensus among election officials and other experts on their
pervasiveness. Nevertheless, some have caused problems in elections and therefore merit attention.
Federal organizations and nongovernmental groups have issued both election-specific recommended
practices for improving the voting process and more general guidance intended to help organizations
manage information systems’security and reliability. These recommended practices and guidelines
(applicable throughout the voting system life cycle) include having vendors build security controls and audit
trails into their systems during development, and having election officials specify security requirements when
acquiring systems. Other suggested practices include testing and certifying systems against national voting
system standards.
The federal government has begun efforts intended to improve life cycle management of electronic voting
systems and thereby improve their security and reliability. Specifically, EAC has led efforts to (1) draft
changes to existing federal voluntary standards for voting systems, including provisions addressing security
and reliability; (2) develop a process for certifying voting systems; (3) establish a program to accredit
independent laboratories to test electronic voting systems; and (4) develop a library and clearinghouse for
information on state and local elections and systems.
However, these actions are unlikely to have a significant effect in the 2006 federal election cycle because
important changes to the voting standards have not yet been completed, the system certification and
laboratory accreditation programs are still in development, and a system software library has not been
updated or improved since the 2004 election. Further, EAC has not consistently defined specific tasks,
processes, and time frames for completing these activities; as a result, it is unclear when their results will be
available to assist state and local election officials.

54. An example in the matter of impropriety and the failure of the city of New York to
enforce the election law by equal time place, manner, and flouts the appearance of impropriety in
the matter reported on January 26, 2006 by the New York Daily news article entitled “
Board
votes to spare elex boss” http://www.nydailynews.com/01-26-2006/boroughs/story/385772p-327360c.html
by HUGH SON DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, quote:
“Diane Haslett Rudiano- Despite a City Department of Investigation probe that found she lied
about her voting address, an embattled Brooklyn Board of Elections honcho will keep her job, the
Daily News has learned.
Board of Elections officials declined to punish Diane Haslett Rudiano - even though city
investigators said she lives in Forest Hills, Queens, and not at the East New York address listed
in voter registration records.
"Her attorney made a case and gave supplemental documentation that wasn't part of the DOI
investigation," said Board of Elections Executive Director John Ravitz.
"And [election commissioners] decided that the residency issue DOI raised wasn't sufficient
enough for disciplinary action against Rudiano."
Board of Elections commissioners unanimously voted to clear Haslett-Rudiano of the election law
felony charges at a closed Tuesday hearing.
Haslett-Rudiano, who earns $76,817 as the borough's top Elections Board employee, is
responsible for making sure election laws are upheld.
"I think it's a disgrace," said Sam Sloan, the political gadfly who notified the investigators of
Haslett-Rudiano's address flap last year.
"I went to her supposed house," said Sloan. "I talked to 30 of her neighbors who had never seen
her there. The idea that she claims she's been living there all these years is just preposterous."
Haslett-Rudiano represents East New York, Bushwick and Cypress Hills as an elected district
leader in the Brooklyn Republican organization.
According to her voter registration records, Haslett-Rudiano has lived in a modest two-story
Schenck Ave. house since 1988. The owner of the building, Theresa McGovern, 99, said Haslett-
Rudiano lives on the second floor.
Property records show Haslett-Rudiano owns several properties, including an upper West Side
townhouse and two Queens homes.
The Investigation Department report wasn't made public, and a Freedom of Information Law
request to reveal its contents was rejected.
55. On March 15, 2006 –an EXCLUSIVE New York Post article entitled “
Hill Foe Registers
Often, Votes Rarely”By FREDRIC U. DICKER http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/65274.htm

“ALBANY - Just-announced Republican Senate hopeful Kathleen McFarland has repeatedly
failed to vote in some elections and is registered at two addresses - a possible violation of state
law, The Post has found.
McFarland, a wealthy Park Avenue matron who announced last week that she'll seek the GOP
nomination to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, didn't vote in nearly half of the state
elections since 1991, records show.
She skipped six of the past 14 elections - starting from the time she registered as a Republican in
late 1991, Board of Election records for New York City and Suffolk County show.
McFarland, a Reagan administration official in the early 1980s, has maintained two voting
addresses since 1996: at her posh Park Avenue home and at her family's stunning second home
on a small island near Southampton, according to the records.
She pingponged her vote from Manhattan to Southampton in various years, casting her ballot
from the Ram Island address in 1998 and 1999, but voting from Park Avenue in 2000 and 2001.
She skipped the 2002 and 2003 elections, and then it was back to voting in Southampton in 2004,
according to the records.
State law makes it a felony to be registered at two addresses during the same election cycle,
according to state Board of Elections spokesman Lee Daghlian.
"When you change the place you've been voting, a new registration has to be filed, showing that
you've changed your address," Daghlian said.
Her spokesman, William O'Reilly, said, "We don't know the circumstances around the missed
votes, but we will make no excuses for them."
McFarland's newly hired election lawyer, Josh Ehrlich of Albany, insisted there was "no criminal
intent, no venality here," but conceded the law does not allow dual registrations.
"This is a case of the boards of elections not doing their jobs . . . She should have been turned
away," Ehrlich insisted.
Records at the two boards show McFarland registered as a Republican in Manhattan in late 1991
and then registered again as a GOPer in Southampton in 1996.
State Republican Chairman Stephen Minarik said yesterday it would "probably make more sense"
for the GOP to give its nod to McFarland's opponent, ex-Yonkers Mayor John Spencer.
56. Based upon Plaintiff Strunk’

s phone call with the Office of Representative Hyde of
Illinois April 18 2006 there is broad failure in any attempt to enact “

The Federal Election
Integrity Act of 2004,”or H.R. 4530 or any other associated bill to ensure voting integrity that

would specifically amend the NVRA of 1993, would require any individual who desires to
register or re-register to vote in an election for federal office to provide the state election official
with proof of citizenship to prevent illegal aliens from voting in federal elections.
57. Plaintiffs pursuant to the foregoing background facts have injuries to plaintiffs’
individual proprietary suffrage property by dilution, devaluation as a targeted jus tertii class also
effected by long-term gerrymandering since the 1972 reapportionment; and that those Plaintiffs
with real property are effected by takings injury by multiple schemes to defraud facilitated by
local governments acting in conjunction with state and federal malfeasance, therefore Plaintiffs
complain such is done by defendants illegally as a if by a complex racketeering enterprise under
18 USC 1961 thru 1964 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries as follows:
58. As and for a First Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants DOJ and its
agents and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yet to be named pursuant to above
paragraphs 19 thru 57 have improperly enforced the 1993 NVRA to prevent mail-fraud by those
persons ineligible to register to vote in a respective state of the several states and or territories.
59. A report issued by the Justice Dept. in 2000 detailed a program run under auspices of
Vice President Gore's "Reinventing Government" project to streamline government services.
60. In a successful effort to clear a backlog of 1.2 million applicants, the INS engaged in
this crash program called "Citizenship USA" to naturalize the immigrants between October 1995
and September 1996, not coincidentally, just in time for the presidential election.
61. Douglas Farbrother, an official on Gore's team, is quoted in the report saying he
"believed that the (citizenship) program had a deadline that was directly connected to the
upcoming election."
62. The Clinton administration bypassed the customary FBI background check for these

new citizens demonstrating that creating new Democrat voters was a much higher priority than
national security.
63. It is estimated that tens of thousands of applications approved without FBI review.
64. The Justice Dept. report documented 1,000 cases in Miami; 1,300 cases in Chicago;
and an astonishing 2,500 cases in Los Angeles.
65. The politicization of the INS continued in the 2000 election. As documented by
journalist Joseph Farah, on Nov. 6, 2000, (one day before the national election) the California
Democratic Party sent thousands (upwards of 4 million by some estimates) of mailers out to
immigrants who had citizenship requests before the INS.
66. These non-citizens were informed, in both English and Spanish, they were registered
to vote as a Democrat and given special identification card to "help...voting go more smoothly."
67. Follow up investigations by the press pointed to the possible use of INS records to
commit this massive voter fraud.
68. How many of the recipients took advantage of the generous offer made by the
Democrats is unknown, but based on the estimates it is quite possible that Gore's much touted
popular vote win (by just under a million votes) could all be attributed to this scam alone
69. A Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report reveals that "The Matricula card is
accepted as a valid form of identification by police departments, banks and 12 states for driver's
license applications."
70. This disregard for immigration law has no positive impact for Americans except
those who seek to grant Democrats and Republicans additional power.
71. Moreover, this aberration of constitutional law is tantamount to mailing absentee
ballots for any future election to Iran, Syria, France, Germany, North Korea, or anywhere else.

72. Under the Motor Voter law, anyone [Motor Vehicle Department employees
included] who "knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to
intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to
register or vote" violates federal law.
73. Hence, the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, visa overstayers and others
classified as "refugees" who were granted amnesty or asylum by the Clinton Administration and
or borderless philosophy of Texacan George W. Bush, under the NVRA and seditious lack of
enforcement could all have been illegal voters in the 1996 thru 2004 election thereafter.
74. The DOJ has not done enforcement under NVRA to prevent those ineligible to vote
to take advantage of the Motor Voter law by registering to vote. In Florida, according to the
Florida Secretary of State's numbers, between 1994 and 1998 (the most recent data available),
the number of registered Hispanic voters skyrocketed by an astonishing 557%, from 99,000 to
655,000 while the number of White and Black registered voters increased by a reasonable 15%.
75. The number of registered Hispanic voters has grown even more dramatically in south
Florida. For example, in Dade County, from 1994 to 1998 the number of Hispanic voters grew
by 1996%, a nearly 20-fold increase! And in now-famous Palm Beach County, the four year
increase was completely off the charts, a 7,220% jump!
76. In 1996 the Clinton administration's documented immigrant fast-track citizenship
programs, which have granted citizenship to known criminals, freed to prey on innocent
Americans who "worked hard and played by the rules." ; has not skipped a beat with transition to
the Bush Administration rush to placate and entice illegal immigration and vote fraud.
77. NVRA use by applicants who had no business even visiting this country, let alone
living here, were rushed by the Clinton Administration through the citizenship maze based on the

theory they would, out of gratitude, vote for the Democratic Party.
78. While unhinged seditious Democrats and Republicans spread fear about the alleged
discriminatory disenfranchisement of American citizens, they have supported the indiscriminate
enfranchisement of untold numbers of foreign outlaws -- including suspected al Qaeda operatives
and terrorist sympathizers.
79. The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported that illegal alien Nuradin Abdi -- the
suspected shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia -- was registered to vote in the battleground
state of Ohio by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
80. Also on the Ohio voting rolls: convicted al Qaeda agent Lyman Faris, who planned
to sabotage the Brooklyn Bridge and had entered the country fraudulently from Pakistan on a
student visa.
81. In the battleground state of Florida, indicted terror suspect Sami Al-Arian illegally
cast his ballot in a Tampa referendum in 1994 while his citizenship application was pending. He
claimed the unlawful vote was a "misunderstanding." State officials declined to prosecute.
82. John Fund, author of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our
Democracy," reports that at least eight of the nineteen Sept. 11 2001 hijackers were eligible to
vote in Virginia or Florida while they plotted to kill Americans.
83. According to Ohio’

s Franklin County Board of Elections, the Dispatch reports, the
office simply "takes a person's word, that they're (sic) a U.S. citizen." The Democratic Party
revealed its hand when it crafted the "motor-voter" bill, which made registration so easy that
NVRA stopped authorities from asking for proof of citizenship.
84. Another method in use by seditious state officials is the unwillingness to require an
ID at the polling place, in New York merely requires recognition by a person’

s signature.

85. In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal
election (or state election, unless authorized by state law).
86. It is up to the state officials to ensure that those voting in federal, state and local
contests are citizens.
87. A vote by an illegal immigrant brings in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, a newly formed arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
88. It would be ICE's job to deport any non-citizen discovered casting a vote, whether
they are legal or illegal. Marc Raimondi, an ICE spokesman, said the penalty for being in the
country illegally would be deportation anyway.
89. Additionally, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in
violation of the IIRIRA law.
90. There are many documented reports of non-citizen voting, (2) and there is no evidence
of prosecution of the aliens for their action by DOJ or state authority.
91. With nearly 19 million foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens in the
country in the 2000 Census and an estimated 9-11 million illegal residents (many of them were
also counted in the Census by intentional refusal to ascertain actual citizenship status for fear of
decreasing responses) and now in 2006 estimated to be approaching 20 million, the potential is
enormous for non-citizens to affect the outcome of elections.
2
“
Fraud Roundup,”United Press International, January 26, 2001.
“
Putnam Opposed Voting Reform Act,”Lakeland, Florida Ledger, December 17, 2001. Rep. Adam
Putnam (R-FL) is quoted: “ Now we find that one of the guys that flew into the buildings in New York had
voted in Florida,”(referring to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers). “ Think
about it,”he said. “You are told you are entitled to public assistance and then almost in the same breath
asked if you want to register to vote. Now, if you think that registering to vote is tied to getting assistance
s license, you are going to say, ‘
or to getting your driver’ Yes.’”

92. Charges were made in at least three federal elections in California (3) and twice in
Florida (4) that voting by ineligible aliens determined the outcome of the election; for instance:
 In Florida, election observers say a “

sizable number”of Florida votes in the 2000 election
may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens. (5)
 In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta
Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were
cast illegally by non-citizens. (6)
93. Investigation of the allegations established that aliens had illegally voted in those
elections, but not in sufficient numbers to have changed the result. Authorities appear not to
have prosecuted any of the aliens who voted illegally.
94. The enactment of NVRA made the process of registering to vote nearly automatic for
people applying for a state driver’

s license or ID card, and called for distributing registration
applications in state welfare offices. (7)
95. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as
information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she does not want to be
3
Samuel Francis, “ Voters—the Democrats Seek Them Everywhere,”Washington Times, February 17,
1995. “Fraudulent voting by illegal aliens or legal immigrants not yet citizens has been documented in a
number of elections in the past — in Florida in 1989, in Los Angeles in 1988, and in some nine California
counties in 1982, to mention only a few — and Republican Michael Huffington claims alien voting helped
him lose last year’s California Senate race to Diane Feinstein.”
“
Ineligible Voters May Have Cast a Number of Florida Ballots,”Washington Times, November 29, 2000.
4
Ibid
5
Ibid
6
Ibid
7
“Illegal Voters,”Honolulu Advertiser, September 9, 2000. Election officials found 543 Oahu residents
who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote. The officials speculated a number of factors may have
resulted in the voter irregularities, including language barriers and the ease of voter registration.

registered to vote. (8)
96. With driver’

s licenses made available by several states to aliens (both legal and
i
illegal), it seems likely that voter rolls now contain large numbers of non-cti
zen
s― e
noug
hin
close elections to change the outcome if those aliens illegally vote.(9)
97. An effort in Congress in 1998 to preclude the registration of non-citizens was
narrowly defeated. (10)
98. Among the reforms included was a provision that required ID for first time voters.
The bill passed 92-2 in the Senate. The two standouts: N.Y. Democrats Clinton and Schumer.
99. Explaining her vote, Clinton said the ID provision would "disproportionately affect
ethnic and racial minorities, recently naturalized American citizens, language minorities, the
poor, the homeless, the millions of eligible New York voters who do not have a driver's license,
and those individuals who otherwise would have exercised their right to vote without these new
provisions."
100. Considering the bill allowed for the use of Social Security numbers, pay stubs
(including government issued checks), utility bills and other forms of verification, Senator
Clinton’
s real concern seems to be placed squarely on opposition to the prevention of voter fraud
by the large illegal population in her state. Forty five percent of Democratic primary voters in
8
John Fund's Political Diary, Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2000. “
Voter fraud has become a bigger problem since
the 1993 federal Motor Voter law required states to allow people to register to vote when they get a driver’
s licenses;
47 states don't require any proof of U.S. residence for enrollment.”
9
On September 26, 1996, California’ s Secretary of State ordered county voter registrars not to permit non-citizens to
vote in the November 1996 elections, after it was revealed that 727 non-citizens in Los Angeles County had filled out
s license application under the new “
the voter registration form attached to the driver’ motor voter”law.
10
Rep. Steve Horn (R-CA-38), observing a rapid increase in non-citizen voting, introduced the Voter Eligibility
Verification Act that would have given voter registrars the ability to eliminate non-citizen voting. Although the bill
received a majority of the votes cast, the Rules under which it was brought to the House floor required a two-thirds
majority and so it failed to pass. (H.R. 1428, 105th Congress) (Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot Program Act of 1998,
H.R. 3485, 105th Congress)

New York were minorities, a group Clinton clearly pandered to in making her decision.
101. Among the special interest groups that oppose requiring ID to vote: The League of
Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership
Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund.
102. The Clinton and now the Bush Administration contribute to the opening for mass
voter disenfranchisement.
103. Recently the Treasury Department handed down a decision allowing banks to
accept Matriculas under the Patriot Act, legislation enacted in part to make tracing money to
terrorist organizations easier.
104. In Congressional testimony spokesmen for both the FBI and Department of
Homeland Security backed off previously asserted national security concerns with issuing
Matricula cards to illegals. Granting legitimacy to these flawed ID's opens the door wider to
massive voter fraud in states granting driver’

s licenses to non-citizens, further undermining an
already besieged franchise.
105. Flaws in the system continue to be used and expanded upon to give the Left an
unfair advantage in elections and to undermine the legitimacy of our most fundamental
American right.
106. In 2002 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, designed to correct some of
the irregularities found in the 2000 election.
107. A report filed in Washington D.C. Nov. 21, 2003 by United Press International
declared that the nation's election boards have few controls that would prevent illegal immigrants
from voting in federal, state or local elections, with many of them saying they operate under a

patriotic cloak of trust that individuals casting ballots will conform to U.S. law.
108. Federal immigration officials’estimate in 2002 between 8 million and 11 million
illegal immigrants live in the United States and with the limited restrictions on voting policies,
some say that raises serious questions about the integrity of the U.S. voting system.
109. Three years after the country's most contentious presidential election -- inundated
with hanging chad and butterfly ballots -- the sweeping reforms promised for the voting process
in the 50 states and the District of Columbia had not been realized.
110. Moreover, with few exceptions including those instituted in Arizona and Missouri,
no security measures have been put in place to protect the veracity of elections from illegal, legal
aliens and or citizen multiply registered within a state and without a single state.
111. The U.S. Constitution details how elections in the United States are to work. To
hold office in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, it requires an individual to
reach at least age 25 or age 30, respectively, and be a citizen for at least seven years.
112. The Federal Election Commission, which oversees the financing of federal
elections, does not have jurisdiction over how elections are carried out in the individual states.
"That's not the role of the FEC. It's probably enforced by the Department of Justice," said Peggy
Sims, an FEC research specialist.
113. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in Washington, is an
organization that advocates reform of U.S. immigration policy. Dan Stein, FAIR's executive
director, says the federal government and political parties have little interest in ensuring that
illegal immigrants do not cast votes.
114. "It is one more factor that causes illegal immigration to jeopardize the integrity of
the electoral process. (If) we count illegal aliens in the census and reapportion districts to include

them and we allow people to vote illegally, we have dual nationality," Stein said.
115. "In a sense, it winds up diluting the votes. (But) it's not just a matter of diluting the
votes. If a person's vote is offset by someone voting illegally, you also have this problem of
entire states losing congressional seats. It jeopardizes the legitimacy of the whole system of
representation in this country, potentially."
116. Stein contends that efforts to match names on voter registration lists with
immigration lists have been confounded by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union,
which threaten lawsuits about information sharing. Democrats, he said, insist it would chill voter
participation.
117. FAIR’
s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal
aliens vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations. He pointed to the 1996 California
race between former Rep. Robert Dornan and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, who defeated
him by 985 votes.
118. In that race Stein said that Dornan challenged the election results and set up a year-
long battle over the validity of more than 700 votes, allegedly by illegal immigrants. A House
committee voted to drop the investigation of Dornan's accusations, saying that while they had
found evidence of illegal votes by non-citizens, it wasn't enough to affect the race.
119. Stein pointed to state driver’

s licenses as a problem. The so-called motor-voter
program that allows individuals to register to vote when they obtain or renew their drivers
licenses also opens the process to fraud. Some states do not require applicants to prove they are
legal residents of the United States or citizens before they obtain a drivers license
120. Since enactment of the 1993 NVRA a pattern of illegal registration use by mail
fraud by illegal aliens has been aided and abetted by partisan political figures wire and media

fraud intent on vote fraud necessary for maintaining control over patronage policy and purse,
121. There is an ubiquitous scheme to defraud elections with use of NVRA with
impunity due to lack of “

bi-partisan”will to prosecute offenders at the state and federal DOJ law
enforcement level, under the guise that somehow illegal registration and voting is a victimless
crime and law enforcement would undermine confidence in elections and impact partisan gains.
122. That the FEC uses an arbitrary and capricious “

unofficial”definition of VAP based
upon internal consideration separate and apart from state law (11).
11
The Federal Election Commission website http://www.fec.gov/pages/vapwords.htm, with emphasis added
by Strunk quote: “ A Few Words About Voting Age Population (VAP)
The term Voting Age Population (VAP), refers to the total number of persons in the United States who are
18 years of age or older regardless of citizenship, military status, felony conviction, or mental state.
The standard source of VAP figures is the Bureau of Census, as reported in their Current Population
Reports, Series P-25.
Extreme care must be taken when using VAP figures as a basis for measuring voter participation
in elections for federal office. The actual number of eligible voters, those that are legally entitled to vote,
will always be less than the VAP because of the inclusion of resident aliens (both legal and illegal), as
well as convicted felons who are either institutionalized or who have not yet had their voting rights
restored under the various State laws, persons declared non-compos mentis by a court of law, or those
persons otherwise ineligible to vote. Neither the Bureau of Census nor any other organization can define
with complete accuracy exactly how many eligible voters there are in the United States. According to
1994 estimates, approximately 13 million persons over the age of 18 were not U.S. citizens. (Non citizens
make up the largest group of ineligible voting age persons. In contrast, the next largest group,
institutionalized felons, who are prohibited by State law from voting in all but 4 States, numbered only
about 1.2 million at the end of 1996.) In spite of these shortcomings, the lack of accurate eligibility figures
requires political analysts to employ voting age population as a base number for comparisons of
participation in the political process.
The other significant variable one must keep in mind when dealing with VAP is the fact that the
Bureau of Census actually uses 3 separate sets of voting age population figures in any given federal
election:
 Projected Voting Age Population
 Estimated Voting Age Population
 Current Population Survey
The Projected Voting Age Population is provided by Census in the Spring of each election year.
These figures are only "quick and dirty" extrapolations from previous data and are therefore unofficial
approximations. These figures include members of the armed forces where they reside at their duty
stations, but exclude the military and civilian population overseas and their dependents of voting age who
would be eligible to vote by absentee ballot in their home State. These early figures are used primarily to
satisfy the needs of the news media and political strategists.
The Estimated Voting Age Population are based on a sample survey conducted in the Summer of
the election year and are thus "official" estimates as of July 1st and are certified as such by the
Commerce Department. These figures include military and institutionalized populations but (in 1996) were
not adjusted for the 4 million undercount in the 1990 census. The value of these statistics lies in their

123.As and for a Second Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants the EAC
and DOJ and its agents yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 122 have
improperly certified state HAVA submissions of the several states without reviewing the
submissions in the context of the respective state law and constitution;
124. EAC has improperly distributed HAVA funds to each state of the several states and
territories under color of HAVA on the basis of DOJ and EAC staff application review
125. That DOJ has admitted to improper review and certification of the applications from
New York in the case USA v the State of New York et.al. NDNY 06-cv-263
126. DOJ has admitted it has improperly certified for EAC to make premature funds
distribution to defendant New York without being in compliance with HAVA and or state Law
127. That DOJ admits that it has improperly certified the application for payment and
EAC has improperly disbursed funds to New York, and are without authority under HAVA to
retrieve the sums improperly paid
128. However, DOJ and EAC are empowered to retrieve HAVA funds under the False
Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733, but refuse to do so.
129. That DOJ and in turn EAC as per above paragraphs 19 thru 128 have similarly
reviewed the applications of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas as well
as the other state of the several states and territories to numerous name without using state law in
utility to government agencies like the FEC who must use them, especially in Presidential election years,
for certain financial purposes.
Current Population Survey numbers are generated by Census each month based on
extrapolations from the previous years estimates. In contrast, these figures do not include military or
institutionalized persons, but are adjusted for the 4 million undercount.
For statistical purposes, the Federal Election Commission has opted to use the Current
Population Survey figures for its report to Congress on the NVRA largely out of professional convention.
These are the figures employed by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress as
well as by Election Data Services, Inc.. Moreover, these are the most frequently cited sources in other
private publications such as those from the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate and
Congressional Quarterly.

regards to an accurate definition of VAP commensurate with the use of the respective state
election law and constitution in regards to what voting population actually is for the respective
state, i.e. any US citizen 18 years or older being a qualified to register to vote.
130.As and for a Third Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants EAC, Thomas
Wilkey and its agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 129
intentionally promote facilitate aid and abet illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona
and in other state of the several states.
131. In ARIZONA when vote fraud was suspected in the 1996 Arizona Primary (the one
that ended Pat Buchanan's winning streak after New Hampshire), the Arizona legislature passed
a special law forbidding a recount for that one primary election only!
132. Jeff Flake R-Ariz., introduced a bill that would bar federal agencies from accepting
a state-issued driver’
s license unless the state has in effect a policy requiring presentation of
acceptable forms of identification prior to issuance of the license.
133. "Acceptable forms of identification" would include a birth certificate, U.S. passport,
a U.S. certificate of naturalization or U.S. certificate of citizenship.
134. Matthew Specht, an aide to Flake, said that Flake wanted to close the loophole
opened when Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002. That law states that a voter
should present to "the appropriate state or local election official current and valid photo
identification."
135. "There are some states like California that issue drivers licenses to undocumented
citizens. That would be a case where you have a legal form of identification according to federal
law ... for somebody who is not a citizen and should not be allowed to vote," Specht said. In

2004 Arizona Voters approved Proposition 200 that requires all registrants and voters to show an
idea when voting.
136. That the EAC and DOJ are working at cross purposes under HAVA as is properly
framed nationwide by the March 11, 2006 press report By C.J. Karamargin ARIZONA DAILY
STAR Tucson, Arizona entitled “

U.S. panel says voters don't have to prove citizenship -
Decision appears to run counter to state's Proposition 200”

.
137. That EAC and Director Wilkey treatment of the State of Arizona in the matter of
it’
s plenary right to ascertain who is or is not a citizen for the purposes of voting as a conflict to
be resolved general is further elaborated by the January 24, 2005 Letter from Joseph Rich then
chief of the DOJ Voting Rights Section to the Attorney General of Arizona in the matter of
constitutionality of Arizona proposition 200.
138. Furthermore, on February 7, 2005 the Arizona Attorney General duly notified
Missouri State Senator Larry Taylor of Jefferson City of the constitutionality of proposition 200
and as such Missouri enacted a similar law requiring certification that only U.S. Citizens are
permitted to vote in Missouri. United Press International surveyed several states with large
immigrant populations to determine their policies for ensuring voters are legal citizens.
139. FAIR estimates there are as many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in
California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the state's board of elections told UPI that it has
an "inherent assumption" that individuals who sign their names on voter registration cards are
doing so legally.
140. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order
to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding that they provide registration cards in seven different
languages.

141. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or
passports to verify citizenship or when voters show up at the polls.
142. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have
been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law,"
Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred.
143. Lee Daghlian, spokesman for the New York Board of Elections, alleges that their
voter registration card is an affidavit that has an individual swear that they are a U.S. citizen and
at least 18 years of age, or face felony charges; in fact the voter registration card is an un-
witnessed declaration unenforceable as an affidavit.
144. "Is there room for someone to lie and get by, sure," Daghlian said. However, he
pointed out that the new rules for the next general election will require potential voters who
register by mail to provide their drivers license number and the last four digits of their Social
Security number.
145. A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney, Hans Von Spakovsky, charged with
determining whether to pre-clear Georgia's voter identification law penned a law review article
advocating polling-place photo ID from all voters last spring, angering critics who say the staffer
had made up his mind on the issue before reviewing it.
146. The Washington Post reported that Hans Von Spakovsky, now at the Federal
Election Commission, published the article under a pseudonym in a 2005 issue of the Texas
Review of Law & Politics - before issuing the decision to Georgia - and later added a link to his
page at the FEC. It has since been removed from the agency's site but is available here.
147. In the CALIFORNIA 1996 election that unseated Bob Dornan following his efforts
to investigate the Clinton White House, canvassers discovered that nearly half of the names

registered to vote in the GOP election from 7 precincts simply did not exist.
148. The California Attorney General's office was informed by the precinct worker, but
again nothing was done.
149. In 1998, almost 20,000 fraudulent voter registrations were discovered on the voting
rolls, but were allowed to remain on the excuse that their removal in time for the election would
cost too much!
150. California State Senator BILL MORROW of the 38th Senatorial District in a letter
to the state Attorney General Bill Lockyer on April 7, 2006 challenged him to enforce state law
in regards to illegal aliens registering to vote.
151. Morrow Alleges the registrars of voters in all of California’

s 58 counties are not
ensuring that they have procedures in place for identifying valid voters so that illegal aliens are
prevented from casting illegal ballots
152. United Press International surveyed several states with large immigrant populations
to determine their policies and controls for ensuring voters are legal citizens.
153. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates there are as
many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for
the state's board of elections told UPI that it has an "inherent assumption" that individuals who
sign their names on voter registration cards are doing so legally.
154. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order
to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding they provide registration cards in seven languages.
155. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or
passports to verify citizenship or when voters show up at the polls.
156. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have

been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law,"
Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred.
157. The evidence for massive vote fraud in the United States uncovered by the Voting
Integrity Project and organizations like it are ignored by the government, which has obviously
been the beneficiary of such chicanery, and by the media, which is complicit in the fraud.
158. FAIR’
s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal
immigrants vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations.
159. Election On Line. Org reported April 13, 2006 Thousands of registration
applications were rejected in California where, since January 1, nearly 25 percent of voter
registration forms submitted for verification have been rejected by the statewide database. In Los
Angeles County, 43 percent of voter registrations have been rejected.
160. In a letter to Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (R), Conny McCormack, L.A.
County registrar-recorder/county clerk cited several examples of some of the thousands of
applications rejected by the "CalVoter" system including forms being rejected because a last
name has a space in it such as De Leon, or a last name that is actually two last names with no
hyphen, such as Weaver Cardona, or even new residents to California being rejected because the
DMV file the CalVoter system uses is only six months old.
161. "The challenge of setting up a statewide voter registration database that complies
with HAVA requirements has been well-known to election administrators and activists for
years," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "This particular
problem that California is experiencing is a result of the terms of an agreement made between the
Secretary of State and the Department of Justice that is unique to California and a handful of
other states. This form rejection problem itself is a surprise that I don't think anyone anticipated."

162. Nevada has announced that it is to use a voter registration back up system because
of problems with its vendor Covansys Inc., Nevada will be employing a similar system to
California's whereby counties will send voter registration information to a state computer every
24 hours for comparisons to DMV and Social Security records.
163. In February 2006, Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller (R) suspended a contract
with Covansys claiming there were too many problems with the system the company was
creating for the state.
164. According to published reports, in addition to suspending the contract with
Covansys, Heller requested that the company return more than $1 million the state paid for the
creation of a new database as well as reimbursement of monies the state is now spending to
implement the replacement system.
165. Heller told The Associated Press that the back up system is not ideal and that he
prefers a top-down system, but with no vendor contract and an election just about four months
away, the back up system is the only option for compliance with HAVA.
166. As and for a Fourth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants New York
State Board of Elections and its agents yet named as Defendants as per above paragraphs 19
thru 165 intentionally and maliciously for partisan gain fail to maintain statewide central
data base to enable municipalities to reduce and verify actual inactive voters per EL §5-213 as
displayed below: § 5-213. Inactive status.
1. When a voter is sent a confirmation notice pursuant to the provisions of this article, the
voter’
s name shall be placed in inactive status.
2. The registration poll records of all such voters shall be removed from the poll ledgers and
maintained at the offices of the board of elections in a file arranged alphabetically by election
district. If such board uses computer generated registration lists, the names of such voters shall
not be placed on such lists at subsequent elections other than lists prepared pursuant to the
provisions of section 5-612 of this article but shall be kept as a computer record at the offices of
such board.

3. The board of elections shall restore the registration of any such voter to active status if such
voter notifies the board of elections that he resides at the address from which he is registered,
or the board finds that such voter has validly signed a designating or nominating petition which
states that he resides at such address, or if such voter casts a ballot in an affidavit 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:


170. That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE and the obvious facts of
active voters multiply registered in one and more municipalities outside of the NYC,
171. In more than one borough within illegal aliens having been given sanctuary “
with
the don’ t tell “policy promulgated by the Koch Administration before the 1980 Census
t ask don’
172.The NYC Board of Elections has no viable excuse for not rigorously enforcing EL
§5-213 in the Boroughs marked in the above Chart Line Item 58A thru 58E have inactive
registrants that vary from 9.77% to 11.89% ;
173. That NYC will wrongly receive no less than $394,075 shown on the chart above
that should rightly go to municipalities to relieve real property taxpayers therein a municipality
otherwise doing its fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 and otherwise getting less than the people
within are en titled for reimbursing costs of implementation of the NVRA and HAVA.
174.That theoretically based upon use of the state mean inactive voters calculated in the
above Chart there are 23 municipalities shown on Chart Line items 1 thru 23, that are not only
entitled to receive the $394,075.45 that would otherwise be wrongly disbursed to NYC, but are
additionally entitled to greater amounts from the municipalities outside of NYC shown as Chart
Line item 24 thru 57 that would otherwise be wrongly reimbursed HAVA funds instead.
175. That the New York state legislature controlled by the permanent oligarchy
despite absolute need for merger and consolidation of municipalities in order to afford US
citizens within equal protection and treatment under the law according to the state constitution
and related laws, instead the so-called “

bi-partisan”autocracy maintains municipalities as if
merely plantations to extract bounty with impunity from the non-majoritarian People left without
a dedicated voice within in the state legislature as they were devised in the 19th century as the
map of municipalities and New York Municipal subdivisions History depicts as follows:

New York
Municipal
Subdivision History
1683 thru 2006

176. That NYC like other municipalities in expectation of increase HAVA funds
malfeasance is rewarded with expectation of increased dollars by maintaining fraudulent
registrations with plausible denial by the State refusal to setup a real time statewide database,
177. That each individual municipality with implementation of NVRA has lost control
of the accuracy of the original registration database, as was intentionally done to create plausible
denial to effect a scheme to defraud the election process by Defendant BOE and those yet named
based upon the pattern shown since implementation of NVRA nationally and since its adoption
s Pataki Administration and “

by New York’ bi-partisan”legislature.
178. On March 23, 2006 the special counsel to the BOE inferred that the State Board
may have to sue each municipal board of elections to implement HAVA requirements and in
effect is not representing the municipalities per se in the Case USA v NYS NDNY 06-cv-263.
179. Notably both Niagara and Cayuga Counties refuse the dictates of the NYS BOE.
180. On March 23, 2006 the Assistant Attorney general of the State of New York
appearing for the entities of New York State in USA v NYS stated that the NYS Ag in the matter
of NVRA and HAVA can not adequately represent the interests of the People of New York.
181. On April 20, 2006 the Executive Director Robert Freeman of the Committee for
Open Government of the Office of the New York Secretary of State held in a written opinion that
the DOJ advisary to the NYS BOE and New York State has repeatedly improperly attended the
Executive Session of the Board of Election closed sessions without public access or record there
by violates the state of open meetings law.
182. There is a body of evidence that the Defendant State Board has NOT enforced the
requirement of EL §5-213 be done by each Municipal Board, enforcement is non existent when
compared to aggressive enforcement of Election Law Article 14 finance provisions.

183. As and for a Fifth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendant New York
State Municipal subdivisions and agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above
paragraphs 19 thru 182 intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration
database on a municipal by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and
New York State Election Law;
184. That Municipal defendants under EL §4-138 pass-on the expense of administering
elections to the real property owners by tax levy outside of NYC and by users fees and other
excises within the city:
185. That Defendant Municipalities depicted in Chart Line Item 24 thru 58 have a
fiduciary duty required of each respective “

bi-partisan”municipal board of elections as part of
the partisan control over patronage policy, purse and especially the real property tax levy
empowered under local government Homerule law, pass on the all unfunded expenses for
Medicaid, Elections, and other unfunded mandates required by the State.
186. Municipal Defendants over the years based upon public records display a pattern
of intentional concealment and cover-up in regards to accurately noticing and segregating the
actual Medicaid costs required under Social Service Law related to the Social Security Act, as

well as election costs required under EL §4-138 and now NVRA and HAVA to be levied upon
real property outside NYC, as excise users fees within NYC whose tax burdens are staggering.
187. That were the other states of the several states to honestly and legally to make
reimbursement claims for HAVA funds using the narrow interpretation of VAP based upon
rigorous use and enforcement of the respective state constitution and laws less HAVA funds
would be disbursed to those states, and
188. Accordingly based upon the narrow interpretation of the HAVA VAP
reimbursement formula, rather than the intentionally over broad use of VAP as
unconstitutionally vague, when in fact in all state law non-citizens, and the civilly dead are NOT
part of the voting age population, and
189. Therefore, the state of New York and the respective municipalities subdivisions
would receive a significantly greater HAVA reimbursement, thereby relieving the real property
owners as a jus tertii class including plaintiffs with property along with those people within
NYC, would not be burdened with unreasonable higher taxes as a result of such legal narrow
interpretation of VAP.
190. That Plaintiffs are not legally represented in the state legislature with a dedicated
voice or other recourse other than Federal court and that State Defendants, State Municipalities
and rubber stamp by DOJ of the April 22, 2002 gerrymander of state and federal districts
191. Gerrymander per se is done by mis application and administration of the state
constitution and laws, contradicts the express required total number and allotment of State Senate
Districts (“
SDs”
) location, and ratio of Assembly Districts (“
ADs”
) seats within;
192. Statewide allocation, size, number of State Senate and Assembly seats for the
people resident within each existing municipality entitled to no less than two (2) ADs and a

municipal Board of Elections within is dictated by the state constitution and related laws;
193. The intra-municipal equity in distribution of EDs is necessary within each AD to
prevent Disproportionate Diminished Dilution (“

DDD”
) of a vote strength and effectiveness is
dictated by the state constitution and related laws, however is not complied with.
194. As and for a Sixth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants State of
California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states of several states to
numerous to name whose agents yet named as Defendants, pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru
193, intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal
by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and N.Y.S. Election Law.
195. That the Chart on the next page entitled “

2000 Census Table 1.1 Total Population
by Age and Citizenship: March 2000”is from the 2000 Census enumeration, and is highlighted
to show all persons of any sex 18 years or older equals 204,523k or 73.9% of the Total Persons,
or “
Voting Age Population”(“
VAP”
) therein containing the civilly dead within. Of that total
177,515k are native born citizens, 10,683k naturalized citizens totaling 188 mil. And when the
civilly dead are subtracted by say 3 mil. equals say 185 mil. Eligible voters nationally therein
include both registered and un-registered citizens entitled to suffrage.
196. The 2000 Census Table 1.1 for total combined persons by Sex and Age in the
category of 18 Years and over totals say 204 mil. VAP as opposed to Citizens both Native and
Naturalized including the civilly dead, or say 188 mil. minus the civilly dead equals CVAP
197. The “
Projected 2000 percent of Total State EV per total National EV”the total
185,208,072; and further shows the “

2004 Estimated Active Voters per state using New York”
10,540,535 AV or 81.51% of the total registered persons in NY and each state as first
approximation equal to say 150,964,221 Active Voters nationally as the figure to be used to

disburse HAVA funds.
198. The set of Census numbers when compared to the total VAP used by the EAC will
validate whether VAP of CVAP is used.
199. That the basis for determining the accuracy of the projection of the national total
of say 185,208,072 mil. Citizens 18 years or older, whether registered or not excluding the
civilly dead, approximates “

Citizen Voting Age Persons”New York has say 12,931,489 with the
actual 10,540,535 AV recorded as of 31 December 2004 in the flawed central database, and
200. That based upon the December 31, 2004 New York voting rolls, 10,540,535

Active Voters is compared for accuracy with the actual number of those persons alleged
“
Eligible”to register to vote as claimed by the Secretary of State of both California, Texas, in
each State Compliance Plan filed with the Department of Justice and the Election Assistance
Commission for HAVA funds reimbursement, and that the SOS of California alleges it has
26.08% unregistered and Texas alleges it has 12.47% unregistered; and compares such figures to
an estimated 9.79% for New York state as of December 31, 2004, as follows:
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 “
Eligible”notes that “the figures under the heading
‘
Eligible’in these sections represent our estimate of the number of people in California who are
eligible to register to vote as of February 10, 2005”
; and quote that
the “ Population estimate data from the Population Research Unit of the Department of Finance
were used to estimate each county’ s total population. Subtracted from this total was the
estimated number of persons ineligible for registration because of age, felony convictions, and
citizenship status. The figures given are unofficial but represent a reasonable estimate of the
eligible population.”
202. Like the California Constitution portion shown below only US Citizens may vote
and as in Texas Election Law §11.001 and §11.002 that defines Eligibility to Vote and
“
Qualified Voter”using only US Citizen eliminates non-citizens and the civilly dead in keeping
with Article 6 –SUFFRAGE Section 2 - QUALIFIED ELECTOR; REGISTRATION; ABSENTEE VOTING –
Texas Constitution Article 6 Section 2 Subsection (a) Every person subject to none of the disqualifications provided
by Section 1 of this article or by a law enacted under that section who is a citizen of the United States and who is a

resident of this State shall be deemed a qualified voter; provided, however, that before offering to vote at an election
a voter shall have registered, but such requirement for registration shall not be considered a qualification of a voter
within the meaning of the term "qualified voter" as used in any other Article of this Constitution in respect to any
matter except qualification and eligibility to vote at an election.
The CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 2. A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.
203. That the Texas compliance submission to the DOJ and EAC in the matter of use of
the term “
Eligible”notes that its VAP according to the 2000 Census is 14,965,061; as follows:

204. That in the matter of national HAVA Funds distribution there is an inconsistency in
the use of VAP versus CVAP, that a thorough review of the public records of each state of the
several states and territories will reveal in comparison the 2000 Census enumeration for nativity
and State Plans submissions to the Election Assistance Commission evidenced by the Federal
Register record on the EAC website.
205. Federal Election Commission (FEC) basis for which VAP (shown in footnote #11)
is used differently from state to state and would properly create an offset and resolution for
equity; especially since as many as 18 states have not implemented the “

centralized”voter
registration database- i.e. the underlying reason for HAVA and the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA) in the first place.
206. The imperative to catch the rampant vote fraud and abuse nationally and statewide
here in New York is essential and warrants fraud investigation statewide.
207. The Chart below compares the actual numbers used by New York with a
$221,000,000 funds figure that is subject to HAVA funding variations caused by arbitrary use of
VAP by California and Texas in the state compliance submissions to the DOJ and EAC:
the Chart shows that New York even with a large number of non-citizens like both Texas and
California, however New York has relatively less aliens, and therefore is more significantly

injurious to the U.S. Citizens resident in New York with use of VAP instead of CVAP;
accordingly New York Citizens are denied equal protection as a result of California and
especially Texas gaming the system without proper Voting Rights Act compliance oversight and
equal treatment afforded by DOJ review and certification for the EAC to equally disburse funds.
208. That Injury to Plaintiffs is significant and palpable by the very nature of the
underlying causes of action stated above in paragraphs 58 thru 207, Petitioners / Plaintiffs
individually and collectively as a class as those similarly situated are irreparably injured by
Respondents / Defendant as a result as follows:
209. As and for a First Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 208
Respondents injure Petitioners by Denial of Substantive Due Process required of Defendants
under proper administration and application of the NVRA, HAVA and NYSC and Laws .
210. Because of virtually no vote fraud enforcement, motor voter registration, driver's
licenses for illegal aliens, amnesties and other factors, American's most precious liberty, voting,
is being rapidly undermined by illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens.
211. As and for a Second Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 210
Respondents injure Petitioners by denial of equal treatment under Election Law, deny
expectation of effective ballot access and voting., by disproportionate diminished dilution of
plaintiffs vote strength as is related both to gerrymandering and arbitrary enforcement of law.
212. As and for a Third Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 211
Respondents infringe Petitioners’speech and association fundamental rights otherwise
available for U.S. Citizens in the Federal 1st amendment as related to the 14th Amendment by
denial of due process and equal treatment under Election Law and redistricting violation of the
NYSC Art III, infringe speech in the Legislature.

213. As and for a Fourth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 212
Federal Respondents as a Bivens 1st, 4th 5th 8th 13th 14th 15th amendments injury disenfranchise
Petitioner suffrage rights by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs proprietary
tangible suffrage property.
214. As and for a Fifth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214 State
Defendants by a pattern of malicious fiduciary neglect intentionally take Petitioners’suffrage
rights as reverse discrimination prohibited by VRA under a scheme to defraud under color of the
NVRA and HAVA.
215. As and for a Sixth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214
Respondents infringement of Petitioners’speech, association, bottom-up suffrage and Homerule
autonomy rights and unlawful takings by patterns of fraud under multiple schemes to defraud
thereby deny a republican form of government.
216. As and for a Seventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 215
Respondents injures Petitioners’1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th Amendment Right as U.S. Citizens who as
New York State Citizens with sovereignty granted in each state of the several states are to be
protected against foreign interference with suffrage aren’

t by use of VAP instead of CVAP.
217. As and for a Eighth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 216
Respondents injure Petitioners’as jus tertii classes where they reside since April 22, 2002 having
expended state available remedy are without a means to provide for reasonable amendment to the
State Constitution.
218. As and for a Ninth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 217 in
the matter of CVAP unequal treatment of the unfunded HAVA mandate on a municipal entity-
by-entity basis Defendants deny substantive due process for the EL §4-138 unfunded mandate as

is done under the Medicaid tax levy without notice and segregation of the election costs on real
property tax levy, is a taking of property.
219. As and for a Tenth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 218
notwithstanding 28 USC 1341 does not apply herein, the EAC under HAVA absent equity relief
would deprive Plaintiffs and the PEOPLE of NYS and of the several States by either Top-down
or Bottom-up suffrage, with Homerule autonomy, must afford equal protection of the law against
HAVA false claims, would otherwise qualify under the False Claims Act 31 USC 3729-3733.
220. As and for a Eleventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 219
that damages to individual plaintiffs jus tertii within each respective municipality entitled to a
board of elections not in compliance with application and administration of the state constitution
and laws who by ultra vires offense, not least of which impose unequal EDs non-conforming
with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 and without elections conducted without “

bipartisan”election
inspection, while maliciously requiring of real property tax per EL §4-138 as an unreasonable
burden by excessive expense, Plaintiffs as a jus tertii class require reimbursement for suffering
arbitrary and capricious taking of personal and real property.
221. As and for a Twelfth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 220
that were any claim against the HAVA reimbursement transacted with DOJ and EAC for the
state of New York without bottom-up suffrage and Homerule compliance with the application
and administration of the state constitution and related laws such would be a false claim as
defined under 31 USC §3729 thru §3733 subject to treble damages and penalties against
Defendants with payment due to Plaintiffs as whistleblower / relator jus tertii as U.S. Citizens in
the name of the United State Government entitled to 15% to 30% of that recovered and a fee for
each false claim filed by any municipality not conforming as well as any state effecting as a false

claim, and that the fee due relators per transaction is in the amount not to exceed $11,000 for
each occurrence, and notwithstanding the False Claims Act (“

FCA”
) damages that financial
injury to individual plaintiffs being denied expectation of effective suffrage participation date
exceeds $75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners as “
whistleblower / relators”and those similarly situated as a
Federal class of CVAP within the state of New York and in the several states and territories urge
remedy from irreparable harm that warrants a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel for preliminary
injunction suspending HAVA filing deadlines, permanent injunction for equal treatment of
suffrage and autonomy for all New York State Citizens and CVAP nationwide entitled to
suffrage separate from non-citizens, minors and those adjudged civilly dead, Petitioners and
those similarly situated urge remedy and protection from irreparable harm that warrants
permanent injunction for equal treatment of all real property owners with a the Court order:
A. That there must be a 28 USC 2284 trial to hear the statewide municipal apportionment of
HAVA funds based upon proper administration and application of the State Constitution and
related laws
B. That each legitimate municipality has until March 1, 2006 to initiate redistricting of its
legislative, senate, assembly, congressional districts coterminous within including those of
NYC and for HAVA certification and constitutional infringement issues.
C. That the HAVA January 1, 2006 compliance deadline for each state of the several states be
stayed nationwide until such time that the court determines the constitutionality of the use of
VAP funding rather than CVAP without those adjudged civilly dead, and determines equity
for reimbursement using CVAP nationwide accordingly.
D. That each municipality entitled to a Board of Elections within must produce a compliance
plan proving conformance with the administration and application of the State Constitution
and laws in order to receive HAVA reimbursement for equity statewide in voting machine
acquisition.
E. That U.S. DOJ voting rights section must pre-clear municipal compliance plans before

certification is sent to the Election Assistance Commission for reimbursement offset.
F. That the municipalities of Hamilton and Fulton must elect together conterminous within one
single SD, AD and CD.
G. That the US Supreme Court held in the WMCA case that the State Constitution Article III
Section 4 formula for enlarging the number of SDs beyond the expressed provision of fifty
(50) is unconstitutional, and as such until such time that the NYSC is amended accordingly
with a new formula, there shall be fifty (50) SDs that shall each contain three ADs
coterminous within a CD and JD by proper application and administration of the NYSC and
laws to meet the requirements of the VRA, the U.S. Constitution and HAVA reimbursement
for ED voting machines.
H. That in the matter of EL §4-100 creation of Election Districts shall not to exceed 950 active
voters (“AV” ) each statewide, and further, every ED statewide shall be of equal size with the
exception that for the convenience of the active voters any ED may be subdivided and
additional voting machines provided and paid for by the EL §4-138 real property tax levy,
and furthermore, at the direction of any municipal legislature to the board of elections within
may decrease the number of EDs within such municipality to contain more active voters
beyond 950 AV not to exceed 1150 active voters, with the convenience proviso of ED
subdivision.
I. That redistricting of the each SD, AD, CD and adjoining SDs ADs and CDs is moot were it
effected before March 1, 2006 for the purposes of the 2006 election cycle based upon proper
use of the New York State Constitution Article III and laws, is now dependent upon a
Federal Court under 28 USC 2284.
J. That the NYC entity must be subdivided to prevent continued disproportionate diminished
dilution of EV / CVAP votes within NYC, excluding those adjudged civilly dead must 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

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

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 (“

Statement”
) is submitted
pursuant to WDNY Local Rule 5.1 and 9.2 in conjunction with the Amended
Complaint to be duly filed by May 1, 2006 in compliance with the Order of the
Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara.
The Amended Complaint has 221 paragraphs and Wherefore relief section
that will be referenced in this Statement. As alleged in paragraph 57, Plaintiffs
pursuant to the background facts in paragraphs 19 thru 56 have injuries to (i.)
Plaintiffs’individual suffrage proprietary property by dilution, devaluation, and
RICO Statement Page 1 of 50

offset as a jus tertii class (1) additionally effected by long-term gerrymandering
since the 1972 reapportionment, (ii.) those Plaintiffs with real property are
especially affected by takings injury caused by multiple schemes to defraud
facilitated by local governments acting in conjunction with state(s) of the several
states and territories and federal malfeasance and both sets of Plaintiffs suffer (iii.)
theft of individual liberty.
That Plaintiffs complain of injury done by Defendants, their agents
statewide, and those yet named nationally and internationally conducting an
enterprise through patterns of racketeering activity defined 18 USC §1961 thru
§1968 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries.
The enterprise in New York, centers the New York State BOE and its
agents, including every Municipal BOE and its agents, including Thomas Wilkey
as its Democratic Party co-director and member of the National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS), are a legally mandated “

bi-partisan”configuration
dependent upon appointed members of two different political faiths (the same
parties for more than one hundred years) are all defendants as a class herein too
numerous to name. By operation of law Defendants preclude non-partisan and or
non-majoritarian citizens. As such all “

bi-partisan”Defendants and their agents
have an express fiduciary duty to check and verify the actions of each other, as
1
“
Jus tertii“third party standing created by non/mis/malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty.

well as to detect, prevent and punish misrepresentation and fraud in provision of
suffrage for the benefit of each Plaintiff individually and class similarly situated
precluded from the process under color of law.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants on a state, multi-state, national and international
level are part of a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with exploiting vagaries,
loopholes and questionable devices associated with the “

Voting Age Population”
(VAP) Formula created by Congress and the enterprise itself as if by operation of
law under color of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 2002 Help
America to Vote Act (HAVA).
That the enterprise reaps unjust enrichment by taking intangible and tangible
property by fraudulent concealment, extortion, theft and robbery benefiting from
mail and wire fraud while operating under color of the 1993 NVRA, 2002 HAVA
incorporated into the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA); and by operation of the
Racketeering Enterprise among enticements it harbors aliens defined per the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), uses the “

Great Society Program”
provision of Medicaid (SSA), education, housing, employment and provides mail-
in registration and voting without oversight to Plaintiffs proprietary property and
business detriment.

That under HAVA as an extension of NVRA, the enterprise and its agents
facilitate illegal mail-in voter registration(2) devised in a scheme that can only be
enforced by the respective state of the several states in many of which its agents
are of the enterprise itself. That the DOJ has refused to become involved as a rule
rather than exception, and when the State authorities refuse to do fiduciary duties
as the only agency that may ascertain the validity of the registration and or voting
by mail-in voter registration and or absentee ballots nationwide, As such politically
motivated dereliction of fiduciary duty constitutes a component of the enterprise(3)
scheme for unjust enrichment that willfully facilitates, aids and abets to defraud
Plaintiffs, those similarly situated, and the Federal Treasury by devaluing and or
nullifying (offsetting) U.S. Citizen’

s proprietary vote investment, thereby thieves
and extorts expectation of suffrage effectiveness, real property, and individual
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
1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television -Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice
to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or
foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or
artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a
financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or
both.

liberty; and notwithstanding the myth of good government appearing long
abandoned in New York, corruption is a “

bi-partisan”endeavor, expectation of
effective voting remains the right that safeguards all other rights.
That NYS BOE is at the center of the enterprise with respect to various New
York state subdivision municipal boards of election who are each either co-
conspirators willfully acting or unwitting participants in the scheme to facilitate
registration, voting, and with use of the U.S. Mail funding the scheme by a pattern
of real property tax levy taking property differently outside NYC and other states
than within. That participants act under color of the VRA and related laws to aid
and abet illegal alien sanctuary per 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.), obstruct
INA process in the matter of facilitating illegal aliens to pose as US Citizens (4), to
obtain fraudulent documents (5), and then on the prime voters list used tangentially
every tens years to gerrymander as was done April 22, 2002. That the criminal
activity of the enterprise involves mail and wire fraud defined under 18 USC
§1341 and 18 USC §1343, and that for no less than fourteen years has been aided
4
18 USC § 1425. Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully- (a) Whoever knowingly
procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence
of naturalization or of citizenship
5
18 USC § 1546. Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents –(a.) Whoever
knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing
card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as
evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains,
accepts, or receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document
prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United
States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any
false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained

and abetted by DOJ, FEC and now EAC, its agents in “

bi-partisan”
administrations.
That anyone who is not a citizen, or is a citizen multiply registered at two
different locations with intent to vote, or is a U.S. Citizen declared civilly dead by
due process of law including but not limited to felons who have not regained civil
rights as well as those declared incompetent under supervision of the state, who
engages in use of suffrage documents and or votes, participates in the scheme to
defraud with such documents (6). That any document associated with use of the
social security number or other official means of identification that may be used
with intent to defraud the government, by passing as a US Citizen or legally
6
18 USC 1028 Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and
information –(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section— (1) knowingly and
without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification
document; (4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the
possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be
used to defraud the United States; (7) knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of
identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a
violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; (c) The circumstance
referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that— (1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false
identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or the document-
making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false
identification document; (2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or (3) either—(A) the
production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce,
including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or (B) the means of identification, identification
document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of
the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section. (d) In this section— (1) the term
“authentication feature”means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers
or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing
authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the
document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified; (f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts
or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for
the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

documented alien, are document matters that DOJ absolutely has authority and
jurisdiction over.
That DOJ and its agents inaction absent reasonable standard of care is
dereliction of duty, that appears politically motivated, is consistently done as a
pattern of dereliction while under the Clinton and current Bush administrations to
both conceal and facilitate the scheme to defraud.
That the scheme to defraud US Citizens that registers illegal aliens to vote as
if done by US Citizens under color of NVRA and HAVA involves solicitation of
foreign owned vendors to acquire, operate and manipulate votes cast on electronic
voting machines mandated by Congress, and that such schemes not only statewide
have an impact nationally and internationally as a matter of commerce under North
American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) whose agents promote open borders
and predatory trade practice with use of chattel indenture and peonage.
The schemes use the weakness of the VRA, whose safeguards apply only
for protected minorities in which DOJ has jurisdiction; however, does not afford
equal protection to those who are not protected minorities, operates as a reverse
discrimination facilitating the crime defined(7)
7
18 USC § 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises-
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign
commerce, with intent to— (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage,
establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity,
and thereafter performs or attempts to perform— (b) As used in this section (i) “ unlawful activity”means (2)
extortion, bribery, … in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act

That by reason of not having a central database, by reason of Don’

t ASK
Don’
t Tell harboring policies, by reason of non-compliance in application and
administration of the respective state constitution and related laws, by reason of
enticement and common purposes with federal funds certified without checks and
balances; by reason of the proximate cause of the commonality of criminal activity
plaintiffs are sufficiently directly injured by the unlawful expansion of the
registration pool, and by reason of harboring deprives Plaintiffs individual and
collective suffrage bargaining power, depresses suffrage power outside of the
enterprise.
That each Plaintiff whose proprietary property is affected associate together
in an ad hoc group to protect proprietary voting property, personal property, real
property, and intangible liberty, against defendants perversity in participating
knowingly and unknowingly as outlined above in a statewide scheme to defraud, a
nationwide scheme to defraud and international scheme to defraud under color of
the NVRA and HAVA, and as such Plaintiffs require protection relief against
interference in this action accordingly (8)
which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 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 to— (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official
proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to— (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other
object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the
object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to
appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent

According to Local Rules Plaintiffs submit this RICO Case Statement that
includes facts upon which we are relying and which were obtained as a result of
the reasonable inquiry required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In
particular, the statement uses the numbers and letters as set forth by local rules, and
states in detail and with specificity the following information.
(1) State whether the alleged unlawful conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§

1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d).
RESPONSE: This civil action alleges violation of 18 USC §§ 1962 (a), (b), (c),
and (d).
(2) List each defendant and state the alleged misconduct and basis of liability
of each defendant.
RESPONSE:
a) The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION created
under HAVA by “
bi-partisan”consent not competition has by gross dereliction
of duty disbursed Federal Funds without proper oversight using the FEC
definition of VAP rather than by actual state law imposes a top-down form of
from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or (3) hinder, delay, or
prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the
commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised
release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both. (c) Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other
object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’ s integrity or availability for use in an official
proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another
person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from— (1) attending or testifying in an
official proceeding; (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or
possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation supervised release, parole, or
release pending judicial proceedings; (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a
Federal offense;

state and national elections without Article 5 amendment;
b) THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director, having previously been the a Democratic
Party co-director of NYS BOE, pursuant to the Third Cause of Action aids and
abets illegal aliens to register and vote in Arizona and other states of the several
states as per paragraph 137.;
c) THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION co-authority
of the EAC in the matter of involvement in the implementation of the
“
unofficial”definition of VAP for broad rather than narrow use as referenced
by the Amended Complaint footnote #11 referenced by paragraph 122 and in
the First Cause of Action Paragraphs 58 thru 122.
d) THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Voting Rights Section
per (VRA) under direction of Joseph Rich who retired in 2005, and now John
K. Tanner with assistant Wan J. Kim, all have failed to duly certify HAVA each
state compliance plan submission by measure of state law in the matter of VAP,
admitted such for New York on the record of USA v NYS BOE on March 23,
2006, referenced in Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207;
e) Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ preceded by John Ashcroft in the
Bush Administration, and Janet Reno under the Clinton Administration,
together have been politically motivated in the arbitrary enforcement of the
VRA, and especially the NVRA and HAVA to the detriment of Plaintiffs and

those similarly situated. Alberto Gonzalez first acted from 2000 thru 2004 as
counsel to President Bush and after the 2004 Elections as referenced in the
Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207;
f) Each State of the several states and territories by each Secretary of State with
authority and Fiduciary control over the respective State Board of Elections
responsible for compliance with the NVRA and HAVA as each similarly
devises a different interpretation of VAP and billing as referenced in the
Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207; and
g) Each state of the several states’Attorney General responsible for protecting US
Citizen suffrage. Plaintiffs allege that CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA,
ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS have falsely billed for HAVA funds and
have received an amount greater than each is entitled by using a broad
interpretation of the VAP rather than a narrow definition of CVAP in keeping
with state law referenced in paragraphs 58 thru 207.
h) THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (SOS) first with
Alexander Treadwell (who left to become chairman of the Republican Party and
now being filled by Stephen Minarik), replaced by sportscaster Randy Daniels,
now with an unnamed substitute with authority, jurisdiction and responsibility
to protect the civil rights of every citizen of the state of New York and to keep
the “
bi-partisan”function of the State Board of Election and related boards

operating as such have failed to enforce oversight of the NYS BOE improperly
operating under Election law per EL §3-100, as well as non-enforcement of
open meetings law, has aided and abetted concealment of the enterprise that by
public disclosure of the “

bi-partisan”decisions that have been degenerated in a
star chamber, would have been exposed;
i) New York State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER per CPLR §1012, like the
SOS in the matter of enforcement of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article
5A, Eliot Spitzer and Dennis Vacco before him are “

bi-partisan”operatives
who are politically motivated to enforce law in a capricious manner for the
benefit of the “
bi-partisan”enterprise, and that just as the Attorney General has
been found wanting in a pattern of lack of enforcement of fraud and abuse in
the Medicaid program, he is similarly exudes willful neglect in election matters,
j) THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, past and present two
“
bi-partisan”co-commissioners and two co chairmen, two Counsels, two co-
Directors, one NVRA Officer, agents at the Office of General Services securing
equipment and services, and per the Fourth Cause of Action in the Amended
Complaint paragraphs 166 thru 182 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of
Action 183 thru 193 of the Fifth Cause of Action are at the Hub of the
Racketeering Enterprise billing for HAVA funds yearly since 2002 enactment.
k) That as per the Fifth Cause of Action in the Amended Complaint paragraphs

183 thru 193 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of Action 166 thru 182, the
New York State municipal subdivisions entitled a municipal board within
whose officers to numerous to name herein for the purposes of brevity in the
matter of the fiduciary duty to comply with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 along with
interrelated “
bi-partisan”safeguard and oversight of elections, especially since
mere existence of a legal county party committee under EL §2-100 in most
municipalities is questionable, would detail plaintiffs contentions of
wrongdoing; and to the extent that the 1894 state constitutional mandated
firewall of municipal control over the original database has been breeched by
the operation of NVRA, HAVA and districting after the case WMCA v.
Lomenzo, 377 US 633 (1964), the need for safeguard and compliance becomes
that more urgent as a fiduciary duty to protect plaintiffs and those similarly
situated.
(3) List the alleged wrongdoers, other than the defendants listed above, and
state the alleged misconduct of each wrongdoer.
RESPONSE:
For the reasons and occurrences cited in the Amended Complaint in paragraphs 1
thru 221: William J. Clinton, Albert Gore, Douglas Farbrother, George W. Bush,
Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Joseph Rich, John Turner, Wan J. Kim, The
Department of Homeland Security including Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), George E. Pataki, Alexander Treadwell, Carroll Berman,

Edward I. Koch, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, National Association of
Secretaries of State, New York State Association of Counties, Lee Daghlian, Diane
Haslett Rudiano, Kathleen McFarland, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, The
League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National
Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the American Civil
Liberties Union, The Brennan Center for Justice. the city of New York borough
party committees, Defendant Municipal party committees, NYS Party Committees.
(4) List the alleged victims and state how each victim was allegedly injured.
RESPONSE:
a) JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Orleans County;
a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor; owns real
property in Orleans County used in the transaction of business, affected in the
matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real
property tax levy, has a related action in WDNY 05-cv-395 with a decision
pending in various motions since October 7, 2005 and Default Judgment since
the return date of February 28, 2006; has been directly affected by Defendants
breech of fiduciary duty at the center of the “

bi-partisan”racketeering
enterprise, whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect,

prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting
inside and outside the state is combined with questionable imposition of
Electronic Voting Machines, that effects elections outcome within Orleans
County and statewide, as both involved in harboring illegal aliens, with aiding
and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow
definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories,
with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain
and penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and
HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to
New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL §4-138 (unlike
NYC) impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid
notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Orleans county
reports 10.42% Inactive Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter
registration database; however, acts in conspiracy with the racketeering
enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters
breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.
b) DAN DEL PLATO JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Genesee County, is
employed as a Hospital worker, owns real property in Genesee that is protected
under a five year U.S. Bankruptcy Court mandated plan in WDNY that is
affected by the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in

the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary
duty of NYS BOE at the center of the “

bi-partisan”racketeering enterprise
whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent
fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside
and outside the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic
Voting Machines, effects election outcome within Genesee County and
statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and
abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow
definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories,
with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain
and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and
HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New
York and in turn the County of Genesee who under EL §4-138 impose election
costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark
and segregate amounts; that Genesee county with 7.30% Inactive Voters has a
duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however, acts in
conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds
disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213
for detecting inactive voters.
c) GABRIEL RAZZANO is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Nassau County, a

sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real property
in Nassau County used in the transaction of business, affected in the matter of
concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real property
tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the
center of the “
bi-partisan”racketeering enterprise whose control over the
central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and
misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside and outside
the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting
Machines, effects election outcome within Nassau County and statewide both as
a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting citizens
multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were
used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of
EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties
punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA
mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New York and
in turn the County of Nassau who under EL §4-138 impose election costs as a
real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark and
segregate amounts; that Nassau county has a duty to maintain the original voter
registration database and with only 3.13% Inactive Voters, the county is due
proper reapportionment of interstate HAVA funds reimbursement which is

effected by the conspiracy by the racketeering enterprise in other municipalities
in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate the number of inactive
voters breech the fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.
d) EDWARD M. PERSON JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Suffolk
County, a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real
property in Farmingville Suffolk County used in the transaction of business,
that has been adversely affected by local government extortion in matter of the
harbor of illegal aliens as well as the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs
by the municipality in the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected
by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the center of the “

bi-partisan”
racketeering enterprise whose control over the central database and fiduciary
duty to detect, prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple
registrations and voting inside and outside the state combined with questionable
imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, effects election outcome within
Suffolk County and statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal
aliens, aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if
by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states
and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as
a bill of pain and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden
of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if

reapportioned to New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL
§4-138 impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid
notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Suffolk county
has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database and with only
6.11% Inactive Voters, the county is due proper reapportionment of interstate
HAVA funds reimbursement which is effected by the conspiracy by the
racketeering enterprise in other municipalities in expectation of HAVA funds
disbursement to inflate the number of inactive voters breech the fiduciary duty
under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.
e) CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote in the
city of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn (NYC), a sole proprietor self
employed as an independent contractor, no longer owns real property in NYC
used in the transaction of business, suffers such loss as an extortion matter in a
similar pattern that should reopen the case in EDNY 99-cv-6480 as a
racketeering matter associated with a corrupt state judiciary as seen in Orleans
County, that also involves the unequal matter of concealment of Medicaid costs
by NYC in the annual real property tax levy; that NYC is a national sanctuary
for illegal aliens; wherein elections are paid for by general revenue from excise
tax and user fees, and that Strunk has been effected by breech of fiduciary duty
of NYS BOE at the center of the “

bi-partisan”racketeering enterprise whose

control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and
misrepresentation, includes multiple registrations and voting inside and outside
the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting
Machines, whose effects affects election outcome within NYC and statewide
both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting
citizens multiply registering and voting; and that if by a narrow definition of
VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with
imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and
penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and
HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to
New York in turn NYC being is exempt under EL §4-138 imposes election
costs by excise to general revenue as with Medicaid, notwithstanding a local
government empowered real property tax levy; that NYC has 10.28% Inactive
Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however,
acts in conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA
funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-
213 for detecting inactive voters.
f) That Plaintiffs jus tertii fairly represent a class of U.S. Citizens similarly
situated inside and outside of NYC, have standing under the FCA as
whistleblowers beyond 18 USC 1964(c).

(5) Describe in detail the pattern of racketeering activity or collection of

unlawful debts alleged for each RICO claim. A description of the pattern of
racketeering shall include the following information:
(A) List the alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes which 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

well as proposed EVM, is impacted by individuals being urged to register,
register while signing nominating petitions; and since there is no witness to
mail-in registration may be done by anyone at any time or place inside or
outside the respective state responsible for detecting, and preventing
misrepresentation and fraud.
(C) If the RICO claim is based on the predicate offenses of wire fraud,
mail fraud, or fraud in the sale of securities the “circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.”Fed. R.
Civ. P. 9(b). Identify the time, place and contents of the alleged
misrepresentations, and the identity of persons to whom and by whom
the alleged misrepresentations were made;
RESPONSE:
1. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY MAIL FRAUD:
a) In the matter of the various New York municipal subdivisions engaged in
a billing pattern of Medicaid by real property tax levy is done without an
earmark segregation to conceal the amount from real property owners
and voters, who if they were informed would act politically and invest
their vote in other candidates who would relieve the burden placed upon
them under Social Services Law by local government
b) Billing of increased HAVA costs without segregation as pre-exists in the
Medicaid billing pattern and previous EL §4-138 levies, done to conceal
the scheme from real property owners and voters who if duly notified

would act politically and invest their vote for candidates promising
Election cost burden relief on owners per EL §4-138.
c) The NVRA mail-in registration Form found by those who would register
at all state and private agencies doing business with the state of each state
of the several states as well as with political committees acquiring ballot
access for candidates in the process of petitioning and building state party
organization.
d) That absentee ballot voting as an accessory associated with NVRA and
HAVA registration has been adopted by each state of the several states
and territories facilitates the pattern and scheme to defraud Plaintiffs.
e) Use of the U.S. Postal Service to bill EAC for falsified HAVA
Compliance figures using broad rather than narrow definition of VAP per
respective state laws, that the amended complaint paragraphs 194 thru
207 give detail in the case of how California, Texas and New York are
affected by a broad to narrow interpretation of VAP based upon rigorous
use of the respective state laws.
2. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY WIRE FRAUD:
a) Use of phones and communications by campaign workers and non-profit
organizations to notify illegal aliens and or illegal registered voters to
vote and or cast an absentee ballot.

b) Use of the news media by the beneficiary of illegal votes and registration
to intentionally tell lies in order to directly assist illegal aliens and those
not entitled to register to in fact register and vote illegally.
c) Use of the media to promote myths of the Florida election debacle in
conjunction with OSCE and other international intentions to interfere
with state and national elections.
3. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD IN EXTORTION USED BY PUBLIC

OFFICIALS:
a) State Subdivisions taking of real property owners who question Medicaid
and HAVA false billings on both the tax levy by concealment and
subterfuge
b) By government officials acting under color of authority with force of law
(D) State whether there has been a criminal conviction for violation of
each predicate act;
RESPONSE: None that Plaintiffs are aware of.
(E) State whether civil litigation has resulted in a judgment in regard to

each predicate act:
RESPONSE:
That on March 1, 2006 the DOJ filed a civil complaint in Northern District
of New York against the NYS BOE and associated entities in the case USA
v. NYS BOE 06-cv-263 is seen as prohibited friendly suit by glaring
disparities between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on

March 23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ –
without proper parties and proper jurisdiction over subject matter appears as
a friendly suit.
(F) Describe how the predicate acts form a “pattern of racketeering

activity”;
RESPONSE:
1. Malicious refusal of NYS BOE to create a real-time voter registration
database:
a) That NYS BOE and “

bi-partisan”agents in regards to 1962 (a)(b)(c)(d)
have since 1993 passage of NVRA until the present have intentionally
failed to developed a real time central voter database as then under
NVRA and now required by HAVA to be done by January 1, 2006 –
intentionally was not done.
b) That NYS BOE and its agents are in conspiracy with the Pataki
Executive as evidenced by 237 pages of Correspondence disclosed by
executive chambers in which 230 of 237 pages of correspondence are
alleged exempt from FOIL - requires release by court order,
c) That NYS BOE delay creates plausible denial to avoid any EL Article 17
enforcement or prevention of registration and voting fraud, in expectation
of Federal reimbursement now available under HAVA.
2. Inflated Registrations used for HAVA Billing

a) That NYS BOE delay intentionally inflated registrations for the purposes
of receiving greater HAVA reimbursement from EAC.
b) That NYS BOE coordinated the intentional inflated registrations with
various municipal sub-division boards of election “

bi-partisan”agents.
c) That NYS BOE filed false HAVA compliance billings with EAC, the
DOJ has rubber stamped the submission and certified for EAC for
payment totaling about $221 million that was received by NYS BOE and
placed under the control of the State Controller and Commissioner of
Finance in a commercial Bank accruing interest,
3. Expenditure of Interest on HAVA Principal on Deposit
a) That according to public reports NYS BOE is expending the interest on
the principal held in escrow pending litigation in USA v. NYS BOE
NDNY 06-cv-263,
b) That 06-cv-263 is seen as a prohibited friendly suit by glaring disparities
between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on March
23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ –appears as
a friendly suit.
4. Rigged insiders list of Electronic Voting Machines Vendors
a) That NYS BOE requires Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) from ES&S,
Sequoia, and Liberty international corporations with securities held by

foreign governments and or foreign citizens, were chosen even though
the same companies have been found lacking by Florida and other states
of the several states in meeting compliance, and in the home country of
origin Ireland as well refuses to use Liberty EVMs.
b) That NYS BOE in conjunction with agents of the various Municipal
Defendants, seemingly with the exception of Niagara and Cayuga
Counties, are involved in transactions with the foreign held electronic
voting machine vendors, under rules devised by NYS BOE, to secure
unjust enrichment, and autocratic control over patronage policy and
purse.
(G) State whether the alleged predicate acts relate to each other as part
of a common plan. If so, describe in detail.
RESPONSE: Yes, the above predicates relate to each other as part of a
common plan:
1. in New York have two stages first to secure as much money from the
Federal Treasury as possible and in stage two to tighten “

bi-partisan”control
over patronage policy and purse for the purposes of taking Real property by
extorting owners and at the same time secure top down control over
individual expectation of suffrage at every election using prime voter lists as
a crib sheet and notwithstanding the absolute myth of a secret vote does in

fact not exist as a matter of voting record from every election by paper tape
coordinated with voter number “

bi-partisan”gerrymandering every tens
years by packing racking or stacking total person without regard to actual
eligible voters guarantee by consent not competition re-election of party
sinecures who in super majority like gangster run protection operations to
maintain the non-profit organizations a the local government level to loot the
Medicaid system and every line item on the cooked book budget, spread
walk-around-money buying votes and favors to fix and predetermine
elections.
2. At the National Level there is no accountability for what each state does
within or without and the “

Bi-partisan nature of the DOJ acting in a totally
politically motivated fashion in effect run protection for each of fifty
enterprises which are now coordinated for maximum bills of pain and
penalties generated by the Congress who also with the consent nature of
conducting elections in New York state and Plaintiffs are sure exists nearly
as corruptly in the other state of the several state especially California and
Texas feature in comparison in the sixth Cause of Action in paragraphs 194
thru 207.
3. At the International level through the auspice of the U.S. State Department
and Central Intelligence Agency as with the OSCE / ODIHR and other

organizations interfering in other sovereign countries, like the Council for
Hemispheric Affairs is overseeing and interfering in Central American
elections, and that somehow Hugo Chavez of Venezuela with copious oil
reserves, the new Fidel Castro of the hemisphere, has acquired interest in
Sequoia Industries whose employees in March counted the Chicago Election
Votes (9).
9
“ CHICAGO BALLOT CHAOS - NEW COMPUTER VOTE MACHINES MALFUNCTION, UNVERIFIABLE”
By Christopher Bollyn –American Free press Published March 27, 2006 - COOK COUNTY, Illinois—Chicago’ s use of
a flawed computerized voting system operated by a privately held foreign company reveals how meaningless and
absurd the “ democratic”process in America has become. Having observed voting systems across Europe, from
Serbia, Germany and Estonia to Holland and France, this reporter has noted that the most honest and transparent
elections are also the most simple.
The more complicated methods of voting, such as the unverifiable computerized voting systems widely used
across the United States, lack the most essential element of democratic elections—transparency.
The $50 million touch-screen and optical-scan voting system provided by Sequoia Voting Systems failed
across Chicago and suburban Cook County during the March 21 Illinois primary. However, the leading corporate-
controlled newspapers merely lamented the failures of the system without addressing its fundamental flaws or even
reporting that the company running the election is foreign-owned.
The “ high-tech”computerized voting system was “ cumbersome”and “ slow,”one mainstream Chicago
newspaper reported. The machines failed across the county causing “ plenty of frustration and confusion for voters,”
the paper reported. The ballots and votes from more than 400 precincts were still uncounted two days after the
election due to machine malfunctions and lost memory cartridges which contain the results.
Reports from other dailies noted that as of noon Wednesday, Chicago was missing memory cartridges from
252 polling stations while Cook County officials “ couldn’ t find”the results from 162 suburban precincts.
Election officials tried to assure the public that although nobody knew where all the ballots and computerized
memory cartridges were, they were “ most assuredly not lost.”
“I don’t trust that,”U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said. “ This is Chicago. This is Cook County. We created
vote fraud, vote scandal and stealing votes. We created that mechanism. It became an art form.”
“Ballot chaos”is how another large Chicago newspaper described the situation in which the votes from
hundreds of precincts could not be found or counted on Election Night.
“We have accounted for the votes,”Langdon Neal, city election chairman told the publication. “ What we
haven’ t been able to do is count them.”
In one precinct on the Near South Side, for example, the Sequoia optical scanner failed to register anything
but Republican ballots. Although “ election officials”tried to repair the machine four times, by the end of the day it had
failed to register a single Democratic ballot in a precinct in which some 86 percent of the voters are Democrats.
When this reporter went to vote, the touch-screen machine went completely dead as the voter in front of me
pressed the button to print. When the poll workers were asked if other voters had had similar problems with the
equipment they said it had happened all day and showed me an unplugged machine that had broken down earlier.
When the polls closed at 7 p.m., American Free Press was at the Cook County Clerk’ s office to see how the
votes were tallied.
Citizens in Chicago, as in most American cities, are, however, forbidden from viewing or participating in the
any aspect of the vote-counting process.

The so-called counting of the votes is managed by some two dozen employees of Sequoia Voting Systems,
a privately held foreign company. These employees, many of whom are not even U.S. citizens, have “ full access”to
the “ back room area,”a sealed-off section of the 5th floor of the county clerk’ s office which is called the “ tally area.”
In Chicago, the person in charge of the tallying of the votes was a British employee of Sequoia named David
Allen from London. Allen, who ran the “ Sequoia War Room”in an office next to that of Cook County Clerk David Orr,
oversaw the “ tally room”team, which included a dozen Venezuelan employees, who operated the hidden computer
equipment that counts the votes.
As American Free Press has noted before, there are wire services such as the Associated Press, who could
be seen having direct connections leading from their computers to the hidden mainframe computer of the Sequoia
tallying system located behind the wall on the 5th floor of the clerk’ s office.
Senior executives from Sequoia Voting Systems and from its partner company, Smartmatic, such as
company president Jack A. Blaine and Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, vice president of special operations, also
had “ full access”to the tally area.
Sequoia, which was previously held by the British-based firm De La Rue PLC, a company, which produces
bank notes, travelers checks and cash handling equipment, was merged or combined with Smartmatic in March
2005.
Smartmatic, which has a U.S.-based office in Boca Raton, Fla., is headed by three young Venezuelans
along with Blaine, a former vice president with Unisys. A dozen Venezuelans could be seen managing the most
sensitive aspects of the recent election in Chicago.
Smartmatic, the parent company of Sequoia Voting Systems, obtained the company for a “ ridiculously low
amount of money,”Charles D. Brady, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital Inc., said at the time of the merger.
While De La Rue purchased 85 percent of Sequoia in 2002 for $35 million, it reportedly sold the growing
global company for only $16 million in 2005. Tracey Graham, then president of Sequoia, said more than 30
organizations had expressed interest in buying her company, yet no names of other bidders were given citing
“confidentiality agreements.”
The chief officers of Sequoia-Smartmatic are two 32-year old Venezuelans from Caracas, Antonio Mugica
and Alfredo Anzola. Anzola also works as a Venezuela-based lawyer brokering international oil deals with the
Cleveland law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey.
“With the combination of Sequoia and Smartmatic, both proven innovators with accomplished track records
in either the U.S. or abroad, we are creating the first truly global leader in providing voter-verified electronic voting
systems,”Blaine said in March 2005 when the merger was announced.
There is, however, nothing verifiable about the Sequoia voting system used in Cook County. The voter has no way of
knowing if his vote has been counted or how it was counted.
The absolute lack of transparency in U.S. voting systems yields unverifiable election results, which can only
be accepted on faith. In Chicago voters are asked to trust the results produced by malfunctioning machines operated
by a privately owned foreign company.
Asked about the nature of the foreign company that runs elections in Cook County, Scott Burnham,
spokesman for Cook County Clerk Orr simply said, “ Ask Sequoia”and hung up the phone. Asked about the
ownership of the privately held company, Allen, who supervised the tally, refused to answer and handed the phone to
Michelle Shafer, the company’ s vice president and spokesperson.
Pressed about Allen’ s citizenship, Shafer finally admitted that the Sequoia employee who oversaw the tally
was, indeed, a British citizen who had been assisted by a team of Venezuelans.
Dimas Ulacio, one of the Venezuelan technicians who worked in the tally area spoke with American Free
Press. “ Who really owns Sequoia?”Ulacio was asked. “ Is Sequoia-Smartmatic truly a Venezuelan company or is it a
British-owned company masquerading as a Venezuelan company?”
Ulacio laughed but refused to answer.
While a high percentage of the precinct results—about 90 percent—are usually reported within one hour of
the polls closing, the Sequoia system failed to produce any results for nearly two hours. Only 44 percent of the
precinct results had been reported four hours after the polls closed.
The widespread failures of the Sequoia voting system in the Cook County election, Shafer said, made for a
“very typical Election Day in a jurisdiction where they are changing voting technology.”Rather than blame the
machines, Shafer blamed human error. (Issue #14, April 5, 2006) –

(6) Describe in detail the alleged enterprise for each RICO claim. A
description of the enterprise shall include the following information:
(A) State the names of the individuals, partnerships, corporations,

associations, or other legal entities, which allegedly constitute the
enterprise;
RESPONSE: Liberty- each set of Board of Directors, as well as the entity
affiliates of the National Association of Secretaries of States : CT
Corporation System, Dun & Bradstreet, Saber Consulting, West,
Covansys, Hart InterCivic, IBM Government Industry, InfoSENTRY,
ManTech International, NIC, PCC Technology Group, Saber Consulting,
UNISYS, X.Systems, 3M Touch Systems, Accenture eDemocracy Services,
AccuPoll, Inc., Alpha Data Services, Diebold Election Systems, Inc.,
Election Data Services, Inc., Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Indra
Systems, Perfect Voting System, Sequoia Voting Systems (Sequoia),
UniLect Corporation, Caliper Corporation, ESRI, Inc., n-Tier Technology,
Quest Information Systems, VOTEC Corporation, VoteHere, Inc., Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc., CCH, Inc., Altria Corporate Services, Inc., CPS
Human Resource Services, ESRI, Inc. , Alpha Data Services, and the Board
of Directors of each.
(B) Describe the structure, purpose, function and course of conduct of

the enterprise;

RESPONSE: To control the outcome of elections on a state and national
level, and unjust enrichment; in the matter of EVM state laws are delivering
too much control of a constitutionally protected right in the hands of private
companies and have weakened the vote verification process.
(C) State whether any defendants are employees, officers or directors of

the alleged enterprise;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs believe there is an overlap among state officials
through the NASS however have not coordinated the overlap between
Defendants and above entities
(D) State whether any defendants are associated with the alleged
enterprise;
RESPONSE: Defendants are associated by the nature of the mandate of
Congress to purchase EVM and central database under the vague broad
definition of VAP.
(E) State whether you are alleging that the defendants are individuals 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.
(F) If any defendants are alleged to be the enterprise itself, or members

of the enterprise, explain whether such defendants are perpetrators,
passive instruments, or victims of the alleged racketeering activity.
RESPONSE: The various Secretaries of states, Commissioners of the
various Boards are absolutely members of the enterprise, and especially

when acting on a “
bi-partisan”basis by consent which omits the general
public notice and makes decisions in a star chamber.
(7) State and describe in detail whether you are alleging that the pattern 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
the entities and the public and private side of state and national government;
however at present plaintiffs do not know if the EVM entities are interdigitated
with New York State defendants, and are not informed of the relationship
elsewhere except by press reports as with Chicago’

s March 2006 Election, that is
an important example in footnote #9.
(8) Describe the alleged relationship between the activities of the enterprise
and the pattern of racketeering activity. Discuss how the racketeering activity
differs from the usual and daily activities of the enterprise, if at all.
RESPONSE: In New York unlike in other states of the several states, that the
compliance process is tightly control by unelected “

bi-partisan”insiders as
opposed to being done by “

non-partisan”professional manner, or those elected
officials without an appearance of impropriety.
(9) Describe what benefits, if any the alleged enterprise receives from the
alleged pattern of racketeering.
RESPONSE: Defendant natural persons as a matter of public employment operate
in a quid pro quo within the “

bi-partisan”structure in New York, plaintiffs are not

familiar with the public officials of the other states of the several states and
territories, but note that if not operating in a non-partisan fashion lack the
necessary “
sunshine”to escape the appearance of impropriety.
(10) Describe the effect of the activities of the enterprise on interstate or

foreign commerce.
RESPONSE: The sale of EVM by agents of a foreign government especially
that of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, by active investment, empowers such
foreign government(s) with the capability to effect the outcome of state and
national elections, and creates the basis for every state of the several states to
become subject to the manufacturing requirements of countries and
government not under the authority and jurisdiction of the state and or
United States of America.
(11) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), provide 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 “
bi-

partisan”employees of the various Municipal Boards and State Board but to
many private consultants and contractors as well whose names not known at
this time.
2. As for the other states of the several states, who have received compliance
money a long time before New York, money has flowed for purchase of
equipment and compliance software and database outsourcing- however
exact amounts are not known at this time.
3. That NYS BOE has received payment from EAC approximately totaling
$221 million and placed under the control of the State Controller and
Commissioner of Finance in a commercial Bank account now accruing
interest
4. That Plaintiffs are not aware of the exact total received by the other states of
the several states and territories, however in fact is part of the public record
having been published in the Federal Register, and are not aware of the how
the individual sums are being utilized to date.
5. The NYS Sub-division local governments since implementation of the
NVRA in 1993 and since HAVA in 2002 have been on an annual basis
pursuant to EL §4-138 levying the costs of NVRA, HAVA compliance
along with other election costs upon real property within the respective
municipality.

6. That private EVM entities, associated with NASS have received HAVA $$$
from other states of the several states and territories.
(B) Describe the use or investment of such income.
RESPONSE:
1. The $221 million received by the NYS BOE has accrued interest, and
Plaintiffs believe the interest is being spent for operations of NYS BOE
and related activities; plaintiffs do not believe any money has been
disbursed to the State sub-divisions yet.
2. Plaintiffs are not aware how the Election related levied funds paid for by
real property owners has been used; however, contend the funds became
fungible and could have been used for anything except NVRA, HAVA
and Elections costs because they were not earmarked or segregated.
3. Plaintiffs compare how local governments use of EL §4-138 levied
election funds that are questionably fungible in the respective
municipality, as Medicaid funds are paid after levy on real property
before a respective local government actually pays the New York
Commissioner of Finance for the Commissioner of Health overseeing
Medicaid funds, and as such there is not interim accountability

(12) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), describe in

detail the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in or control of the
alleged enterprise.
RESPONSE:
a) That in New York, the “

bi-partisan”nature of the Board of Elections both
at the State and Municipal level, in which 47 municipalities by operation
of law are a nullity under application and administration of the state
constitution; however, appear to be maintained by partisanship much like
appears in a plantation system rather than Homerule autonomous entities
serving the people within,
b) That such a contorted configuration of municipalities shown by the New
York Municipal Subdivision History 1683 thru 2006 Chart in paragraph
175 of the Amended Complaint compared with total population and
persons eligible to vote within each municipality since 1964, and by
operation of law New York absolutely precludes participation by nearly
40% of those Registered and or those entitled to register and vote, and
c) That in New York there is an absolute blur in the difference between
public and private interests in the operation of elections conducted by
local government similarly overlaps state control over ballot access that
circumvents municipal authority under the state constitution, and very
much resembles the blur of authority in the management of the biggest

State Budget line item Medicaid that in 2005 spent $45.5 billion, and in
that regard January 2006 DOJ has been impelled to act, only after being
put through shear embarrassment to find that New York publicly and
privately have committed fraud abuse and profiteering that should be
characterized as racketeering as well as false filings with the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Treasury,
which is the subject of the WDNY case 05-cv-395.
(13) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), provide the

following information:
(A) State who is employed by or associated with the enterprise; and
RESPONSE:
1. From the NYS BOE for two tears alone Peter Kosinski and now since
late 2005 Stanley Zalen are active members of the NASS promoting
NVRA and HAVA, traveling nationally and associating with
international efforts around oversight and control of election done by
OSCE / ODIHR associated with equipment manufactures.
2. That outsourcing of database and election management privatizes
otherwise public fiduciary functions;
3. That without creating an actual cause of action under HAVA creates a
firewall protecting the enterprise fraud from normal 42 USC 1983
litigation requires RICO investigation methods.

4. That according to 18 USC §1961(1)(F)
5. That in regards to patterns of fraud:
a.) 18 USC 1961(1) multiple acts in violation of a single statute, and or
b.) multiple acts in violation of more than one statute
(i.)Any RICO pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering, and as
such the patterns existence may turn on the meaning of the term,
and
(ii.) Beyond individual real and personal property used in transaction of
proprietary business, whether individual suffrage is proprietary
property that as with any business may not be passed-on to
another, and the investment of such capital is spent at a primary
and general election that empowers the winning candidate with
authority to fulfill promises made during the campaign that
absolutely effect the individuals liberty and effectiveness of a
citizen in association with like minded individual citizens similarly
invested.
(iii.) In New York the prima facie evidence of multiple and or false
registrations under the NVRA and HAVA having destroyed the
protective firewall afforded in the 1894 State Constitution with
exclusive municipal control over the original database has been

eliminated as exampled in the Amended Complaint Background
examples in paragraphs 54 & 55, indicates the fiduciary duty of
NYS BOE to maintain a central database to check for and prevent
fraud and misrepresentation, would be similarly evidenced in every
state of the several states and territories.
6. Under the Hobbs Act –18 USC 1961(1) (b) applies when:
(A) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs delays or effects commerce
or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by extortion
or conspiracy to do.
(B) (1) the term (Robbery) means the unlawful taking or obtaining of
personal property from the person under color of official right.
(B) State whether the same entity is both the liable “person”and the
“enterprise”under § 1962(c).
RESPONSE:
a) There is a quasi-public side of state entity persons in the form of Election
Board(s), Bureau(s) and Department(s) of Secretary of State, along with
the patronage structure created under Government control that enables
private participation by corporate entities whose employees and directors
collaborate both publicly by public request for proposals (RFP) and
privately at private lobby events generally not open to the public - as
evidenced by the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest

regarding the January 17 thru 20, 2006 Cooperstown New York meeting
in Otsego County of the Organization of County Boards of
Commissioners sponsored by the voting machine manufacturers and
vendors http://www.ntsdata.com/nyseca/index.htm using questionable
lobbying of municipalities, was witnessed by Dennis Karius, while at the
request of the EVM Vendors for example the Women’

s League were dis-
invited.
b) That in the matter of public disclosure regarding the state responsibility
to detect and prevent misrepresentation and fraud, is exampled by the
Florida Leon County elections supervisor who had determined that
Diebold had fraudulently maintained proprietary software which allowed
for fraudulent modification of vote results without detection, when
actually hacked was discovered, the software provider refused disclosure,
withdrew, and upon issuing new Request for Proposal (RFP) Sequoia and
ES&S when learning of the disclosure in the specification also withdrew
refusing to allow review of proprietary programs that would allow fraud
to occur undetected- just within the last two weeks Diebold has had
second thought and has in fact complied and provided machines to Leon,
but neither Sequoia nor ES&S have done so in New York under the star
chamber process, as they refused in Florida.

(14) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), describe in

detail the alleged conspiracy.
RESPONSE:
a) So-called “
Bi-partisanship”by consent not competition barring participation by
nearly 40% of the electorate establishes an inherent conspiracy for control,
especially when not done without sunshine, as referenced by the SOS about
“
Executive sessions”in the Amended Complaint on paragraph 181, in which
star chamber control over patronage policy and purse in New York that since
the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in WMCA has created the basis for
backroom government by consent rather not competition - must require strict
scrutiny review of patterns and product of fraud under color of NVRA / HAVA;
b) At the national level the private National Association of Secretaries of State
under its chairwoman, the duly elected SOS of New Mexico herein joined
herein by due service, with private corporate entities, coordinates public private
interstate / international partnerships on basis that applies the glue for the deals
necessary for NVRA, OSCE/ODIHR and HAVA imposition to work outside of
elected representation and effective public oversight in the sunshine.
(15) Describe the alleged injury to business or property.
RESPONSE:

a) Disproportionate Dilution Diminished expectation of Vote effectiveness and
strength of plaintiffs suffrage capital affected differently on a municipal by
municipal basis, statewide and nationally;
b) The scheme to defraud absolutely offsets of votes imposed by citizen(s)
multiple voting, the civilly dead voting and any alien voting and or registering;
c) loss or diminishment of real property and personal property value as a result of
concealment and extortion involved in the local tax levy as under both EL §4-
138 and Medicaid cost imposition, without earmark and segregation;
(16) Describe the direct causal relationship between the alleged injury and the
violation of the RICO statute.
RESPONSE:
a) Congress has used a vague broad use of VAP rather than the narrow CVAP that
would expressly be dependent upon a respective state constitution and related
laws.
b) The Florida 2000 Election process was rigged to produce the end result of
HAVA starting in 1994 by the Clinton administration whose intent with use of
OSCE / ODIHR personnel was to probe the weaknesses and opportunities to
use the media to propagandize for passage HAVA to effect further top-down
control over elections.
c) That Congress intended to circumvent the Federal Constitution Article I section
4 provision of equal time place and manner provision under State plenary
control starting no later than 1991 when the New Europe Charter was entered,
circumvented doing an Article 5 constitutional amendment with NVRA, next
combined with bogus issues using the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
strawman, that with the Dayton Accords new borders provisional voting scam
now being used in New Orleans following major population relocation due to
the Katrina Hurricane.
d) The EVM industry ongoing coordination with the “

bi-partisan”nature of the
conduct of elections which in many states especially New York bars non-
partisan participation are working together to corner the permanent cash flow
for the annual bottom-line made available at each and every local to national
election as a captive profit center for private industry, even if nothing else as a
matter the appearance of impropriety undermining public confidence in
elections are none the less intent on controlling the substantive outcome as
vendors with an inside political track.
e) Absolute refusal of the State BOE and NYSAG to prevent harboring of illegal
aliens, illegal registration and vote fraud associated without a real time central
database.
(17) List the damages sustained for which each defendant is allegedly liable.
RESPONSE:
a) As a matter of civil rights injuries under color of the NVRA and HAVA related
state law the amended complaint covers both the 14th amendment violation of
US Citizen rights unequally protect and treating plaintiffs and those similarly
situated by New York State Defendants and would also cover U.S. Citizen
treatment interstate by those state Defendants of the several states to numerous
to name and that Federal Defendants per the Bivens(10) ruling violate 4th 5th 8th
9th 10th 13th and 15th as are all alleged in the Amended Complaint twelve
injuries paragraph 208 thru 221,
b) That in New York under NVRA and HAVA there is a conflict of interest with
“
bi-partisan”provision of Elections which bar non-partisan participation that
involves denial of equal treatment; that on its face requires strict scrutiny in
review of a product of fraud.
c) That each Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a jus tertii class in 47
of 58 municipalities with a board of elections within have no dedicated
representative voice in the state assembly for the Homerule interests of the
people within; until merged and or consolidated the municipalities are to be
deemed a nullity by proper administration and application of the state
constitution related laws.
d) That the unjust enrichment of New York Defendants in willful violation of
fiduciary duty in the matter of need to verify citizenship and cross check for
10
Federal civil rights violation - BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388
th th th
(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,
S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3285 (1985) –as both apply differently herein.
multiple residency registration with a central database, that since no later than
implementation of the NVRA, the state of New York has promulgated dilution
and offset of Plaintiffs suffrage capital; and
e) As a simple compensable amount, as if the dollar figure were to be applied to
say equal the total spent on campaign finance matters, both public and private
expenditures for any general election by all candidate committees appearing on
the ballot, is not at all a nominal amount place upon plaintiffs and those
similarly situated as part of total damages, and would have to be offset by a
commensurate amount for alternative results for competitive expectation of
plaintiffs vote effectiveness;
f) In New York actual financial injury must be factored into long-term neglect of
the “
bi-partisan”to correct and implement not only the need for an economy of
scale that economic merger and consolidation of municipalities, but for reform
of the Judiciary to provide equal plain speedy and efficient remedy in the
various Judicial Districts pertaining to real property but in the 20 year neglect of
budgetary reform and cost of government is a burden passed down to real
property owners differently on a municipal by municipal basis;
g) Easily, the loss of Plaintiffs vote investment capital without free and fair
elections under New York “

bi-partisan”autocracy as a parallel compared to the
Medicaid fraud proof established, is believed to impose no less than an annual

10% surcharge over above the rate of inflation upon plaintiffs’revenue and cost
of living so that a person with a mean per capita income of say $24,000.00 per
annum has a rate of loss of capital worth imposed at say $2,400.00 per year
compounded annually, pro-rated and accruing increasingly since 1996 that
would total an a significant sum;
h) Variation in the intrastate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138
differently than in NYC;
i) Variation in the interstate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138
differently than in NYC, however is alleged to be increased overall to the state
of New York;
j) The transfer of HAVA funds in the purchase of EVM effects the trade balance;
(18) List all other federal causes of action, if any, and provide the relevant
statute numbers.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs are not aware of any other than those six causes presented
here, which involves 42 USC 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 (1988); 31 USC 3729 thru
3733, and under the INA the Logan Act applies when aliens are enticed with social
services, education, housing employment and citizenship privilege and harbored,
given sanctuary without permission of Congress, violates 18 USC 953.
(19) List all pendent state claims, if any.
RESPONSE: We are not aware of any in the State of New York Supreme Court;
however, In California, paper voting is making a comeback. The Associated Press

reports in the Monterey Herald that seven California counties sued for using
disputed Diebold touch-screen machines have removed themselves from the
lawsuit by promising to use paper ballots in their next election. Alameda County,
on the other hand, has chosen on its own to return to paper, as noted in The Contra
Costa Times. In 2004, Alameda's previous vendor, Diebold, paid over two million
dollars to settle a lawsuit involving false claims made when the machines were
sold. The county hopes these problems "are behind them" as Election Day
approaches.
(20) Provide any additional information that you feel would be helpful to the
Court in processing your RICO claim.
RESPONSE:
a) In regards to illegal provision of Medicaid to any illegal alien the state has
recently had $32.5 million offset by the HHS; although the same state agencies
are not involved, nevertheless the sub-division municipalities are presenting
exhibiting a similar pattern of tax levy as with the EL §4-138 whose ongoing
predicates are expected in provision of HAVA false billing.
b) That the city of New York in City of New York v. United States in SDNY Case
96-cv-7758 (JGK), and U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit 97-6162 (closed), has been
admonished by the Federal courts for its “

don’
t ask don’
t tell”policy as an
unwarranted obstruction of INA in harboring illegal aliens;

c) However, despite the censure NYC continues the “don’

t ask don’
t tell”policy
especially in regards to provision of education, Medicaid, involving Federal
matching assistance to minors within the K thru 12 school system operating
under a state issued identification system (much like that imposed by HAVA)
with intent to circumvent the Social Security Act system to harbor illegal aliens,
who according to the NYS Court of Appeals Decision in the CFE case in NYC
minor aliens constitute of 80% of all children in the system (notwithstanding
Plyler v Doe which is not meant to be enabling legislation merely and
interpretation narrowly defined for those plaintiffs that should be revisited);
d) That a seditious New York State Supreme Court Justice held the executive
policy to withhold of drivers licensure from illegal aliens as unconstitutional
and therefore a result there is no objective barrier for illegals to pose as US
Citizens in New York and elsewhere, and as such facilitates illegals registering
and voting;
e) That Additional information that would be helpful for the Court is set forth in:
1) the Chart of Challenged HAVA Funds Distribution Based upon the State of
New York Board of Elections 31 December 2004 Central Database for Voter
Registration sorted by Percentage of Inactive Persons registered to vote in
one or more municipalities maintained by a total of 62 questionable Boards

EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
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
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
* 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
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
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.
5
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
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.
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
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
9
EXHIBIT G

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 “

Voting Age Population”(VAP), as well as
being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA).
Forjone Declaration Page 1

3. This Declaration is filed in conjunction with the Co-chairmen Relators’Law
Memorandum in Opposition to Dismissal and in support of a Declaratory Judgment and
equity relief with a Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance
plans in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and
penalties to be levied under the FCA.
4. On 19 September 2005 in conjunction with the Medicaid tax Levy Case Forjone
et.al. v. Leavitt et.al. WDNY 05-cv-395, Samantha Marie Forjone and I submitted an
application to the NYS Secretary of State, Defendant Randy Daniels, in the matter of FOIL
and NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 5A protection involving municipal overreaching by
Orleans County, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 1.
5. The New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A is as follows:
ARTICLE V-A.
MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS.
Section 53. Copies of documents and statements to be filed.

54. Resolutions concerning political matters.
55. Anonymous communications prohibited.
56. Offenses; penalties.
57. Additional penalties.
§ 53. Copies of documents and statements to be filed. Every existing

membership corporation, and every existing unincorporated association
having a membership of twenty or more persons, which corporation or
association requires an oath as a prerequisite or condition of
membership, other than a labor union, a fraternity or sorority having
chapters composed only of students in or alumni of colleges and
universities in this and another state or states, or a chapter of such
fraternity or sorority, or a benevolent order mentioned in the
benevolent orders law, within thirty days after this article takes
effect, and every such corporation or association hereafter organized,
within ten days after the adoption thereof, shall file with the
secretary of state a sworn copy of its constitution, by-laws, rules,
regulations and oath of membership, together with a roster of its
membership and a list of its officers for the current year. Every such
corporation and association shall, in case its constitution, by-laws,
rules, regulations or oath of membership or any part thereof, be
revised, changed, or amended, within ten days after such revision or
amendment file with the secretary of state a sworn copy of such revised,
changed or amended constitution, by-law, rule, regulation or oath of
membership. Every such corporation or association shall within thirty

days after a change has been made in its officers file with 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

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiffs}
v.

WILKEY, et.al.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK RESPONSE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO

THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEFENDANTS’COUNSEL’ S NOTICE OF MOTION
TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:
1. I am a Plaintiff pro se without being an attorney and produce this response
declaration in opposition to the state of New York’

s Secretary of State Randy Daniels (now
Christopher L. Jacobs) and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, (NYS) Defendants’counsel, NYS
Assistant Attorney General Peter Sullivan’

s Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint filed pursuant to the Court’

s May 4, 2006 Text Order of all Defendants herein to
respond by June 1, 2006 accordingly.
2. That declarant is the co-chairman along with Plaintiff John Joseph Forjone of the
AD HOC NYS People’

s Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds
Distribution Equity Nationwide without an attorney as a jus tertii association and individually
jus tertii pursuant of a declaratory judgment in the matter of overly vague and broad use of the
Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow
respective state law determinant definition of “

Voting Age Population”(VAP), as well as
being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA).
Strunk Declaration Page 1

3. This Declaration is filed in conjunction with the Co-chairmen Relators’Law
Memorandum in Opposition to Dismissal and in support of a Declaratory Judgment and
equity relief with a Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance
plans in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and
penalties to be levied under the FCA.
4. On 29 September 2005 Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier and I submitted an application
to the NYS Secretary of State, Defendant Randy Daniels, in the matter of FOIL and NYS
Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 5A protection involving municipal overreaching by the city of
New York, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 4.
5. An unnamed agent of the Office of the Secretary of State responded to the
application shown as EXHIBIT 4 with an unsigned letter denying both FOIL and any
obligation to respond under NYS Chapter 6 Article 5A, with the identical language of
EXHIBIT 2.
6. On 14 May 2006 in conjunction with the WDNY 05-cv-395 case following the
receipt of the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and sanction by Defendants’counsel Jeremy
Colby who represents the County of Orleans, and Dudek the County Legislature
Administrator who also serves as a Member of the Board of Directors of the New York
Municipal Insurance Reciprocal (NYMIR) and NYMIR Insurance Risk Assessor, and in
WDNY 06-cv-80 also represents various Municipalities who are underwritten by the NYMIR
who had referred Jeremy Colby to represent its clients as approved counsel in lieu of each
respective County Attorney, and in the matter of investigating a “

conflict of Interest”with that
in mind as such I obtained a copy of the latest published NYS Department of Insurance Audit
of NYMIR for the Year 1999, a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 5.

7. The NYMIR website is linked to that of the NYS Association of Counties,
physically the Directors of both entities occupy the same headquarters near Albany Municipal
Airport.
8. According to the NYS DOI 1999 Audit of NYMIR shown as EXHIBIT 5, the
Table of Contents on page 2 in the matter of “

Conflict of Interest”on Page 15 Item Paragraph
Item G the report states quote:
9. The NYS DOI 1999 Audit of NYMIR, shown as EXHIBIT 5, in the Summary and
Comment Section on page 24 reiterates quote:
10. On 5 April 2006 Newsmax.com published an Article entitled Non-Citizens
Expected to Get Voting Rights in NYC reported by Carl Limbacher, a copy herewith marked
EXHIBIT 6.
11. On 28 April 2006 the Office of the New York State Attorney General issued a
press release entitled STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’

S OFFICE
REGARDING MAY 1 "NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS , a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 7.

12. On 12 May 2006 I received from Plaintiff Gabe Razzano a copy of the NYS AG
FOIL Response letter #03363 dated 25 September 2003 therein with a copy of 1 October
2002 Assurance of Discontinuation settlement in lieu of litigation between NYS AG and ADC
Contracting and Construction, Inc. who had employed illegal aliens and covered in the
October 3 Press Release by the NYSAG, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 8.
13. In light of the RICO Statement in the Forjone v EAC case WDNY 06-cv-80
requiring demonstration of a pattern of conduct by Attorney General Spitzer as part of the
enterprise in support of Harboring Illegal Aliens as a part of Racketeering Activity in
violation of :
18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity 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:

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 5

REPORT ON EXAMINATION
OF THE
NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INSURANCE RECIPROCAL
AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1999
DATE OF REPORT DECEMBER 21, 2000
EXAMINER VERONICA DUNCAN-BLACK

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM NO. PAGE NO.
1. Scope of examination 2
2. Description of Reciprocal 3
A. Management 4
B. Territory and plan of operation 7
C. Reinsurance 8
D. Significant operating ratios 13
E. Abandoned property 13
F. Custodian agreement 14
G. Conflict of interest 15
H. Accounts and records 15
3. Financial statements 18
A. Balance sheet 18
B. Underwriting and investment exhibit 20
4. Losses and loss adjustment expense 22
5. Market conduct activities 22
6. Compliance with prior report 22
7. Summary of comments and recommendations 23

STATE OF NEW YORK
INSURANCE DEPARTMENT
25 BEAVER STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
December 21, 2000
Honorable Neil D. Levin

Superintendent of Insurance
Albany New York 12257
Sir:
Pursuant to the requirements of the New York Insurance Law, and in compliance with the
instructions contained in Appointment Number 21592 dated September 7, 2000, attached hereto, I have
made an examination into the condition and affairs of the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal as of
December 31, 1999 and respectively submit the following report thereon.
The examination was conducted at the Company’s home office located 377 Oak Street, Garden
City, New York 11530.
Wherever the designations “the Reciprocal” or “NYMIR” appear herein without qualification, they
should be understood to indicate the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.
Wherever the designation “NYSLGF” appear herein without qualification, it should be understood
to indicate the New York Local Government Services Foundation, Inc., Attorney-in-Fact for the New
York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

Wherever the designation “WRM” or the “Manager” appear herein without qualification, they
should be understood to refer to Wright Risk Management Company, Inc., Manager for the New York
Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

2
1. SCOPE OF EXAMINATION
The prior examination was conducted as of December 31, 1994. This examination covers the five
year period from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999 and was limited in its scope to a review or
audit of only those balance sheet items considered by this Department to require analysis, verification or
description, including: invested assets, losses, and loss adjustment expenses. The examination included a
review of income, disbursements and Reciprocal records deemed necessary to accomplish such analysis or
verification and utilized, to the extent considered appropriate, work performed by the Reciprocal’s
independent public accountants. A review or audit was also made of the following items as called for in
the Examiners Handbook of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners:
History of 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
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECIPROCAL
The New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal is an insurer, as defined in Section 107(a)(37) of
the New York Insurance Law and organized pursuant to the provisions of Article 61 of the New York
Insurance Law. As provided by the provisions of Section 6102(b) of the New York Insurance Law the
declaration creating a municipal reciprocal was approved by Superintendent on August 23, 1993. The
Reciprocal was licensed on August 31, 1993 and commenced operations on the same day.
The Reciprocal was organized to provide a market source for New York State counties, towns,
villages, cities or district corporations organized and existing under the Finance Law of the State of New
York. NYMIR’s policyholders engage in the business of inter-insurance on the reciprocal plan, through
an Attorney-in-Fact. Each policyholder is a subscriber and only policyholders may be subscribers. The
subscribers share proportionately in all losses, expenses, and profits of the reciprocal, based on the
percentage their premium represents to the total written premium by NYMIR. To provide surplus,
NYMIR requires each subscriber, as a prerequisite to the initial purchase of an insurance policy, to
contribute to the surplus of NYMIR in accordance with such plan as developed by its Board of Governors.
Subscribers are required to contribute 20% of their initial surplus contribution or 8% percent of gross
premiums in each of the first five years, or at their option accelerate such contributions.
In accordance with Section 6102(12) of the New York Insurance Law, NYMIR has selected not to
be subject to coverage by the Property/Casualty Insurance Security Fund under Article 76 of the New
York Insurance Law. Accordingly, NYMIR issues assessable policies which provide for unlimited
contingent several liability for assessment of its subscribers.

4
A. Management
(i) Board of Governors
Pursuant to a declaration executed by the Superintendent of Insurance and Section 6102 of the
New York Insurance Law a board of governors was elected to act on behalf of the subscribers with powers
to supervise and control the Attorney-in-Fact and to control investment of the assets of the reciprocal
insurer, along with such power as may be conferred by the articles of association and the Subscribers’
Agreement. The Articles of Incorporation and the Subscribers’ Agreement specify that the board of
governors should consist of no fewer than nine members. As of December 31, 1999, the board of
governors was comprised of thirteen members.
As of December 31, 1999, the members of the board of governors together with their residence
and principal business affiliations were as follows:
Name and Residence Principle Business Affiliation
Kenneth Charles Andrew Town Councilman,

Dewitt, New York Town of Dewitt
Robert James Bondi County Exective,

Mahopac, New York Putnam County
Stanley John Dudek Chief Administrator,

Medina, New York County of Orleans
Robert Watson Elliot Mayor,

Croton, New York Village of Croton-On-Hudson
Sandra Lynn Frankel Supervisor,

Rochester, New York Town of Brighton
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
Name and Residence Principal Business Affiliation
John Russell Lapointe Supervisor,

Putnam, New York Town of Putnam
John Charles Layne Mayor,

Airmont, New York Village of Airmont
Dominic Francis Mazza County Administrator,

Avon, New York Livingston County
Thomas Richard Moran Supervisor,

Java Center, New York Town of Java
Jon Raymond Stead Clerk of the Board,

Johnstown, New York Fulton County
William John Wood City Clerk,

Cortland, New York City of Cortland
The minutes of all of the meetings of the board of governors held during the examination period
were reviewed. The review indicated that the board held twenty regular meetings during the period,
January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999, and that such meetings were well attended by the members.
The principal officers of the Reciprocal as of December 31, 1999 were as follows:
Name Title
Dominic F. Mazza President

John Gilfeather Vice- President
Gale Hatch Secretary
Sandra Frankel Treasurer
(ii) Attorney-in-Fact Agreement
The New York State Local Government Service Foundation, Inc. (“NYSLGF”), a New York not-
for-profit corporation, was appointed as the Attorney-in-Fact for NYMIR pursuant to an organization
meeting held on August 24, 1993. This appointment authorized the Attorney-in-Fact to enter into all
6
contracts necessary for the operations of NYMIR. In March 1995, a formal agreement was executed by
NYMIR to confirm the appointment of NYSLGF as the Attorney-in-Fact.
The members of the board of directors and the officers of NYSLGF as of December 31, 1999 are
as follows:
Directors
Jeffery Haber
Edward Farrell
Robert Gregory
Officers
G. Jeffery Haber President

Edward Farrell Vice-President
Robert Gregory Secretary and Treasurer
(iii) Management Agreement
Pursuant to a management agreement dated August 27, 1993, Wright Risk Management (f/k/a
Wright Municipal Company, Inc.) was appointed to manage the day to day operations of NYMIR and to
assist the Attorney-in-Fact and the board of governors in the performance of their responsibilities pursuant
to the Subscriber’s Agreement and the New York Insurance Law. This agreement was renewed in 1998
with an effective date of July 1, 1998, for a five year term. In accordance with the terms of the new
agreement, the general scope of services to be rendered by the Manager includes staffing and facilities,
underwriting and policyholders services, engineering and management services, claims and loss control
services, and accounting services. The agreement also states that WRM shall receive a fee of 15.5% of all
gross written premiums, except that the fee shall be 17.5% of gross premium for any new business for the
first year only.

7
In addition, the management agreement contains a provision regarding the settlement of claims.
This provision, however, is not specific as to WRM’s responsibility for the run-off of NYMIR’s claims in
the event of termination of the management agreement. It is recommended that the Reciprocal take the
necessary steps to amend its management agreement to provide more precise wording in regard to WRM’s
responsibility for the running-off of both known and incurred but not reported claims in the event that the
management agreement is terminated.
B. Territory and Plan of Operation
As of the examination date, the Reciprocal was licensed in the State of New York pursuant to
Article 61 of the New York Insurance Law to transact only the kinds of insurance as defined in the
following numbered paragraphs of Section 1113(a) of the New York Insurance Law:
Paragraph Kind of Insurance
4 Fire
5 Miscellaneous property
6 Water damage
7 Burglary and theft
8 Glass
9 Boiler and machinery
10 Elevator
13 Personal injury liability
14 Property damage liability
19 Motor vehicle and aircraft
physical damage
20 Marine and inland marine
Based upon the line of business for which the Reciprocal is licensed and pursuant to the
requirements of Article 61 of the New York Insurance Law, the Reciprocal is required to maintain surplus
to policyholders in the amount of $1,800,000.

8
The Reciprocal is licensed to write business only in the State of New York. Most of its business is
produced either directly or through a network of brokers.
It was noted in the prior report on examination that the Reciprocal was accepting policy
applications and collecting premiums for certain lines of business that it was not licensed to write (boiler
and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine insurance) and remitting such premium amounts to
other insurance entities. It was recommended in the prior report on examination that the Reciprocal
refrain from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers, and that they devise an alternative method of
enabling their policyholders to obtain boiler and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine
coverage.
It was noted during this examination that the Reciprocal has partially complied with the above
recommendation. The Reciprocal is now licensed to write boiler and machinery and inland marine
business. The Reciprocal, however, continues to accept applications and premiums for fidelity and surety
insurance and a certain parts of inland marine insurance for which it is not licensed. It was noted that the
premium collected for these lines of business have been reduced substantially. It is, however, again
recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the prior report on examination recommendation in that
the Reciprocal should refrain from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers, and devise an
alternative method of enabling its policyholders to obtain fidelity and surety, inland marine (earthquake)
insurance coverages.
C. Reinsurance
The Schedule F data as contained in the Reciprocal’s annual statements filed for the years within
the examination period was found to accurately reflect its reinsurance transactions.
9
The examiner reviewed all ceded reinsurance contracts effected during the examination period.
All of these contracts contained the required standard clauses, including insolvency clauses meeting the
requirements of Section 1308 of the New York Insurance Law.
It was noted that two of the Reciprocal’s automatic facultative agreements (first property excess of
loss and casualty excess of loss) included an offset clause that was not compliance with Section 7427 of
the New York Insurance Law. The clause in the contract reads as follows: “ In the absence of applicable
law, either party may offset mutual debts and credits.” It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend the
captioned agreement to include the following wording, “In the event of the insolvency of either party to
this agreement then offsets shall be allowed to the extent permitted by the provisions of the New York
Insurance Law Section 7427”.
A review of the Reciprocal’s boiler and machinery reinsurance agreement shows that such contract
was still in draft form and was not signed by each respective party. Chapter 22 of the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual states the
following:
“…if a contract entered into, renewed or amended on or after January 1, 1994 has not been
finalized, reduced to a written form and signed by the parties within nine months after the commencement
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.”
A review of Schedule F, Part 3 of the Reciprocal’s annual statement shows that the amounts ceded
and recoverable under this agreement are not material and no change has been made to the financial
statements in this report. It is, however, recommended in the future that the Reciprocal comply with
Chapter 22 of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Accounting Practices and Procedures
Manual and record its reinsurance transactions accordingly.

10
As of the examination date, the Reciprocal had the following working excess of loss and quota
share reinsurance program in place:
Type of Contract Limit and Retention
Property
First Property Excess of Loss
Four Layers Limit of $50,000,000 blanket limit risk or per

Automatic facultative reinsurance and occurrence excess of $100,000 blanket limit risk per risk
Facultative property reinsurance or per occurrence, subject to an occurrence limit of
100% Authorized $1,250,000.
The captioned property automatic facultative reinsurance treaty provides four layers of coverage.
Layer one is placed at 100% percent. The second, third and fourth layers are placed at 75%, 86.67% and
75%, respectively with the automatic facultative treaty and 25%, 13.33% and 25%, respectively with a
facultative property agreement directly placed with American Re-Insurance Company.
Boiler and Machinery
Equipment Breakdown (Boiler and Machinery)

Quota Share Excess of loss Treaty
Section A
100% Authorized Limit of up to 95% part of $5,000,000, net loss per
policy per accident.
Section B
Limit of $25,000,000 net loss per risk per occurrence
excess of $5,000,000, net loss per policy per accident.
11
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)
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)
retained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of
$100,000 as respects the first $1,000,000, each
occurrence.
Section (ii)
excess of $1,000,000, each occurrence.
12
Public Officials Liability

Section (i)
$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000, any one
claim and the first $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
Section (ii)
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)
$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000, each
occurrence and the first $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
Section (ii)
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
D. Significant operating ratios
The following ratios have been computed as of December 31, 1999, based upon the results of this
examination:
Net premiums written in 1999 to surplus as regards policy holders 96.14%
Liabilities to liquid assets (cash and invested assets less investments in

affiliates) 68.47%
Premiums in course of collection to Surplus as regards policyholders 1.59%
The above ratios fall within the benchmark ranges set forth in the Insurance Regulatory
Information System of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).
The underwriting ratios presented below are on an earned/incurred basis and encompass the five-
year period covered by this examination:
Amounts Ratios
Losses incurred $14,059,463 37.74%

Loss adjustment expenses incurred 12,416,912 33.34
Other underwriting expenses incurred 10,008,819 26.87
Net underwriting gain (loss) 763,444 2.05
Premiums earned $37,248,638 100.00%
E. Abandoned Property
Section 1316 of the Abandoned Property Law requires insurance companies to report to the
comptroller’s office annually on or before April 1 any properties that are deemed abandoned and have
14
been unclaimed for a three- year period. This filing is required by all companies regardless of whether
they have any abandoned property to report.
It was noted that the Reciprocal did not file an Abandoned Property report with the state
comptroller’s office as required by Section 1316 of the Abandoned Property Law for any of the years
under examination.
It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the Abandoned Property Law and file the
required reports.
F. Custodian Agreement
As of the examination date, the Reciprocal’s securities were held with a bank pursuant to a
custodial agreement. A review of the Reciprocal’s custodial agreement indicated that the agreement was
lacking several protective covenants that this Department deems necessary to safeguard the Reciprocal’s
assets, as follows:
1. The bank shall have in force, for its own protection, Bankers’ Blanket Bond
Insurance of the broadest form available for commercial banks and will continue to
maintain such insurance. The bank will give the insurer 60 days written notice of any
material change in the form or amount of such insurance prior to termination of this
coverage.
2. Maintain records sufficient to verify information that the insurer is required to

report in Schedule D of the Annual Statement blank of the Insurance Department of the
State of New York.
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
such affidavits to be recognized as admitted assets of the company.
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
It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its custodial agreement to include the above
provisions in order to provide its assets with the necessary safeguards.
G. Conflict of Interest
The Reciprocal adopted a policy statement pertaining to conflict of interest for its directors and
management. It was, however, noted that the Reciprocal failed to provide conflict of interest statements to
its directors and officers for the calendar years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
It is recommended that the Reciprocal require its directors and officers to complete conflict of
interest statements on an annual basis.
H. Accounts and Records
i. Cash
In reviewing the cash on hand and on deposit it was noted that a discrepancy existed between the
Reciprocal’s authorized signature listing and the banking institution’s listing for specific cash accounts.
The Reciprocal’s cash represents an important part of its assets and it is extremely vital that the proper
internal controls be in place.
It is recommended that the Reciprocal review and update its authorized signatories with the
appropriate banking institution.

16
ii. Regulation 30
A review of the Reciprocal’s compliance with the Department Regulation 30 was performed as
part of this examination. Regulation 30, Part 107.3 states that the composition of each expense group shall
be categorized under investment expenses, loss adjustment expenses, taxes, general expenses, and
acquisition, field and collection expenses. Management has indicated that, “NYMIR pays contractually
agreed upon fees to two entities: Wright Risk Management Company and The New York State
Government Services Foundation.” NYMIR records it entire management fee paid to WRM in its
underwriting and investment exhibit – Part 4 Expenses, under the captioned category – general expense
and acquisition, field and collection expense or other underwriting expense. The annual statement for
NYMIR does not include any allocation of fees paid to the entities for the administrative functions that
carried out on behalf of NYMIR.
Based upon the Management’s representation and a review of the expenses reported in its filed
annual statements, it appears that the Reciprocal did not comply with Department Regulation 30. It was
also noted that the Reciprocal did not provide a proper allocation of its expenses as required by the
National Association Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) - Annual Statement Instructions. The annual
statement instructions provide specific instructions for the allocation of expense payment made to any non-
affiliated entity that provides management, administration, or services in whole or part to a Reciprocal’s
business or operations.
It is recommended that the Reciprocal undertake a study to determine the proper amounts to
allocate between expenses classified pursuant to Department Regulation 30, Part 107.3 and comply with
the NAIC Annual Statement Instructions with respect to expense classification accordingly. It is also
17
recommended that the Reciprocal comply with Regulation 30, Part 107.4(e)(1), which states in part “that
the method and bases followed in allocation to expense group shall be described, kept and supported.”
18
3. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
A. Balance Sheet
The following shows the assets, liabilities and surplus as determined by this examination and is the
same as reported by the Reciprocal on its December 31, 1999 annual statement.
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
Liabilities
Losses $ 7,865,917
Loss adjustment expenses 4,177,190
Contingent commissions and other similar charges (311,131)
Other expenses 200,104
Unearned premiums 2,420,374
Excess of statutory reserves over statement reserves 1,285,000
Total liabilities $ 15,637,454
Surplus
Gross paid in and contributed surplus $ 3,721,046

Unassigned funds (surplus) 3,610,191
Surplus as regards policyholders, December 31, 1999 7,331,237
Total liabilities and surplus $ 22,968,691

20
B. Underwriting and investment exhibit
Surplus as regards policyholders increased $4,863,139 during the five-year examination period,
January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999.
Statement of Income
Underwriting Income
Premiums earned $ 37,248,638

Deductions:
Losses incurred $ 14,059,463
Loss adjustment expense incurred 12,416,912
Other underwriting expense incurred 10,008,819
Total underwriting deductions 36,485,194
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
Capital and Surplus Account
Surplus as regards policyholders, December

31, 1994 per prior report on examination $ 2,468,098
Gains in Losses in
Surplus Surplus
Net income $ 4,515,410 $

Unrealized capital gains 282,074
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
Change in capitalization receivable 1,788,511
Prior year adjustment ___________ 11,698__
Total gains and losses $7,974,338 $3,111,199
Net gain in surplus 4,863,139
Surplus as regards policyholders, per report on

Examination as of December 31, 1999 $ 7,331,237
22
4. LOSSES AND LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSES
The examination amount for loss and loss adjustment expense reserves, $7,865,917 and
$4,177,190 respectively, are the same as those reported by the Reciprocal as of December 31, 1999. The
examination analysis was conducted in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and
practices and was based on statistical information contained in the Reciprocal’s internal records and in its
filed annual statements as verified by the examiners.
5. MARKET CONDUCT ACTIVITIES
In the course of this examination, a review was made of the manner in which the Reciprocal
conducts its business and fulfills its contractual obligations to policyholders and claimants. The review
was general in nature and is not to be construed to encompass the more precise scope of a market conduct
investigation which is the responsibility of the Market Conduct Unit of the Property Bureau. No problems
were encountered during this review.
6. COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR REPORT ON EXAMINATION
The prior report on examination contained four recommendations and comments. The current
status of these matters is as follows (page numbers refer to prior report):
ITEM PAGE NO.
A. Territory and Plan of Operation
It is recommended that in the future the Reciprocal should 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
ITEM PAGE NO.
B. Maintenance of Subscribers’ Separate Account
1. It is recommended that NYSIR comply with Section 6112(a) of 12

the New York Insurance Law and with Item 5.2 of the
subscribers’ agreement and keep a separate account for each
individual subscriber.
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.
C. Losses and loss Adjustment Expenses
It is recommended that the Reciprocal should report all losses and 16

loss adjustment expenses gross of all unfunded deductibles.
The reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.
7. SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM PAGE NO.
A. Management
It is recommended that the Reciprocal take the necessary steps to 7

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 8

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.
24
ITEM PAGE NO.
C. Reinsurance
It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its first casualty excess 9

of loss and casualty excess of loss agreement to include the
appropriate offset language pursuant to Section 7427 of the New
York Insurance Law.
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.
F. Custodian Agreement
It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its custodial agreement 15

to include the provisions as provided in Section 2(F) herein in order
to afford its assets the necessary safeguards.
G. Conflict of Interest
It is recommended that the Reciprocal require its directors and 15

officers to submit conflict of interest statements on an annual basis.
H. Accounts and Records
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

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.

EXHIBIT 6
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 7
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 8.
Plaintiffs:
John Joseph Forjone –Medicaidtaxlevy@yahoo.com

Dan Delplato Jr. - Dandelplatojr@yahoo.com
Gabe Razzano - Captgabe1@yahoo.com
Ed Person Jr. – raptorprimo2002ad@yahoo.com
Defendants Counsels:
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
David W. Kloss Kloss & Stenger 69 Delaware Avenue Suite 1003 Buffalo, NY 14202
Jeremy A. Colby Webster Szanyi, LLP 1400 Liberty Bldg. Buffalo, NY 14202
Joseph F. Reina Erie County Department of Law 69 Delaware Avenue - Suite 300 Buffalo, NY 14202
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
Syracuse, NY 13202
Thomas Simeti County of Rockland Department of Law 11 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956
Carol Fumanti Arcuri Office of the Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue 6th Floor - Room 600 White Plains, NY
10601
Aaron J. Marcus Broome County Attorney's Office 44 Hawley Street P.O. Box 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902
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
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
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
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
Monticello, NY 12701
Aven Rennie, Esq. Mcgavern, Mcgavern & Grimm, LLP 1100 Rand Building 14 Lafayette Square Buffalo,, NY 14203
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
Eric J. Wilson Assistant Attorney General the State of Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-
4096
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
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
Ester Miller, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Nassau County Attorney’
s Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501
For the information of:

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiffs}
v.

WILKEY, et.al.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PLAINTIFF STRUNK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MAKE A CONSOLIDATED REPLY OF
EXPANDED LENGTH WITH EXHIBITS
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:
1. That I am a plaintiffs pro se without being an attorney, who was the party who
entered the remark with the Court in regards to request for a Special Master, Stay in lieu of
any associated report and for a consolidated response to the Defendants several motion to
dismiss the amended complaint recorded as such at docket item 73.
2. Subsequent to the Court text order of defendants to response to the Remark very
numerous responses were received accordingly between.
3. Permission to submit a consolidated Reply of expanded length with exhibits to

Defendants Responses shown at Docket Items 76 thru 96 as provided pursuant to the Court
Stay Order and Text Orders shown Docket items 24, 27 and 75 respectively.
4. I herewith submit the original of my consolidated reply entitled 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 declared

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiffs}
v.

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
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’
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’
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’
waiting until after the May 1 filing deadline to make the May 6 statutory response and or the
NYS Attorney General had devoted more effort to his fiduciary responsibilities and heightened
care of both the Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A and related laws to be measured by
expressed terms of the State Constitution mandates - however ignored.
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)
19. Mr. Colby on 16 June responded to my remark representing an ever growing
number of municipalities whose appearance it seems is that of the NYMIR insurance carrier
providing liability coverage of public servants bound by oath of office and undertaking required
by statute.
20. On 30 May I filed the Amicus referenced by Mr. Colby at Second Circuit after
both: having been denied intervenor status in Eastern District by Judge Gleeson also taken on
appeal; and I was motivated if at all possible, to keep the State legislature honest to force
submission of an amicus on the EL §6-124 Judicial Convention matter by 2 June 2006.
21. To wit the State Legislature amicus was late and my Amicus was on time. The
Clerk of the Court phoned me on 31 May urging that I file a T1080 motion supporting
paperwork by 1 June 2006.
22. To wit I did and motion was approved on 2 June for Amicus status. On 2 June the
Clerk told me to arrange a reservation for court room seating at the 7 June oral argument.
Strunk’
23. To wit I did, and was seated next to Joel Graber of the NYS AG office on 7 June;
a copy of seat designation herewith marked EXHIBIT A-1.
24. As I had expected the State legislature was not only tardy on the matter of
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
preference.
25. The kleptocracy is observed to outrageously operate with bipartisan consent not
competition, a duopoly acting as one monopoly, that would have judicial primaries imposed
favoring the wealthy upstate and downstate as well.
26. Here in Brooklyn as observed elsewhere in the State the kleptocracy has operated
for four decades without State oversight, still continues to flout the law as the trial evidence in
the Torres case shows flourishes in the city of New York with impunity.
27. The Attorney for the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal, whose bottom-
line income depends upon it’

s clients annual premium payment, appears with a conflict of
interest to maintain each client municipality dressed in habit only- the state constitution takes
precedence over any habitual statutory abuse of authority that may have existed say in 1821.
28. However nearly two hundred years later we need to sort out fact over fiction,
despite protestations from agents of the New York State Association of Counties business lobby;
29. Where both the Secretary of State and Attorney General each take their oath
seriously under CPLR 1012 are bound to clarify that statutory authority, and if not, certainly the
New York State Court of Appeals would have sorted out the expressed State Constitution where
any statutory boundary applies under State Constitution Articles III, VI, and IX for local
government, accordingly also applies to 28 USC 112 and or modification.
Strunk’
30. Certainly with the demise of Vaudeville entertainment and weekend racing at
Monticello, that still curiosity surrounds why Defendant Sullivan County occupies both the 3rd
Department in Northern District, however is sequestered in Southern District as if by the
gambling lobby were part of 2nd Department –no small discrepancy when considering the long
bout of new found tribal exhumations of late that has found by apparent sober séance a vision
quest for tribal offspring, that has focused offshore investments to conjure and allege trespass to
the six nations treaty of 1784.
31. The state of New York remains at the heart of offshore investment and China
policy to this day, as it had been starting before it inception in 1683. To try to separate
international from domestic, past from present, would render RICO matters inexplicable.
32. Although I believe Mr. Colby would speak off the record differently than for
express goals of the NYMIR employer; however, based upon the actual record of this and related
proceedings, he appears conflicted for his clients.
First in retrospect of Forjone v Leavitt WDNY 05-cv-395, Mr. Colby represents
Mr. Stanley Dudek that was Administrative Director of the Orleans County Legislature
who promptly resigned from that post when duly served with the complaint therein.
However continues to maintain his NYMIR Board of Directors employment as Risk
Assessment Underwriter for all 600 insured municipalities, and as such as then draws
attention to the arbitrary lack of Orleans County real property assessment oversight.
Second, the difficulty of initiating this case with so many defendant parties in the
matter of the simple relationship of Bottom-up suffrage and Homerule to that of the
questionable top-down regimen being imposed under NVRA and now HAVA, I know
would challenge even the largest law firms, how else would such all encompassing issue
Strunk’
be properly addressed otherwise? Plaintiffs are operating on a shoe string budget, and I
don’
t believe there is a college degree among us, certainly is no defense, but is reason
enough to understand how this case was initiated in such an unorthodox way to protect
individual propriety property and liberty. I contend that not one of us is frivolous in this
or any other matter;
I certainly wouldn’
t be here otherwise, as a long personal court record since 1996
is there to support. We have each affirmed and verify herein that our suffrage first
amendment guarantee is preservative of individual liberty and that our posterity is at
stake. So with all that in mind we had to effect proper due process for all state defendants
of the several states to form a class of the various states under provisions of the False
Claims Act related to HAVA according to current State and Federal Rules, and
Therefore we had to devise a way to invite voluntary joinder of all New York
subdivision municipalities as willing defendants, even going so far to direct alternate
appearance service away from the clerk of the court so that each municipal attorney
would have to voluntarily appear without further action on plaintiffs part.
As such all but a few have joined and as the record shows Mr. Colby between
February 17 until the Docket item #8 on March 13, 2006 appeared at the behest of each
County Attorney of Allegany, Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston,
Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Putnam, Tioga, and Warren County, and that at
the direction of all fourteen attorneys filed an emergency motion to Stay that resulted in
the Order shown as Docket item 24 on 29 March.
Third, beyond the fact of all Fourteen County attorneys voluntarily appearing in
the case, that under the stay without permission of the Court, Mr. Colby then solicited
Strunk’
eleven more County Attorneys to voluntarily appear using his services totaling twenty-
five clients as listed in Docket item 80 above.
Fourth, beyond the fact of Mr. Colby soliciting eleven additional clients insured
by NYMIR, the Association-in-fact by its agent wants plaintiffs sanctioned to pay for Mr.
Colby’
s personal gain for what we contend is his professional transgression against not
only his clients while in contempt of Court cannon of ethics, by his actual vexatious
harassment of plaintiffs to take our property wants our liberty taken too.
Fifth, without getting into the response to each motion to dismiss by the various
counties reserving such as it relates to HAVA specifically and the matter of VAP (Voting
Age Population) associated with harboring of aliens, as if “

America”in HAVA applied to
the American Western Hemisphere instead of just U.S. Citizens 18 years or older without
being civilly dead.
Mr. Colby has got Fulton County as a NYMIR insured client that is expressly
different than any other municipality in the state of New York mix of Subdivision
because it is the expressed lower limit of size for determining the legitimacy of any
municipality clearly expressed in the State Constitution Article III Section 5, expressly
mandates that “…Hamilton and Fulton shall elect together…”however don’

t, and
That we contend that Hamilton is not even entitled to any Board of Elections at
all, MUST depend upon that created under Election Law only in Fulton. I spoke with the
Fulton County Attorney, the Honorable Arthur Spring, in early March after receiving his
notice of acceptance of alternative service acknowledged 28 February 2006 (a copy
herewith marked EXHIBIT B-1); and
During the phone call, Mr. Spring told me that the matter of actual appearance in
Strunk’
Buffalo must be determined by the undertaking insurance carrier (later determined to be
NYMIR when Mr. Spring’

s secretary returned my subsequent phone call left on the
answer machine, told me the carrier’

s name is New York Municipal Insurance
Reciprocal.)
33. I deny what Mr. Colby in paragraph 4 wrongly states quote “In other words, Mr.
Strunk suggests that the Western District of New York does not exist.” There are “
no other
words”
, and
34. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit
same for brevity and assert that there is similarity as in formation of any sovereign nation with
that of Vermont from that of New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Vermont was a
fully autonomous and sovereign country for fourteen years before joining the union goes to my
understanding of the ripeness principle that delineates when matters are subject to judicial
review and when they aren’

t.
35. I believe Federal deference to any state constitution definition of county
legitimacy per se is a ripe equity matter that goes to judicial provision of plain speedy and
efficient remedy.
36. Therefore, ripeness of the issue mandates a hearing in conjunction with that of the
NVRA and HAVA matters devised by Congress that have so affected provision of the people’
s
bottom-up suffrage in every Homerule municipality under the state constitution still with plenary
control over suffrage expressly guaranteed by Article 1 Section 4 of the US Constitution.
37. The 1947 statute 28 USC 112 defers to state legislative authority given it by the
respective state constitution, and is notwithstanding the New York Legislature gerrymandered
nugatory kleptocracy, nevertheless must follow the express terms of the state constitution - this
Strunk’
Court must make a declaratory judgment in this regard.
38. Arguendo, Congress has no authority to regionalize state associated Federal
judicial process without taking express authority with regard to the state constitution and
associated due process as one continuous interrelated inseparable whole.
39. Now in 2006, forty plus years after WMCA v Lomenzo with county Homerule
consolidated under a CEO mayor in the city of New York, renders all New York Districts
discombobulated; and therefore Congress, the state Legislature as well as this Court must take
direction from the respective state constitution.
40. However this Court in a res novo original case, not a pendent matter, may choose
not to listen to the New York State Court of Appeals when there is no precedent effecting
Federal jurisdiction.
41. In a de facto manner, Western District of New York as well as every other District
exists per se, but we contend each must be in compliance with the State Constitution expression
of County, isn’
t done.
42. This is a matter of form follows function not as Mr. Colby wrongly alleges as
form over function (substance).
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)
43. Mr. Marcus on 21 June filed a response to my Remark in opposition to Plaintiffs
request for a special master and stay of a consolidated response to the various MTD. Although
Mr. Marcus alleges he doesn’

t understand what plaintiffs are requesting he opposes it no matter
what it is; except for the matter that a consolidated response seems to make sense to him as
expressed at paragraph 15.

Strunk’
same for brevity and assert that To the extent Mr. Marcus is new to this matter this reply may be
helpful for him.
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)
45. Mr. Peterman representing Lewis County adopts the arguments of Mr. Sullivan
from the submission shown as Docket item 77, and the position of Broome County affirmation of
Mr. Marcus shown as Docket item 81 is adopted only to the extent that payment of a special
master would be borne by defendants, and without mention of DOJ appearance would otherwise
not oppose a special master.
same for brevity and assert that I take exception to the point by Mr. Peterman in his paragraph 4
metaphorical description of the complaint and amendment were it limited, for in comparison of
the characteristics as somehow being an environmental hazard that would further “

muddy the
waters”without also seeing the benefit of stirring such waters and to drain the swamp too.
47. If to the contrary, the borders of the legitimate municipalities were redrawn to
meet the requirements of the State Constitution, in fact granted that act would certainly be
hazardous to the existing kleptocracy.
48. However, such consolidation and or mergers would beneficially cleanup the
political/economic environment that is making life unlivable here in New York, so much so, that
unbearable misery is chasing productive generations elsewhere in record numbers, while the
kleptocracy outrageously gives safe harbor to illegal aliens for reaping unjust enrichment.
Strunk’
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)
49. Mr. Simeti on 29 June in response to the remark adopted the argument made by
Mr. Sullivan for NYS Defendants shown as Docket item 77, also concurs with opinions of Mr.
Peterman at Docket item 82 and the affirmation (sic) Declaration of Mr. Marcus on behalf of
Broome County, and without mention of the DOJ appearance, is in opposition to a special master
or additional time to respond to various MTD.
same for brevity and assert that Rockland County is a State Constitutionally compliant / non-
conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering is entitled to a Board of Elections within,
and that the process of determining current statutory compliance of other 47 municipalities
alleged in violation of state constitution would significantly benefit from NYS Defendants
fulfillment with duties associated with CPLR 1012, and or a special master as the court would
deem necessary to provide both width and depth of certainty to render a decision herein.
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)
51. Mr. Colby on 30 June in support of his declaration of June 16 shown as docket
item 80 filed in opposition to my request for relief in the remark at docket 73. Therein adopts the
Strunk’
arguments set forth in Dockets items 77, 81 and 82 without mention of the appearance by DOJ.
same for brevity and assert that this filing by Mr. Colby is more measured and unique from his
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
statement that somehow a lack of information as to the nature of Defendants compliance with
state law should pose no special hardship for plaintiffs to be able to respond, and
53. That Mr. Colby speaking for his clients does not oppose plaintiffs consolidated
immediate response to the extent that County Defendants’specific arguments are addressed; and
as a third point offers Plaintiffs counsel on how to prepare and organize limits on who may be
named a party to the proposed RICO statement.
54. That Mr. Colby on 1 June filed the MOL in support of the MTD the amendment
complaint shown as Docket 67, and that admittedly his clients would be greatly affected by the
findings of the NYS Defendants while performing their duty under CPLR 1012 accordingly.
55. That Mr. Colby may represent the entity clients in whatever form they may be
deemed to be associated in, however what is an absolute surety, is that the interests of the people
resident within are not served by Mr. Colby’

s efforts nor are they assisted to find out in a plain
speedy manner in hopes of obtaining any efficient remedy without the relief requested by
Plaintiffs being granted by the Court accordingly.
56. What Mr. Colby has failed to mention is that Plaintiffs FCA based complaint is
centered around the various states questionable filing for HAVA funds alleged done with
malicious use of VAP involving inter alia harboring of aliens, a federal felony consistently
having gone unpunished as seen in the record of the, proceeding of the Honorable Robert K.
Strunk’
Dornan out in California in 1996 and thereafter with malicious complicity of Newt Gingrich,
Thomas Foley and others bent of aiding and abetting such felonies participated without
immunity protection in the enterprise,
57. Thereby is to be proof at trial of both pattern and conduct of nullifying and
offsetting racketeering activity affecting plaintiffs’franchise as well as those similarly as a class
yet to be determined.
58. That when the so-called central databases on a state by state and federal level are
rendered virtual, and there is a due diligence worthy of public service to compare the actual
record with that database,
59. That there has not been proper Fiduciary statutory oversight and heightened
standard of care adequate to prevent a product of fraud, is the case starting not later than 1993
with implementation of NVRA; and
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
proposed RICO statement that would not have been necessary had there been Fiduciary due
diligence in effect.
61. As for the New York state Constitutional authority granted to each and every duly
constituted municipality to reapportion the respective political districts by March 1, 2006,
regretfully that time deadline is passed for all but those having appeared before 1 March; and
62. By our record of defendants’counsels appearance only a handful of duly
constitute municipalities appeared in time - one of whom is Fulton that must elect together with
Hamilton –nothing is done nor does NYMIR and or NY Association of Counties dependent
upon a steady cash flow annually want to have any compliance with the state constitution in the
Strunk’
matter of municipal provision of Homerule bottom-up suffrage and effective autonomous
representation in the state legislature and state political parties either at the state executive or
municipal committee level.
63. It appears to me that the only relief available for ensuring compliance absent
waiting another five years of unbearable corruption until the State Legislature with a new Federal
apportionment would somehow miraculously act spontaneously.
64. Notwithstanding if Mr. Spitzer were somehow to endeavor by his second term as
governor to circumvent the state legislature as promised, without cooperation of the legislature or
until that autocracy decides to reverse forty years of non-compliance of its own making, then it is
the Federal Court system under authority developed after Baker v Carr of 1962 for Tennessee
political districts that must take this res novo matter and make the renewed VRA section 5 real.
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)
65. Ms. Dougherty on 3 July responded without adopting any specific argument and
or position of other defendants nevertheless is in opposition to a special master as well as the
additional time to which respond to the various motions for making a response.
66. However, does not oppose a consolidated immediate response separate from the
issue of a special master for the purposes of expediting review of sufficiency of the amendment
complaint.
same for brevity and assert that Onondaga is a State Constitutionally compliant / non-
conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering nevertheless is entitled to a Board of
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’
either New York State Defendants fulfillment with duties associated with CPLR 1012 and or a
special master as the court would deem necessary to provide both width and depth of certainty
to render a decision herein.
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)
68. Ms. Arcuri on 5 July in response to the remark joined in and adopted the
argument made by NYS Defendants in Point II of their Memorandum shown as Docket item 29
as well as the Declaration with MOL for the MTD dockets items 60 and 61, and the Declaration
of Mr. Marcus on behalf of Broome County, without mention of the DOJ, in opposition to a
special master combined with a motion to dismiss of its own on the basis of alternate service.
same for brevity and assert that I deny Ms. Arcuri’

s allegation in paragraph 10 that regarding
adequate notice of wrongdoing by Westchester despite plaintiffs clearly establishing that it is a
State Constitutionally compliant / non-conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering
nevertheless is entitled to a Board of 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 either New York State Defendants fulfillment with
duties associated with CPLR 1012 and or a special master as the court would deem necessary to
provide both width and depth of certainty to render a decision herein.
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)
70. Mr. Sorrels on 5 July responded to my remark with a general opposition to any
relief requested by Plaintiffs in regards to a special master, stay pending a special master report
Strunk’
and a consolidated response to defendants MTD to date. Mr. Sorrels adopts the arguments of Mr.
Colby with various NYMIR clients, Mr. Marcus of Broome, Mr. Peterman of Lewis, and Mr.
Simeti of Rockland.
same for brevity and assert that
72. I believe it was in January 2006 that the attorney for Columbia County called me
in reference to my attempt to no avail to obtain a set of summons in order to service his and other
counties in the related case Loeber v. Spargo NDNY 04-cv-1193, and what did I mean by my
reference to the term “

gaming the system”regarding HAVA billing.
73. At that time I assured him that the use of the word gaming, as in the “
bad man
principle”
, was meant to connote walking the broad line within the vague legal area created by
Congress in HAVA, was not formally intended to be used in regards to his RICO understanding
of the term that seemed to concern him the most.
07/05/2006 91 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Special Master and for
Consolidation of Plaintiffs' Response filed by State of Arizona. (DLC) (Entered:
07/05/2006)
74. To the extent that Ms. Varela has adopted the argument of Mr. Sullivan as to a
special master and or additional time required for due process associated with duties under CPLR
1012, the appearance of Ms. Varela although quite welcome and substantive in regards to the
ongoing conflict between EAC and Arizona’

s plenary responsibility to safeguard elections visa
vi Proposition 200.
same for brevity and assert that Plaintiffs welcome and support the great state of Arizona’
s
efforts to defend U.S. Citizens suffrage under express use of the VRA that affirmatively protects
against felonious theft of U.S. Citizen Rights - unlike what is being done in other named states
Strunk’
including the state of New York.
76. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the affirmative aspects of proposition 200, the
entire registration database must be made retroactive to all Arizona registered voters not just
those newly registering and or voting for the first time, as must be the case nationwide in each
state of the several states.
77. I believe a prudent application of special master provisions to protect U.S. Citizen
bottom-up suffrage in New York is a matter of 9th 10th and 11th amendment protection with
immunity from interference by Arizona and or any other state or foreign diversity challenge for
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.
78. However, of benefit to Arizona and other states of the several states, is the proper
configuration of New York bottom-up versus top down suffrage that must be settled before a
declaratory judgment on use of the VAP formula if at all; and
79. Further, in the event proper bottom-up configuration of New York subdivisions is
deemed paramount then it must be decided first to resolve the proper redistribution and or offset
of HAVA funds; and
80. Then furthermore, this case would proceed accordingly whether with a proper
determination of New York subdivision provision of suffrage by Mr. Sullivan’

s clients as is their
duty under law, and or otherwise done by a special master, may very well result in Arizona
HAVA funds increase that it otherwise would not have received under certain categories of
HAVA reimbursement- that is unless the Court deems a national special master needed rather
than fiduciary duty done by DOJ and EAC.
81. Separate and apart from the Special Master issue, Arizona’
s position on matters
Strunk’
autonomous to New York U.S. Citizens must be respectfully ignored or even stricken, that until
the State Defendants reverse their gross dereliction of duty they are unable to represent the
interests of the People of the State of New York in a non-partisan manner.
82. However in contrast to the extent that Arizona respectfully submits on page 3
counsel to construe plaintiff request for consolidation I agree and have not heard disagreement
from the other Plaintiffs.
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)
83. Ms. Chavez has adopted both the argument of Mr. Sullivan as well as that of Mr.
Colby as to all other relief and sanctions against me and other Plaintiffs who I do not speak for
without mention of the response by DOJ.
same for brevity and assert that the onerous nature of the New Mexico response absolutely
requires plaintiffs be afforded an opportunity to respond to New Mexico motion to dismiss
separate and apart from this reply to the response to the remark requesting a special master and
or additional time required for due process associated with duties under CPLR 1012, that the
response in regards to special master must be entirely stricken from the record as violative of
U.S. Citizens autonomous rights here in New York.
85. On Page 3 Ms. Chavez confirms that we have not duly served the amended
complaint and as such Plaintiffs in keeping with the stay and voluntary appearance scheme
described above, await direction by the Court, and would duly serve the amended complaint
accordingly.
86. However, due to the voluntary nature of the New York state subdivision
Strunk’
appearance we believe is unnecessary, disruptive to the court calendar and counterproductive to
our efforts to both streamline and consolidate this action, which if it proceeds under the FCA /
HAVA matter, Plaintiffs know is far more complicated than the simple procedural matters before
the Court.
87. However, the recalculation process would involve an order that such be
preformed by the DOJ and EAC rather than by us.
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)
88. Ms. Mary E. Fleming of the DOJ WDNY Office and Mr. T. Christian Herren Jr.
Attorney from the DOJ Voting Rights Section in Washington D.C. representing the Federal
Defendants on 5 July jointly filed a MTD the Amended Complaint (Docket Item 91) and as such
we reserve our right to respond at a latter date with leave of the Court.
89. In addition Ms. Fleming and Mr. Herren Jr. on 5 July also filed a response to the
remark; therein they consider frivolous my request for a special master and associated stay.
same for brevity and assert that the DOJ just made an appearance blocked my efforts in Albany
to seek to expose the concealment to keep the people in each municipal entity in the dark also.
91. Why is it too much to ask government at every level to operate according to law
and to provide every citizen with an intelligible answer to be able to form an informed judgment?
92. That when a person seeks information on the conduct of government at the local
clerks office and is told to ask the Department of State and is then told by the DOS to go to a
private lobby group who is manipulating due process from behind the scenes and is immune
from FOIL requests well the DOJ better sit up and take a lesson herein.
Strunk’
93. Moreover the DOJ has no basis to interfere in the affairs of the State of New York
unless it would want to start rigorously enforcing both the voting rights and INA for a change in
my lifetime.
94. Otherwise, the DOJ comments on Plaintiffs request of process in state matters of
operation of law and Homerule autonomy are beyond DOJ authority and must be stricken from
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
by a special master jointly acceptable to Plaintiffs.
95. In the matter of Ms. Fleming and Mr. Herren Jr. Support a consolidated response
to the various MTD on a briefing schedule determined by the court we concur subject to the
wisdom of the court in this matter. I have been a criticizing DOJ process since 1999, and started
speaking with Joseph Rich in 2003 before he retired walking where few go.
96. This case is about a FCA theft of HAVA funds by a malicious racketeering
enterprise, initiated by conduct and unjust enrichment starting not later than with implementation
of NVRA in 1993 and no one in government wants to hear that, especially the gatekeepers DOJ.
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)
97. Mr. Kloss representing the city of New York (NYC) and Borough president
Markowitz on 3 July filed response to the remark therein merely reprise the adequacy of both the
Complaint and whether or not the Amended Complaint would survive Federal review of rules.
same for brevity and assert that the matter of the transparency of the municipality of NYC is
clearly challenged in the original Complaint and continued in amendment. Mr. Kloss has not
Strunk’
established a direct interest other than passage of time how verifying the compliance of 47 or so
municipalities or what ever they are outside of NYC would adversely impact NYC when in fact
NYC is already alleged to violate the one-third of the senators provision of State Constitution
Article III as a res novo matter to which Mr. Kloss nor anyone else especially NYS DOS and Ag
have responded to.
99. The fact that there is a clear well established pattern of conduct by a racketeering
enterprise here in NYC, although at the municipal government level at the center, to the extent
that enterprise members have been found some to have been convicted and incarcerated since no
later than the mid eighties, the facts must be put before this court in the matter of malicious
facilitating of harboring the presence of illegal aliens in NYC.
100. The malicious intent is well beyond the one-third of the senators Rule, it effects
illegal unjust enrichment not only at the state legislative, executive and judicial level but in the
illegal creation of EL §2-104 illegal county committees of state parties referenced in the Amicus
Exhibit submitted herein by Mr. Colby, and that the enterprise by use of illegal aliens to nullify
and offset U.S. Citizen suffrage and autonomy rights associated with proprietary property here in
NYC is most certainly actively engaged in racketeering here Brooklyn and other NYC boros.
101. As further example of the “Don’

t ask Don’
t Tell”policy as to illegal aliens
continuing since no later than the 1980 Federal Census starting with Mr. Edward I Koch is done
as a continuous unbroken pattern of felonious conduct harboring and facilitating illegal aliens to
vote through the present Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
102. Mayor Bloomberg on 5 July testified under oath at the US Senate Judiciary
Committee hearings on so-called Immigration reform with Mr. Specter presiding in Philadelphia.
103. In the first instance Mayor Bloomberg testified under oath that HE had and has
Strunk’
direct knowledge on the retail and wholesale provision of false documents and harboring with
intent to commit a felony in NYC and that he has not done nor will assist Homeland Security in
preventing such crimes complained of herein by me and other Plaintiffs as a class similarly
situated being injured by not only the violation of the State Constitution but by substantive
racketeering acts being in effect no different had they been done by agents of Tyson Foods and
or Mohawk Industries both are extreme examples of an Ultra Vires enterprise racketeering and
felonious fraud injuring and targeting U.S. Citizens specifically (a copy of the New York Post
Article published 6 July is herewith marked EXHIBIT C-1); and
104. Further the Associated Press on 5 July publishes Mayor Bloomberg’

s hubristic
statements as a slap to the face of all U.S. Citizens, is treason against the nation as a whole, and
shows how entrenched the enterprise is and how long it has been operating with impunity. A
copy of the article herewith marked as EXHIBIT C-2, reports that Mayor 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, said:
"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."
105. Even in the matter of a broad application of hardship provisions for illegal aliens
Section 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §1182(i), that allows for
any illegal alien petitioner to establish extreme hardship for a "qualifying relative." goes to the
anchor baby issue, and
106. That Mayor Bloomberg’

s statements are outrageous admission under oath that
requires action herein against his transgression, and are indicative of the pattern of conduct that
goes to theft of U.S. Citizen proprietary property involved by the illegals and the enterprise
Strunk’
acting in concert has been established by 2nd Circuit in addressing an issue of first impression, in
which the circuit said it could not review such a denial because it was a "discretionary judgment"
committed to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Zhang v. Gonzales, 04-2503-ag.
107. Just because Mayor Bloomberg wrings his hands in concern, as done on WABC
radio recently, because of his questionable fears that without illegal aliens grooming his
membership and use of country club greens, may somehow threaten his golf game, does not
negate the fact that U.S. Citizens from the inception of this nation are quite capable of doing
dirty work and as I personally do hang sheetrock, clean out septic tanks, picking crops and cut
grass, despite the Mayor’

s rationalization otherwise.
108. That given his latest admissions under oath Mr. Bloomberg needs to be a
Defendant herein proposed Racketeering matter before this court review as prima facie evidence
of breach of his Fiduciary duty in very much the same was as for the factual allegations against
both SOS and NYSAG are failing I n their fiduciary duty to U.S. Citizens resident in New York.
109. I emphasize that the one area of law in which both have a clear fiduciary duty to
enforce Plaintiffs civil and fundamental rights is located under State Civil Rights Law and
whereby Mr. Bloomberg as has been the case of mayors before him obstructs just in that regard,
can not be over emphasized.
110. As with the mandatory existence of the Secretary of State (SOS) historically since
the April 20, 1777 founding of the state of New York, as the Federally essential State voice
mediating the external affairs of the State per se is the essential party defined in Federal Law and
State Law that by operation of the Constitution under article I, II and VI, predates that of the
Attorney General and under girds the legitimacy and broad definition of “
Fiduciary Duty”
separate and apart from that of the “

Chief Law Enforcement Officer”the Attorney General.
Strunk’
111. Plaintiffs have alleged no less than substantive violation of NYS Civil Rights Law
Chapter 6 Article 5A (CRL), by both SOS Daniels and NYSAG Spitzer, and with even more
machinations have materially participated as willing participants in the enterprise and
racketeering activity with harboring of Illegal Aliens associated with plaintiffs injury directly
along with those similarly situated, and
112. That when public officials maliciously substantively deny due process in regards
to the sanctity of the municipal provision of suffrage for the people resident within who have in
effect been reduced to peons on plantations not municipalities subject to princes and
principalities violate US Citizens 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th 8th 9th 10th 13th amendment rights as guaranteed
and protected for equal treatment under the 14th herein denied by the SOS and NYSAG.
113. Other than express requirements of the State Constitution and related law the
Pattern of offending conduct by Secretary of State and secondarily that of the Attorney General
is to be found in the Fiduciary Duty under NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A- that
each and every supposed municipality since the 1777 founding must be duly recorded and
maintained, whether as a quasi-corporation, full corporation and or association as defined by the
statute. That the CRL clearly establishes a clear standard of review and performance for both the
SOS and NYSAG who are alleged to have not only failed, but have acted individually in a
partisan manner in breech of their oaths of office.
114. The Recent conviction of Clarence Norman in the matter of the Brooklyn
Democratic Committee business should have been on the immediate agenda of both the SOS and
NYSAG, beyond that of the District Attorney.
115. However, policing outrageous conduct wasn’

t on the agenda and is still ignored as
if EL §2-104 and §4-100 matters were of little or no consequence to the State’

s future.
Strunk’
116. The Brooklyn Democratic Party or any other “
municipal / county”like party
committee under EL §2-104 is not similarly situated with a Homerule municipality, must not
exist in the first place and therefore has no authority except under that created under EL §2-100
there should not be any New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, Staten Island County committee
within NYC must only have one (1) EL §2-104 committee with all the necessary Assembly
Districts leaders and Election District structure duly elected according to law, shamelessly
violated and ignored by both the state and federal courts to plaintiffs’detriment and injury.
117. An FRCvP Rule 9 special master is required to straighten out the mess that NYC
is presently injuring everyone statewide reimbursed under Rule 53(h) absent other relief.
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
distinguished himself while at the Manhattan District Attorney Morgenthau’

s office, he would
have taken the bosses job or become a Judge like Sonia Sotomayer.
119. However as the son of a Democratic Party fund raiser, beyond just being a rich
mans son like Mr. Trump, Mr. Spitzer politically seeks the lowest common denominator while
serving the elite with a vengeance. That by extortion threatens the struggling middle class that
would drag them into costly court actions for obtaining out of court settlements, knowing juries
would throw such cases out.
120. As such like Mr. Sheldon Silver, Mr. Spitzer serves the same Wall Street crowd
who’
s Mid-Hudson and Suffolk County courtiers demand arbitrary governance by consent not
competition.
121. However Mr. Spitzer, unlike Mr. Silver who merely has to sit in his chamber just
says no, must as an Attorney General without portfolio actively pander to the privileged and
Strunk’
Suffolk country club oligarchs whose backroom obsessions include cheap green fees on golf
courses polluted by the chemical industry.
122. The public record is replete with proof that Mr. Spitzer has rearranged subsidy for
the greens with cheap labor, 9th hole vistas clear of residential clutter with manicured wind break
plantations stocked with chirping birds and wildlife free from commoners and taxes whose elite
divisive entities are guarded by the Charity Bureau.
123. NYC needs the same standard of review as an out of control nugatory entity that
the duopoly has used to loot U.S. Citizen Property upstate.
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)
124. Mr. Kumler on 5 July in the Texas Response to the Remark similarly has adopted
both the argument of Mr. Sullivan as well as that of Mr. Colby along with other Defendants as to
all other relief and sanctions against me and other Plaintiffs who I do not speak for, however fails
to mention the response of the DOJ.
same for brevity and assert that Mr. Kumler has not replied to the matter of Texas 2004 HAVA
over billing using inflated registrations as recorded by the Texas Board of Elections on its own
statistics website, and that Mr. Kumler has not established a direct interest in the state of New
York subdivision compliance matter for a request of Special master in lieu of the NYS DOS and
AG performance of their Fiduciary duty therefore should be deemed advisory at the most for Mr.
Kumler has not established any equity hardship other than passage of time.
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)
Strunk’
126. Ms. Wayland-Smith representing Madison County on 6 July filed a combined
MTD the Amended Complaint and opposition to plaintiffs request for relief detailed by the
remark shown as Docket item 73 updating the MTD and associated filing from 17 May shown as
Docket items 40 through 42. In doing so argues for dismissal with prejudice that Plaintiffs
provide response to Madison County absent mention of the subject of a consolidated response
unlike that even done by Mr. Colby.
same for brevity and assert that Ms. Wayland –Smith appears for Madison voluntarily in
whatever form its agent may associate, not only is in non-compliance with the state constitution,
is not entitled to a Board of Elections and or any EL §2-104 county committee within.
128. Like Mr. Colby’

s representation of his clients Ms. Wayland-Smith does not
represent the interest of the people resident within –there is a substantive fundamental conflict
of interest to be resolved.
The Honorable Robert K. Dornan (US Congress from 1977 thru 1997)
Requests Leave to Intervene as of Right
129. Since I made the remark shown as Docket item 73, on 12 June the Honorable
Robert K. Dornan phoned me in conjunction with a 17 April 2006 letter I sent cold to his
California address (a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT D-1 inviting him to testify on his own
s book “
behalf regarding the 1996 contested election featured in John Fund’ Stealing Elections”
.
130. The 1 May Amended Complaint filing was without Mr. Dornan’
s involvement.
131. Because his case went through the California State appellate court system and
then was deferred to the U.S. House Congressional Committee to resolve the outcome with a
supposed plenary investigation of fraud, the record there is flawed intentionally, and
Strunk’
132. When presented herein will established both a pattern and conduct involving not
only that the NVRA motor voter but creation of HAVA will prove certain establishment of the
fraud enterprise both harboring and participating in felonious registration and facilitation of
voting by illegal aliens and aliens in general beginning in California no later than with
implementation of the NVRA Motor voter registered voters there and elsewhere; and alleges
corporations are actually billing the Federal treasury for grant money to do such crimes.
133. I did not have enough detail to include specifics of the enterprise in 1996 in the
proposed RICO Statement other than general reports by press and journalists.
134. As such the fortuitous response by Mr. Dornan clarifies the chain of events, by
trial, public record and investigation by authorities to meet the requirement of civil RICO now
on-going with HAVA False Billing as relates to felonious facilitation of aliens and illegal aliens
to participate in state and federal elections.
135. Participation in such fraud on a large scale with facilitation and protection under
public officers and the media control, that predicates done openly with impunity is fraud that has
both nullified and offset U.S. Citizens suffrage and autonomy and or expectation of an effective
participation on a targeted basis and
136. that now with HAVA nearly in place the rush by seditious public officials for
imposing the American Union without borders is so mature, that I am willing to allege with
certainty that the HAVA battle to arrest state control over suffrage is actually drawn upon
elimination of national and state border lines under secret agreements entered unilaterally by Mr.
Bush as done with the Dubai secret deals, now has created a new American Union eliminating
borders between the U.S.A. with Mexico to the south and Canada to the North.
137. My perception of what is happening before our eyes has become so mainstream
Strunk’
that to characterize an interpretation of Help AMERICA to Vote Act is to literally be just what it
says. To help Americans without regard to nationality as a borderless regional component
known as North America and Central America including the USA Canada and Mexico to vote as
if U.S. Citizens were nation less, and rather than to be known as “

Help U.S. Citizens Vote Act”
.
138. Based upon the Arizona Proposition 200 battles between Arizona and the EAC
and DOJ, there are other states that have awakened to the matter too not joined herein.
139. Arizona wants to ask anyone to prove U.S. Citizenship before registering and
voting accordingly and the EAC considers it somehow violates “

the Help America to Vote Act”
as if the American Union crowd includes Mr. Wilkey- by not considering US Citizens only.
140. It is that simple. The entire border control effort by concerned US Citizens trying
to protect U.S.A. sovereignty has run a snag with Mr. Bush’

s one-world corporate friends, who
would be properly termed the universal golf and country club set.
141. There are very wealthy groups who collectively control and operator without need
or want of borders, and as such operate globally as if they do not exist or should be eradicated.
142. The U.S.A. and states borders within for protection of US. Citizens are
recognition of each citizen’

s individual rights that come from a god not of flesh and blood
governments, principalities and princes, separate from tyranny of the majority.
143. As in the union organizing song one must ask. Which side are you on? National
borders under a constitutional republic which protects individual rights separate from those of
the majority because they come from a god or as the Demoncans / Republicrats or Monopolistic
duopoly operating like the fabled wizard of OZ / 1984 big brother insisting all the while that we
have a Constitutional Democracy with not only majority rule where only government determines
what individual rights are. Because since the efforts of sedition since the sixties, god is deemed
Strunk’
dead and as such so would the utility of the U.S. Constitution and Union as well –is that simple.
144. Mr. Dornan has expressed to me in several phone conversations startling proof
meeting federal rules of evidence that involves Newt Gingrich, Thomas Foley, and various other
duopoly members of Congress that have until now facilitated illegals and the alien vote.
Remarkably as with any high crime, misdemeanor, bribery are certainly the most seditious acts.
145. However, the crime of treason is the worst crime expression of treachery in the
U.S. Constitution; it seems without a statute of limitation per se.
146. Mr. Dornan has convinced me by numerous phone conversations that the
corroborating evidence available in the public record including at the Immigration Naturalization
Service now known as I.C.E., the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, makes the proposed
RICO statement solid, and spans racketeering enterprise activity from 1993 under NVRA
through to the present HAVA alleged false claims on both state level national and international
level and as such Mr. Dornan issued a letter for me to serve accordingly, a copy herewith marked
EXHIBIT D-2.
147. The Press has reported the influence of aliens upon the on-going effects of
districting in Texas in a Washington Times Article entitled Washington Times: Fallout felt
from Texas redistricting ruling by Hugh Aynesworthy who reports, a copy herewith marked
EXHIBIT D-3 ; and
148. In the matter of the on-going invasion of aliens in California and the efforts to
provide suffrage there as was done from 1993 onward through the disenfranchisement proven in
the Dornan 1996 Election debacle, a 7 July 2006 Reuters News article entitled Powerful Latino
DJs to Mount Immigrant Voter Drive reports on the matter still being done for nearly fifteen
years with impunity, a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT D -4.
Strunk’
EXHIBIT A-1
EXHIBIT A-1
Strunk’
EXHIBIT B-1
EXHIBIT B-1
Strunk’
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.
Strunk’
"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’
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’
EXHIBIT D-1
EXHIBIT D-1
Strunk’
EXHIBIT D-2
EXHIBIT D-2
Strunk’
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’
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’
UNITED STATES COURT OF' APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
CIML APPEAL TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION (FORM D)
NOTlCE TO COUNSEL: COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT MUST FLLE 'THE ORIGINAL OF THIS FORM WITH 'THE CLERK
OF THE SECOND ClRCUlT IN ALL ClVlL APPEALS WlTHlN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL.
T H S SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

a
CASE T I T I .I?, nIRTRICT M C K F , T NIlMRF,R

FORJONE ET AL. V. THE WDNY and NDNY 06-cv-0080A and 06-CV-1002
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL JUDGE APPELLANT
RICHARD J. ARCARPI and LAWRENCE E. WHiu FGRJONE !STRUNK
COURT REPORTER COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
SELFREPRESENTED
.
Check the applicable provision:
U I am ordering a transcript.
PROVLDE A DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING DATES, OF THE PROCEEDiNGS FOR
WHICH A TRANSCRIPT IS REQUIRED (i.e., oral argument, order from the bench, etc.)
1am m t ortiering a transcript
Reason for not ordering a transcript:

n
I THERE WAS NO ORAL ARGUMENT IN DISTRICT
Copy is already available I
-- -
MSTRUCTlONS TO COURT REPORTER. DELLVER TRANSCRIPT TO: (COUNSEL'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE)
[7PREPARE TRANSCRIPT OF WHEN ORAL ARGUMENT OCCURS A TRANSCRIPT WILL
fRE-TRLit fiZGCEEDX74GS BE REQU!RED
me~*llerrnscmo~~RU\i
(3 PREPARE TRANSCRIPT OF
OTHER POST-TRLAL PROCEEDlNCS
(Spcrib i. ,pa\.r jcbn):
I COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This d o n b to be fompleted by the court nporter. Return ow c ~ p to

y the Clerk of the Second Chrmit
I
DATE ORDER RECEIVED ESMMATED COMPLETION DATE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PAGES
SIGNATURE OF COURT REPORTED DATE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
CI%XAFPEBL P n n i - ~ G ~ T v E XSTATE3BNT
T (FORM C)
1. SEE NOTICE ON REVERSE. 2. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT. 3. STAPLE ALL ADDITIONAL PAGES
Casc Caption: District Court or Agency: Judge:

FORJONE ET AL V. THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ET AL WDNY and NDNY R-J.-adUWRENCEE.w
L
.
Date the Order or Judgment Appealed District Court Docket No.:
from was E n t a d on the Docket:
NDNY 06-cv-1002 and
8114/06 and 211 911 0 WDNY m-0080~
Date the Notice of Appeal was Filed: Is this a Cross Appeal?
3108110 es NO
Attorne!y(s) for c0uase.l'~Name: Addfew TelephoneNo.: Fax No.: E-mail:
John J. Forjone Self-represented 141 Hams Ave. Lake Luzeme NY 12846
845-721-7673 :johnforjone@yahoo.com
Christopher-Earl: Strunk self represented 593 Vanderbilt Ave #281 Brooklyn NY 11238
845-901-6767 chris@strunk.ws
Attorney(s) for Counsel'sN a k Address: TelephoneNo.: Fax No.: E-mail:

Appellee(s):
7~laintiff
l~ekndant
Has Transaipt Appnn Number of N m h r of Has this matter been before this C i t previously? D
e
s m0
.
Been Prepared? Transcript Exhibits
Pages: Appended to If Yes, provide the following:
NO Oral Traasaipt:
Argument CaseName:
NIA
2d Cir. Docket No.: Reporter Citation: (ie., F.3d or Fed. App.)
10-822-c~
ADDENDUM -Aw: COONSEL MUST ATTACH TO THIS FORM: (1)A BRIEF, BUT NOT PERFUNCTORY, DESCRPTION OF THE
NAnmE OF THE ACTION; (2) THE RESULT BEUIW, (3) A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND A CURRENT COPY OF
THE LOWER COURT DOCKET SHEET; AND (4) A COPY OF ALL RELEVANT OPINIONWORDERSFORMING THE BASIS FOR
TEUS APPEAL, INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF ORDERS ISSUED FROM THE BENCFI OR IN CEAMBERS.
' 1": COUNSEL MUST ATTACH TO THIS FORM A LIST OF THE ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL,
ADDENDUM 1
AS WELL AS TEE APPLICABLE APPELLATE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR EACH PROPOSED ISSUE.
PART A: JURISDICTION
1. Federal Jurisdiction 2. Appellate Jurisdiction
U.S. a p.. m~ivemity Final Decision order Certified by District Judge (i.e.,
federal question InterlocutoryDecision
(U.S. not a party)
01her (specify):
~tafseecbon~awc130
I
Appealable As of Right 0 Other (specify):
I
PART B: DISTRICT COURT DISPOSITION (Check as many as apply)
1. S ~ o f ~ 2. Tme of Jud~mmt/OrderAppealed 3. Relief

~efaultjudgmat
Dii~lrrisdiclion
~udgmeatI Decision
of the Court
lam: ~~nj~mctions:
DismisseVmerit Jury verdict Sought: S lzhliminery

Judgnwnt NOV Granted: S permanent
Denied: S hied
Communications Freedom of Informstion Act Admiralty/ [1A*l@l Civil Right8

Maritime Habeas Corpus
EUE
Defiunation
himtion Mandamus
FELA
Soc.Security Products Liability
Environmental Other (Specify): egotiable
Instruments
~orfei~enelty Attorney Disqualification
R Real Ropaty Class Action Will appeal raise a matts of first

T-ty (specify): Counsel Fees impression?
Other (specify): Shareholder M v a t i v e
Tmncfi-r
1. Is any matter relative to this appeal still pending
2. To your k~wledge,is there any case presentiy pending or about to be brought before this Court or another court or athhktmtive agency
which:
(A) Arises h m substantiallythe same case or controversy as this appeal? 0.a NO
Involves an issue that is subsbmtidly similar or related to an issue in this appeal? 0 . m
If yes, state whether~A,''ora"~," are applicable, and provide in the spaces below the following inforumtion on the oiher action(s):
Case Name: Docket No. , Citation: colnt or Agency:
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Once you have filed your Notice of Appenl with the District Court or the '1'- Court, you have only 14 days in which to complete the following
important step:
1. Lomplete t h ~ Uvll
s Appeal he-Argument Statement (bonn C); serve it upon all W e s , and file the o r i p a l wlth the Clerk of the Second Cmwt.
2. File the original of the Court of Appeals Transcript InformationKivil Appeal Form (Form D)with the Clerk of the Second Circuit.
3. Yay the $455 docketmg fee to the Clerk of the United States D~smctCourt unless you are authorized to prosecute the appeal wthout payment
PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY WITH THESE REQUJREMENTS WITFUN 14 DAYS, YOUR APPEAL WELL BE
DlSMWSED. SEE LOCAL, RULE 12.1.
. Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document I35 ,&
F ~ & ? l p I y l o @ g ~ ~Sfi~66~3
u.S. DISTRICT COURT

UNITED
STATESDISTRICT
COURT N.D. OF N.Y.
FILED
for the
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MAR 0 8 2010
$,WRENCE K. BAERMAN. CLERK
ALBANY
PIaintifSs) )
1
v. )
) Case No. 1:06-CV-1002 (LEK/RFT)
STA'IE OF CALIFORNIA, etal, 1
1
Defendant@) )
fl Yl4 E m NOTICE OF APPEAL

AND sm i?(-e*
C{+LCI @ fb,
Notice is heaeby given that J o b p J Fojone4h
~ the above n d case hexeby appeals -.
Y
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the ftnal judgment, order and
. .
~
I)lsnrssalin all interlocutory and final orders firom each and every part thereof entered in this
action on February 19,2010 by USDJ Khan. I here by Appeal all interlocutory and thal orders
from each and every part thereof in the Final Order Filed February 19,2010.
Date: March 4,2010
Lake Luzerne, New York

12846
email johnforjone@yahoo.com
585-72 1-7673
Dated: March 15 2010

Brooklyn, New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281
Brooklyn New York 1 1238
Phone: (845) 90 1-6767
NATURE OF APPEAL FROM THE
INTERLOCUTORY AND FINAL ORDERS
1. Appeal from the interlocutory Order of Richard J. Arcara of the WDNY
case 06-cv-0080A erred in the change of Venue to NDNY - is unsupported in that
there are not plaintiffs from NDNY.
2.That the Order of Lawrence E, Kahn of the NDNY case 06-cv-1002 erred
in regards to service of the Complaint and Amended Complaint.
3. That Plaintiffs who are property owners suffered unequal protection of
their 5th Amendment property rights by a taking along with a 1st , 9th and 10th
Amendment injury under color of the 1991 “Copenhagen Declaration” on
International Standards of Elections associated with the OSCE ( 1 ) created after the
1
The 1973 / 1975 Helsinki Accords under the auspices of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization) in combination with the 1966 Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued
by the United Nations, is being utilized to modify suffrage here in New York and each state
of the several states and territories of the United States.
The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was adopted by a summit meeting of most
European governments in addition to those of Canada, the United States and the Asian
countries of the former Soviet Union, in Paris on 21 November 1990.
The Charter of Paris was established on the foundation of the Helsinki Accords, and was
further amended in the 1999 Charter for European Security. Together, these documents form
the agreed basis for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is an international
organization for security; in its region, OSCE is concerned with early warning, conflict
prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has 55 participating states from
Europe, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Central Asia and North America, with agents
operating with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and whose Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights is the oldest OSCE institution, established in 1990.
1
OSCE is based in Warsaw, Poland, and is active throughout the OSCE area in the fields
of election observation, democratic development, human rights, tolerance and non-
discrimination, and rule of law.
OSCE/ODIHR has observed over 150 elections and referenda since 1995, sending more than
15,000 observers.
OSCE/ODIHR has operated outside its own area more than once. Notably a 43-member
OSCE team offered technical support for the October 9, 2004 presidential election in
Afghanistan, as well as with multiple inspection teams inside the United States.
The 1991 “Copenhagen Declaration” on International Standards of Elections associated
with the OSCE created after the so-called collapse of the USSR (actually seen as a shift in
war by alternative means) follows the script of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe that
adopts the Helsinki Accords’ human rights goals ratified by the U.S. Senate except for those
Copenhagen Declaration articles that are not self actuating and unenforceable unless adopted
by each of the several states in suffrage matters.
The unenforceability of the Copenhagen Declaration entered by President George H.W.
Bush and the Federal Executive in 1990 requires that of 53 Articles the first 27 Articles are
not self-actuating, because nearly exclusively the 50 States who are not party to the treaty
per se individually in each state legislatures in the name of the people within control suffrage.
Under the Federal Constitution Article I Sections 1, 4, 8-18, Article II Section 1-4,
Article IV, Article V, Article VI, Article VII limits the power of Congress in keeping with
the spirit of the Copenhagen Declaration as an Extension of the CSCE Helsinki Accords now
OSCE with its overt arm interfering with elections known as the Office Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights, under the NVRA and HAVA empowers the Federal Judiciary
to hear specific grievance under 42 USC 1973gg.
In 1993 the National Voter Registration Act “Motor Voter” “Registration by Mail” was
enacted as a self-fulfilling design by Congress to circumvent state sovereign control over
suffrage and create a central voter registration data base for those states maintaining such and
nationally supposedly to prevent the ongoing interstate and intrastate abuse of “One Person
One vote”, and thereby a “real time” state central data base in every state and nationally
breaks the status quo.
Enactment of NVRA is adopted from the language of the Copenhagen Declaration despite
the non-self actuating aspects, nevertheless mandates state compliance without an
amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The Nov. 21, 1995 Dayton Accords were created as an extension of the Helsinki Accords
and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, that brought forth Copenhagen and NVRA;
That the Dayton Accords are an social engineering experiment intended to afford
suffrage to otherwise questionable transient persons deemed resident in the New state (Bosnia
Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia) therein requiring provisional voting at a general
election, which has since been adopted by HAVA;
The September 2005 report by the American University Commission on Federal Election
Reform and Center for Democracy & Election Management whose Co-Chairmen James E
Carte and James Baker III report on the public confidence in the election system in Section II
for Voter Registration and Identification state quote that “under the National Voter
Registration Act, names are often added to the list, but counties and municipalities often do
not delete the names of those who moved.. Inflated voter lists are also caused by phony
2
so-called collapse of the USSR (actually seen as a shift in war by alternative
means) follows the script of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe that adopts the
Helsinki Accords’ human rights goals ratified by the U.S. Senate except for those
Copenhagen Declaration articles that are not self actuating and unenforceable
unless adopted by each of the several states in suffrage matters, whereas by
misapplication and mis-administration of the VRA provisions for reimbursement
of each state under color of the October 29, 2002 Congress enacted Help America
to Vote Act (“HAVA”), P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 as a questionable mandate
under Article 1 Section 4 to carry forward the state by state requirement for a
central voter databases that was to be done by January 1, 2006 for the November
2006 national elections, with final system operations due in 2008; and
4. That as an enticement for cooperation of the southwest border states
Congress created an overly broad HAVA reimbursement formula based upon
“Voting Age Population” (VAP) and by vagueness and cynical interpretation
would include all persons enumerated in the 2000 Census who are 18 years of age
and older whether citizens or not, rather than “Citizens Voting Age Population”
registrations and efforts to register individuals who are ineligible…. At the same time,
inaccurate purges of voter lists have removed citizens who are eligible and are properly
registered. …[T]he quality of voter registration lists probably varies widely by state. Without
quality assurance, however, cross-state transfers of voter data may suffer from the problem of
’garbage in, garbage out’…”
3
(CVAP) that does not include non-citizens, the civilly dead and those U.S. Citizens
otherwise not entitled to register to vote.
5. That in New York Plaintiffs along with those similarly situated as
property owners unlike the New York City Plaintiff as an equal protection issue
that does not operate under EL 4-138 financing of Elections, have bottom-up
suffrage in supposedly Homerule municipalities with a BOE within that is to
maintain the original voting records, and each such municipality outside the city of
New York provide funds for expense of all elections by a real property tax levy
under EL §4-138 adversely effect and fall upon real property owners as an equal
protection issue.
6. That nowhere in the United States does a non-citizen have a civil right to
vote in any Federal Election at the state level and therefore VAP must only be
defined as CVAP.
7. That in New York only those U.S. Citizens who are registered to vote are
used for reimbursement under HAVA; in that New York is not interested in those
citizens who are not registered- e.g. no non-citizen is of voting age or those who
have not registered to vote.
8. That the States of CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW
MEXICO, TEXAS, OREGON all require that only US Citizens be allowed to vote
would violate their own state constitutions and election laws by using VAP under
4
the broad definition used by Congress to raid the US Treasury of HAVA Funds
disproportionately from New York and other states with less non-citizens or
otherwise more honest in filing for HAVA certification and funds.
5
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.,
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 -
share of election-related funding and allows people to register in more than one location. In the Fifth II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Cause of Action, Plaintiffs allege that the “Defendant New York State Municipal subdivisions . . . To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint
intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal by must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
municipal bases as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and New York State Election Law.” face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Plaintiffs allege that, if other states properly claimed HAVA funds, more funds would be available to Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)). When considering a motion to dismiss
the State of New York and, as a result, New York municipalities would not have to increase property pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must accept the factual allegations made by the non-moving
taxes to cover election-related expenses. The Sixth Cause of Action alleges that the States of party as true and “draw all inferences in the light most favorable” to the non-moving party. In re
California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states “intentionally fail to NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, 503 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2007). “The movant's burden is very
maintain an accurate voter registration database” as required by federal and state law. substantial, as ‘[t]he issue is not whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail ultimately, but whether the
Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, “voting is being rapidly undermined by claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.’” Log On America, Inc. v. Promethean
illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens,” the strength of their votes is being diluted, their right to Asset Mgmt. L.L.C., 223 F. Supp. 2d 435, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of
free speech and freedom of association is being infringed, their “suffrage rights” are being Educ., 69 F.3d 669, 673 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citations omitted)). With this standard
“disenfranchise[d] . . . by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs [sic] proprietary in mind, the Court will address the pending Motions to dismiss.
tangible suffrage property,” they are suffering “reverse discrimination,” they are being deprived of a III. DISCUSSION
republican form of government, they are being denied substantive due process and are being subjected a. Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order
to a taking of property for the “unfunded mandate as done under the Medicaid tax levy without notice By Order dated March 28, 2006, the Western District of New York directed Plaintiffs to file
and segregation of the election costs on real property tax levy,” and they are being deprived of an amended complaint complying with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 on or before May 1,
“Homerule autonomy” and equal protection of the law against false HAVA claims. 2006. See Dkt. No. 24. The March 28 Order specifically warned that “in the event plaintiffs fail to file
Presently before the Court are various Motions to dismiss the Complaint and Amended Complaint. an amended complaint as directed above by May 1, 2006, the complaint shall be dismissed with
Although Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an enlarged, consolidated brief in opposition to the prejudice without further order of the Court.” Id. To date, despite having ample time to do so,
motions, they have failed 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
- 4 - - 5 -
failed to comply with the Court’s prior order by filing an amended complaint this action must be Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint on the
DISMISSED. ground that Plaintiffs lack standing.2 Article III, § 2, cl. 1 of the Constitution extends the judicial
b. Failure to Comply with Rules 8 and 10 power only to actual “cases” or “controversies.” The doctrine of standing preforms a critical role in
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to contain a “short assuring the limits to judicial power imposed by this case-or-controversy requirement. See Allen v.
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” As noted, Plaintiff’s Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). “‘In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is
were directed by the Court to submit an amended pleading that complies with the requirements of entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.’” Id. at 750-51
Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiffs were specifically advised of the deficiencies in their Complaint, instructed (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).
how to remedy the deficiencies, and given the opportunity to remedy the defects. Plaintiffs also were Three elements form the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” Lujan v.
warned of the consequences of failing to file a proper complaint. Notwithstanding the numerous Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). These are:
motions attacking the original Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint as failing to comply with 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
Rule 8 and the Court’s prior admonition, to date (several years later), Plaintiffs have made no effort to ‘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,
submit a coherent, streamlined complaint. Rather than adhering to the Court’s warning and the dictates 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
of Rule 8(a)(2), Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Amended Complaint that is even longer and more favorable decision.”
convoluted than the original filing. It continues to contain an abundance of irrelevant and otherwise Id. at 560-61 (internal citations omitted). In applying these conditions, the Supreme Court has noted
immaterial matters and unnecessary detail, including lengthy excerpts from articles and references to that where a plaintiff is challenging government action or inaction, and “the plaintiff is not himself the
irrelevant treaties. In most instances the proposed Amended Complaint fails to allege how the named object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily
Defendants harmed them. Further, the length and prolixity of the proposed Amended Complaint places ‘substantially more difficult’ to establish.” Id. at 562 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 758).
an unnecessary and unjustified burden on the Court and the numerous Defendants who have to respond The allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint consistently fail to allege any
to it. See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). For these reasons, all Motions to concrete harm personally suffered by Plaintiffs or explain how such harm could be traceable to the
dismiss are GRANTED and this matter DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants. Throughout their twelve causes of action, Plaintiffs allege non-particularized injuries and
c. Standing
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.
- 6 - - 7 -
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 -
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in re Appeal 10-822-cv
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On April 28, 2010 and under penalty of perjury, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, caused the service of
twenty-five (25) complete sets of the Civil Appeal Form D, Civil Appeal Pre-Argument Statement
Form C with a copy of the NOA, statement of Nature of Appeal, Order to Change Venue and Final
Order annexed with each set sealed in a properly addressed envelope with proper postage for delivery
by regular mail by the US Postal Service upon Defendants’ Counsels:
Mary Pat Fleming , Esq. Thomas J. Cawley, Esq.
U.S. Attorney's Office Federal Centre Aaron J. Marcus , Esq. Sullivan County Dept of Law County
138 Delaware Avenue Broome Cty Atty's Office Gov Center 100 North St , POB 5012
Buffalo, NY 14202 44 Hawley Street POB 1766 Monticello, NY 12701
Binghamton, NY 13902
Peter B. Sullivan, Esq. Aven Rennie, Esq.
NY State Attorney General Michael G. Reinhardt, Esq. Mcgavern, Mcgavern & Grimm, LLP
107 Delaware Avenue Fl 4 Ontario County Attorney's Office 1100 Rand Building
Buffalo, NY 14202 27 North Main Street -4th Floor 14 Lafayette Square
Canandaigua, NY 14424-1447 Buffalo,, NY 14203
David W. Kloss , Esq.
Kloss & Stenger John V. Hartzell , Esq. Stephen M. Sorrels , Esq.
69 Delaware Ave Ste 1003 Jefferson County Attorney's Office Feldman, Kiefer & Herman, LLP
Buffalo, NY 14202 175 Arsenal Street 110 Pearl Street - Suite 400
Watertown, NY 13601 Buffalo, NY 14202
Jeremy A. Colby , Esq.
Webster Szanyi, LLP Alan R. Peterman, Esq. Joshua J. Hicks Sr. Deputy Attorney
1400 Liberty Bldg. Hiscock & Barclay, LLP General Civil Division
Buffalo, NY 14202 One Park Place 300 South State 100 North Carson Street
Street P.O. Box 4878 Carson City, NV. 89701-4717
Joseph F. Reina , Esq. Syracuse, NY 13221-4878
Erie County Dept. of Law Eric J. Wilson , Esq.
69 Delaware Ave. - Ste 300 Tina M. Wayland-Smith , Esq. Assistant Attorney General the
Buffalo, NY 14202 Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC State of Oregon Dept. of Justice
60 East State Street 1162 Court Street NE Salem,
Michael E. Davis , Esq. Sherrill, NY 13461 Oregon 97301-4096
Monroe Cty Dept. of Law
39 West Main St., Rm 307 Francine A. Chavez , Esq. Jerry Brown Attorney General
Rochester, NY 14614 NM Attorney General's Office Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508 1300 "I" Street P.O. Box 944255
Michael P. McCarthv Esq. Santa Fe, NM 87504 Sacramento, CA 94244-255 26
Onondaga Cty Dept of Law
John H. Mulroy Civic Cntr Wylie E. Kumler , Esq. Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr. Esq.
421 Montgomery St., FL 10 Office of Attorney General of Texas Assistant County Attorney-
Syracuse, NY 13202 300 W. 15th Street - Suite 1100 Suffolk County Attorney’s Office
Austin, TX 78701 H. Lee Dennison Bldg.
Thomas Simeti , Esq. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway
Rockland Cty, Dept. of Law Diana L. Varela , Esq. P.O. Box 6100
11 New Hempstead Road Assistant Attorney General Attorney Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099
New City, NY 10956 for State of Arizona
1275 West Washington Phoenix, Ester Miller, Esq., Assist Cty Atty.
Carol Fumanti Arcuri, Esq. Arizona 85007-2926 Nassau County Attorney’s Office
Office of Westchester Cty Attorney 1 West Street
148 Martine Ave. Fl 6 - Rm 600 Mineola, NY 11501
White Plains, NY 10601
I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury:
Dated: April ____, 2010 -

Brooklyn, New York _________________________
Christopher –Earl: Strunk in esse

OSC W Amended Complaint and CIVIL RICO Statement W-Response To NYS MTD WDNY 06-Cv-0080 Preliminary Statement 10 822

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OSC W Amended Complaint and CIVIL RICO Statement W-Response To NYS MTD WDNY 06-Cv-0080 Preliminary Statement 10 822

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Amended Complaint Page 1 of 62

totaling FIFTY-FIVE (55).

Amended Complaint Page 2 of 62

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

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;

Preliminary Injunction with significant elements effected by redistricting, Strunk was

denied intervention status.

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

Amended Complaint Page 3 of 62

U.S. Citizens entitled and or duly registered voters as “

Amended Complaint Page 4 of 62

Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide (“

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

Consolidated Law Chapter 6 Article 5A (CRL) with twenty or more members.

10. The United States ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (“EAC“),

566-3127 E-mail Address HAVAinfo@eac.gov by the THOMAS R. WILKEY as the EAC

11. The United States Department of Justice by ALBERTO GONZALEZ is the

Amended Complaint Page 5 of 62

known as “ , and Collectively as “

Amended Complaint Page 6 of 62

Democratic Party chief law enforcement officer (“ ,“

serves at the pleasure of Governor (“ ,“

Boards of Elections within, safeguards all records for New York;

Albany, New York 12207-2109.

Amended Complaint Page 7 of 62

Legislature for protection of the People’

within ERIE, MONROE, ONONDAGA, ALBANY, DUTCHESS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND,

WESTCHESTER, NASSAU, SUFFOLK:

Amended Complaint Page 8 of 62

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

FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN:

Amended Complaint Page 10 of 62

Amended Complaint Page 11 of 62

18. MARTY MARKOWITZ, the natural person Borough President of Brooklyn,

autonomy for US Citizens resident within Brooklyn; (“ ,“

Amended Complaint Page 12 of 62

state of the several states and territories of the United States.

of the former Soviet Union, in Paris on 21 November 1990.

22. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is an

conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.

discrimination, and rule of law.

more than 15,000 observers.

Amended Complaint Page 13 of 62

each of the several states in suffrage matters.

28. The unenforceability of the Copenhagen Declaration entered by President George

Federal Judiciary to hear specific grievance under 42 USC 1973gg.

30. In 1993 the National Voter Registration Act “

nationally supposedly to prevent the ongoing interstate and intrastate abuse of “

amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Amended Complaint Page 14 of 62

which has since been adopted by HAVA;

2002 Congress enacted Help America to Vote Act (“