Please time stamp below.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 2ND CIRCUIT

NIGHT DEPOSITORY

-
OPEN 4:30 P.M. 8:30 A.M. EACH BUSINESS DAY
OPEN 24 HOURS ON SATURDAY, SUNDAY & HOLIDAYS

..
Please complete the following information:

(1)Stamp (dateltime) this form and affix original form to each package
deposited and/or each box left for filing.
(2) Stamp (dateltime) the o r i ~ i n aof
l each documentfbrief submitted.

Case Title (short title) PMC L / $ w C a s e Number:

Contents: Briefs (original + 9 copies)

O AppendicesITranscript Volumes (10 copies) -..~.

,:-,,
. . P-J
L
-
A

/A
3

Motions (T-1080 form + affidavit (original + 4 copit$ 3

.-
"
.:a
CJ Other (Please identify): cn
i-4

-
!T1
2 --*-

- (original + copies)=-. 3
iz
-. W
Proof of service must be attached (original only) .- a

Documents will be deemed filed on the business day they a r e dateltime stamped, o r
on the next business day if datehime stamped on .a Saturday, Sunday or Federal
Holiday. Documents dateltime stamped after the date they a r e due must be
accompanied by a motion for permission to file out of time. The correct number of .
copies of all documents must be included. .

FAILURE TO INCLUDE THIS FORM OR COMPLY WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS

REGARDING ANY DOCUMENT MAY UNDULY DELAY ITS FILING.
Date: By:
 APPELLANT STRUNK'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE TlO8O
CROSS MOTION FOR THE NEW YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS
CERTIFICATION OF COMPELLING STATE ISSUES OF FIRST
IMPRESSION WITH LOCAL RULE 9.27 AS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
WITH IRREPARABLE HARM IN RESPONSE TO APPELLEES
REQUEST TO THE CLERK IN THE TRANSITION TO NEW LOCAL
RULES FOR A DISCRETIONARY 120 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE THE APPELLEES RESPONSE IN APPEAL CASE 08-4323-CV
-
r-J
I, Christopher-Earl: Stnmk in esse, state under penalty of perjury w i g 2 8 3 s 23
~
+
fi9

1. Declarant is the AppellantPetitioner herein Appeal Case Loebe? ef a1.8 <

4 m
Spargo et at. 08-4323-cv, and with place for service at 593 ~anderb&A*nM

#281 Brooklyn, New York 11238.

2. Declarant files this declaration in support of the T 1080 cross motion for the

New York State Court of Appeals of compelling State issues of fist impression

with Local Rule 4.27 (I) as time is of the essence with irreparable harm in response

to Appellees request to the clerk "the transition to the new local rules" for a

discretionary 120 day extension of time to file the Appellees response in appeal

' 80.27. Certification of Questions of State Law - Where authorized by state law,
this Court may certIrj, to the highest court of a state an unsettled and significant
question of state law that will control the outcome of a case p d i h g before this
Court. Such certification may be made by this Court sua sponte or on motion of a
party filed with the clerk of this Court. Certification will be in accordance with the
procedures provided by the state's legislature or highest state court rules, e.g. Corn.
Public Act No. 85-111;New York Court of Appeals Rule 500.7. Certification may
stay the proceedings in this Court pending the state court's decision whether to
accept the certification and its decision of the certified question.
case 08-4323-cv.

3. After January 11, 2010, Declarant received a request from State Appellees

counsel Andrew B. Ayers Assistant Solicitor Counsel of the State of New York

Office of the Attorney General for 120 day extension of time to file an Appellees

brief (See Exhibit 1); and that other than the Federal and City of New York

Appellees Counsels appearance it appears neither have requested such extension.

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

John-Joseph: Forjone in esse who are all members of THE AD HOC NYS (New

York State) CITIZENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE

REDISTRICTING, an un-incorporated membership association of Plaintiffs, and

each has made a Declaration in support of this Cross Motion as neither oppose this

motion.

5. In fact, Appellant Forjone has provided Declarant with a support declaration

herewith as has Appellant Van Allen also appended herewith.

6. That Declarant acknowledges that Mr. Forjone is a co-plaintiff in the related

Case Forjone et al. v. the State of California et al. in the NDNY 06-cv-1002

(LEK) with an application shown as Exhibit 2 before the Honorable District Judge

Richard J. Leon for partial severance of issues and notice of a 28 USC §1407

multi-district litigation matter related to Strunk v. The US DOC Bureau of the

Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295 with a pending motion for a 28 USC §2284 three-

-2-
judge panel there, and in which the outcome here would directly effect as matter of

Compelling State interest there in regards to the on-going 2010 Census

Enumeration matter before that court; and that time is of the essence with

irreparable harm in that the questionnaire being challenged there is mailed by

March 15, 2010 for the April 2010 deadline for the enumeration that has an

overwhelming Decade long impact upon New York within each State-Sub-division

for setting each debt ceiling (2), redistricting (3), elections, government employment

2
NYSC ARTICLE VIII for Local Finances [Gift or loan of property or
credit of local subdivisions prohibited; exceptions for enumerated purposes]
§4. [Limitations on local indebtedness] (Clause 1 through 4 are added with
emphasis for ease of reference added by Declarant)
Clause 1. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, no county, city,
town, village or school district described in this section shall be allowed to contract
indebtedness for any purpose or in any manner which, including existing
indebtedness, shall exceed an amount equal to the following percentages of the
average full valuation of taxable real estate of such county, city, town, village or
school district:
(a) the county of Nassau, for county purposes, ten per centum;
(b) any county, other than the county of Nassau, for county purposes, seven
per centum;
(c) the city of New York, for city purposes, ten per centum;
(d) any city, other than the city of New York, having one hundred twenty-
five thousand or more inhabitants according to the latest federal census, for city
purposes, nine per centum;
e) any city having less than one hundred twenty-five thousand inhabitants
according to the latest federal census, for city purposes, excluding education
purposes, seven per centum;
(f) any town, for town purposes, seven per centum;
(g) any village for village purposes, seven per centum; and
(h) any school district which is coterminous with, or partly within, or wholly
within, a city having less than one hundred twenty-five thousand inhabitants
according to the latest federal census, for education purposes, five per centum;

-3-
provided, however, that such limitation may be increased in relation to
indebtedness for specified objects or purposes with (1) the approving vote of sixty
per centum or more of the duly qualified voters of such school district voting on a
proposition therefor submitted at a general or special election, (2) the consent of
The Regents of the University of the State of New York and (3) the consent of the
state comptroller. The legislature shall prescribe by law the qualifications for
voting at any such election. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, any
indebtedness contracted in excess of the respective limitations prescribed in this
section shall be void.
Clause 2. In ascertaining the power of any city having less than one hundred
twenty-five thousand inhabitants according to the latest federal census to contract
indebtedness, indebtedness heretofore contracted by such city for education
purposes shall be excluded. Such indebtedness so excluded shall be included in
ascertaining the power of a school district which is coterminous with, or partly
within, or wholly within, such city to contract indebtedness. The legislature shall
prescribe by law the manner by which the amount of such indebtedness shall be
determined and allocated among such school districts. Such law may provide that
such determinations and allocations shall be conclusive if made or approved by the
state comptroller.
Clause 3. In ascertaining the power of a school district described in this
section to contract indebtedness, certificates or other evidences of indebtedness
described in paragraph A of section five of this article shall be excluded.
Clause 4. The average full valuation of taxable real estate of any such
county, city, town, village or school district shall be determined in the manner
prescribed in section ten of this article. Nothing contained in this section shall be
deemed to restrict the powers granted to the legislature by other provisions of this
constitution to further restrict the powers of any county, city, town, village or
school district to contract indebtedness. (New. Approved by vote of the people
November 6, 1951. Substituted for §4, derived in part from former §10,
renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by
vote of the people November 8, 1938.) \
NYSC ARTICLE VIII for Local Finances [Application and use of
revenues: certain public improvements] §10-a. For the purpose of determining
the amount of taxes which may be raised on real estate pursuant to section ten of
this article, the revenues received in each fiscal year by any county, city or village
from a public improvement or part thereof, or service, owned or rendered by such
county, city or village for which bonds or capital notes are issued after January
first, nineteen hundred fifty, shall be applied first to the payment of all costs of
operation, maintenance and repairs thereof, and then to the payment of the amounts

-4-
required in such fiscal year to pay the interest on and the amortization of, or
payment of, indebtedness contracted for such public improvement or part thereof,
or service. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit the use of excess
revenues for any lawful county, city or village purpose. The provisions of this
section shall not be applicable to a public improvement or part thereof constructed
to provide for the supply of water. (New section added by amendment approved by
vote of the people November 8, 1949. Amended by vote of the people November
3, 1953.)
NYSC ARTICLE VIII for Local Finances [ Taxes for certain capital
expenditures to be excluded from tax limitation] §11.
(a) Whenever the city of New York is required by law to pay for all or any
part of the cost of capital improvements by direct budgetary appropriation in any
fiscal year or by the issuance of certificates or other evidence of indebtedness
(except serial bonds of an issue having a maximum maturity of more than two
years) to be redeemed in one of the two immediately succeeding fiscal years, taxes
required for such appropriation or for the redemption of such certificates or other
evidence of indebtedness may be excluded in whole or in part by such city from
the tax limitation prescribed by section ten of this article, in which event the total
amount so required for such appropriation and for the redemption of such
certificates or other evidence of indebtedness shall be deemed to be indebtedness
to the same extent and in the same manner as if such amount had been financed
through indebtedness payable in equal annual installments over the period of the
probable usefulness of such capital improvement, as determined by law. The fiscal
officer of such city shall determine the amount to be deemed indebtedness pursuant
to this section, and the legislature, in its discretion, may provide that such
determination, if approved by the state comptroller, shall be conclusive. Any
amounts determined to be deemed indebtedness of any county, city, other than the
city of New York, village or school district in accordance with the provisions of
this section as in force and effect prior to January first, nineteen hundred fifty-two,
shall not be deemed to be indebtedness on and after such date.
(b) Whenever any county, city, other than the city of New York, village or
school district which is coterminous with, or partly within, or wholly within, a city
having less than one hundred twenty-five thousand inhabitants according to the
latest federal census provides by direct budgetary appropriation for any fiscal year
for the payment in such fiscal year or in any future fiscal year or years of all or any
part of the cost of an object or purpose for which a period of probable usefulness
has been determined by law, the taxes required for such appropriation shall be
excluded from the tax limitation prescribed by section ten of this article unless the
legislature otherwise provides. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of

-5-
1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; amended by vote of
the people November 8, 1949, and by vote of the people November 6, 1951.)
3
NYSC Article III Section 5[Apportionment of assemblymen; creation of
assembly districts] (Clause 1 through 12 are added with emphasis added for ease
of reference added by Declarant)
Clause 1. The members of the assembly shall be chosen by single districts
and shall be apportioned by the legislature at each regular session at which the
senate districts are readjusted or altered, and by the same law, among the several
counties of the state, as nearly as may be according to the number of their
respective inhabitants, excluding aliens.
Clause 2. Every county heretofore established and separately organized,
except the county of Hamilton, shall always be entitled to one member of
assembly, and no county shall hereafter be erected unless its population shall
entitle it to a member.
Clause 3. The county of Hamilton shall elect with the county of Fulton, until
the population of the county of Hamilton shall, according to the ratio, entitle it to a
member. But the legislature may abolish the said county of Hamilton and annex
the territory thereof to some other county or counties.
The quotient obtained by dividing the whole number of inhabitants of the state,
excluding aliens, by the number of members of assembly, shall be the ratio for
apportionment, which shall be made as follows:
Clause 4. One member of assembly shall be apportioned to every county,
including Fulton and Hamilton as one county, containing less than the ratio and
one-half over.
Clause 5. Two members shall be apportioned to every other county.
Clause 6. The remaining members of assembly shall be apportioned to the
counties having more than two ratios according to the number of inhabitants,
excluding aliens.
Clause 7. Members apportioned on remainders shall be apportioned to the
counties having the highest remainders in the order thereof respectively.
Clause 8.No county shall have more members of assembly than a county
having a greater number of inhabitants, excluding aliens.
(*The assembly districts, including the present ones, as existing immediately
before the enactment of a law making an apportionment of members of assembly
among the counties, shall continue to be the assembly districts of the state until the
expiration of the terms of members then in office, except for the purpose of an
election of members of assembly for full terms beginning at such expirations. At
present there are 150 assembly districts in accordance with Chapter 1002, Laws of
1983 )

-6-
 Clause 9. In any county entitled to more than one member, the board of
supervisors, and in any city embracing an entire county and having no board of
supervisors, the common council, or if there be none, the body exercising the
powers of a common council, shall assemble at such times as the legislature
making an apportionment shall prescribe, and divide such counties into assembly
districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be,
of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable, each
of which shall be wholly within a senate district formed under the same
apportionment, equal to the number of members of assembly to which such
county shall be entitled, and shall cause to be filed in the office of the secretary of
state and of the clerk of such county, a description of such districts, specifying the
number of each district and of the inhabitants thereof, excluding aliens, according
to the census or enumeration used as the population basis for the formation of such
districts; and such apportionment and districts shall remain unaltered until after
the next reapportionment of members of assembly, except that the board of
supervisors of any county containing a town having more than a ratio of
apportionment and one-half over may alter the assembly districts in a senate
district containing such town at any time on or before March first, nineteen
hundred forty-six.
Clause 10. In counties having more than one senate district, the same
number of assembly districts shall be put in each senate district, unless the
assembly districts cannot be evenly divided among the senate districts of any
county, in which case one more assembly district shall be put in the senate
district in such county having the largest, or one less assembly district shall be
put in the senate district in such county having the smallest number of
inhabitants, excluding aliens, as the case may require.
Clause 11. No town, except a town having more than a ratio of
apportionment and one-half over, and no block in a city enclosed by streets or
public ways, shall be divided in the formation of assembly districts, nor shall any
districts contain a greater excess in population over an adjoining district in the
same senate district, than the population of a town or block therein adjoining such
assembly district. Towns or blocks which, from their location may be included in
either of two districts, shall be so placed as to make said districts most nearly equal
in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens.
Clause 12. Nothing in this section shall prevent the division, at any time, of
counties and towns and the erection of new towns by the legislature.
An apportionment by the legislature, or other body, shall be subject to review by
the supreme court, at the suit of any citizen, under such reasonable regulations as
the legislature may prescribe; and any court before which a cause may be pending

-7-
(4)
, Judicial Elections (5), State and Federal disbursement of matching funds

involving an apportionment, shall give precedence thereto over all other causes and
proceedings, and if said court be not in session it shall convene promptly for the
disposition of the same. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 1945.)
NYSC Article III [Definition of inhabitants] Section §5-a. For the
purpose of apportioning senate and assembly districts pursuant to the foregoing
provisions of this article, the term "inhabitants, excluding aliens" shall mean the
whole number of persons. (New. Added by vote of the people November 4, 1969.)
4
NYSC Article V [Officers and Civil Departments] Section 6 [Civil service
appointments and promotions; veterans' credits]. Appointments and
promotions in the civil service of the state and all of the civil divisions thereof,
including cities and villages, shall be made according to merit and fitness to be
ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination which, as far as practicable, shall
be competitive; provided, however, that any member of the armed forces of the
United States who served therein in time of war, and who, at the time of such
member's appointment or promotion, is a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence in the United States and a resident of this state and is
honorably discharged or released under honorable circumstances from such
service, shall be entitled to receive five points additional credit in a competitive
examination for original appointment and two and one-half points additional credit
in an examination for promotion or, if such member was disabled in the actual
performance of duty in any war, is receiving disability payments therefor from the
United States veterans administration, and his or her disability is certified by such
administration to be in existence at the time of application for appointment or
promotion, he or she shall be entitled to receive ten points additional credit in a
competitive examination for original appointment and five points additional credit
in an examination for promotion. Such additional credit shall be added to the final
earned rating of such member after he or she has qualified in an examination and
shall be granted only at the time of establishment of an eligible list. No such
member shall receive the additional credit granted by this section after he or she
has received one appointment, either original entrance or promotion, from an
eligible list on which he or she was allowed the additional credit granted by this
section. (Formerly §6. Repealed and new section approved by vote of the people
November 8, 1949; further amended by vote of the people November 3, 1964;
November 3, 1987; November 4, 1997; November 7, 2001.)
5
NYSC Article VI Section 6 [Judicial districts; how constituted; supreme
court]. (Clause 1 through 6 are added with emphasis added for ease of reference
added by Declarant)

-8-
 Clause 1. a. The state shall be divided into eleven judicial districts. The first
judicial district shall consist of the counties of Bronx and New York. The second
judicial district shall consist of the counties of Kings and Richmond. The third
judicial district shall consist of the counties of Albany, Columbia, Greene,
Rensselaer, Schoharie, Sullivan, and Ulster. The fourth judicial district shall
consist of the counties of Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery,
St. Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren and Washington. The fifth judicial
district shall consist of the counties of Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida,
Onondaga, and Oswego. The sixth judicial district shall consist of the counties of
Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Madison, Otsego, Schuyler,
Tioga and Tompkins. The seventh judicial district shall consist of the counties of
Cayuga, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne and Yates. The
eighth judicial district shall consist of the counties of Allegany, Cattaraugus,
Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans and Wyoming. The ninth judicial
district shall consist of the counties of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland and
Westchester. The tenth judicial district shall consist of the counties of Nassau and
Suffolk. The eleventh judicial district shall consist of the county of Queens. (Bronx
and Richmond have been added)
Clause 2. b. Once every ten years the legislature may increase or decrease
the number of judicial districts or alter the composition of judicial districts and
thereupon re-apportion the justices to be thereafter elected in the judicial districts
so altered. Each judicial district shall be bounded by county lines.
Clause 3. c. The justices of the supreme court shall be chosen by the electors
of the judicial district in which they are to serve. The terms of justices of the
supreme court shall be fourteen years from and including the first day of January
next after their election.
Clause 4. d. The supreme court is continued. It shall consist of the number of
justices of the supreme court including the justices designated to the appellate
divisions of the supreme court, judges of the county court of the counties of Bronx,
Kings, Queens and Richmond and judges of the court of general sessions of the
county of New York authorized by law on the thirty-first day of August next after
the approval and ratification of this amendment by the people, all of whom shall be
justices of the supreme court for the remainder of their terms.
Clause 5. The legislature may increase the number of justices of the supreme
court in any judicial district, except that the number in any district shall not be
increased to exceed one justice for fifty thousand, or fraction over thirty
thousand, of the population thereof as shown by the last federal census or state
enumeration.
Clause 6. The legislature may decrease the number of justices of the

-9-
generally and or project specific, and that is an equal protection matter that will

widely vary in overall impact for those State Subdivisions outside of New York

City who do not provide sanctuary and illegally harbor and abet undocumented

aliens, tourists, transients, the large diplomatic corps of various countries including

their families at will; and is a matter well defined in the New York State

Constitution as a compelling State interest to be respected and adhered to in the

taking of the Census, that otherwise would become a burden upon the State - that

until now has been flouted by three Oval Office occupants since 2000 and the

April 2002 outrageous Gerrymandering challenged herein.

7. That Declarant in the DCD 08-cv-2234 FOIA matter with a pending decision

of the Quo Warranto Cross Motion as to the injury sustained by the void ab initio

actions of the Usurper Barack Hussein Obama, that include the Usurper’s

misadministration and mis-application of 13 USC §195 and 13 USC §141 conduct

of the 2010 Census enumeration out of the oval office intending on a State by State

basis to use the RICO Enterprise ACORN affiliated Social Justice organizations

and SEIU as a continuing fraudulent action as an act of sedition and for which

Declarant is opposing as an intervener with Notice of Motion petition before

District Judge Nina Gershon in the Case ACORN at al. v USA et al. EDNY 09-cv-

supreme court in any judicial district, except that the number in any district shall
not be less than the number of justices of the supreme court authorized by law on
the effective date of this article.

- 10 -
4888 (See Exhibit 3 with sub-exhibits A through F); and which also impacts the

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

that by this submission the Honorable District Judge Richard J. Leon and

Defendants’ Counsels therein are hereby notified of this Cross Motion for

Certification.

8. Further, Declarant is also the plaintiff in the NYS Election Law § 16-100

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election.

9. Furthermore, in that regard on November 24, 2009 Declarant gave due

notice to Governor Paterson as to the Executive Order #30 (See Exhibit 4) that

was a matter on the record at the appearance before Justice Schmidt for a

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

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

which hearing the New York State Assistant Attorney General Joel Graber stated

on the record that the State court has no jurisdiction over the Census Bureau per se.

- 11 -
 10. The Transcript of the hearing before State Supreme Court Justice David I.

Schmidt was mysteriously lost by the Court Reporter, whose delay for over a

month in producing same on January 21, 2010 was affirmed as to the loss (See

Exhibit 3 sub-exhibit D).

11. In the matter of State Court jurisdiction over the Federal Census, Declarant

contends that the State Court does have jurisdiction because there as a compelling

New York State interest that the Federal Census content must accurately address

with the specific requirements of the State Constitution in use of the Federal

Census, and must include in the questionnaire, “Are you a citizen or a permanent

resident alien?” per se, going out by mail on March 15, 2010 as an issue before

Judge Richard J. Leon in DCD 09-cv-1295; and if not done properly will injure the

People of the State in that. if inaccurate. the State has a duty to perform the Census

mandated by the NYSC Art III Section 4 (6) .The Federal Census must bend to the

NYSC ARTICLE III for the Legislature §4. Readjustments and

reapportionments; when federal census to control. (Clause 1 through 10 are added
with emphasis for ease of reference herein by Declarant)
Clause 1. Except as herein otherwise provided, the federal census taken in
the year nineteen hundred thirty and each federal census taken decennially
thereafter shall be controlling as to the number of inhabitants in the state or any
part thereof for the purposes of the apportionment of members of assembly and
readjustment or alteration of senate and assembly districts next occurring, in so far
as such census and the tabulation thereof purport to give the information necessary
therefor.
Clause 2. The legislature, by law, shall provide for the making and
tabulation by state authorities of an enumeration of the inhabitants of the entire
state to be used for such purposes, instead of a federal census, if the taking of a

- 12 -
federal census in any tenth year from the year nineteen hundred thirty be omitted
or if the federal census fails to show the number of aliens or Indians not taxed.
Clause 3. If a federal census, though giving the requisite information as to
the state at large, fails to give the information as to any civil or territorial divisions
which is required to be known for such purposes, the legislature, by law, shall
provide for such an enumeration of the inhabitants of such parts of the state only as
may be necessary, which shall supersede in part the federal census and be used in
connection therewith for such purposes.
Clause 4. The legislature, by law, may provide in its discretion for an
enumeration by state authorities of the inhabitants of the state, to be used for such
purposes, in place of a federal census, when the return of a decennial federal
census is delayed so that it is not available at the beginning of the regular session
of the legislature in the second year after the year nineteen hundred thirty or after
any tenth year therefrom, or if an apportionment of members of assembly and
readjustment or alteration of senate districts is not made at or before such a session.
Clause 5. At the regular session in the year nineteen hundred thirty-two, and
at the first regular session after the year nineteen hundred forty and after each tenth
year therefrom the senate districts shall be readjusted or altered, but if, in any
decade, counting from and including that which begins with the year nineteen
hundred thirty-one, such a readjustment or alteration is not made at the time above
prescribed, it shall be made at a subsequent session occurring not later than the
sixth year of such decade, meaning not later than nineteen hundred thirty-six,
nineteen hundred forty-six, nineteen hundred fifty-six, and so on; provided,
however, that if such districts shall have been readjusted or altered by law in either
of the years nineteen hundred thirty or nineteen hundred thirty-one, they shall
remain unaltered until the first regular session after the year nineteen hundred
forty.
Clause 6. Such districts shall be so readjusted or altered that each senate
district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants, excluding
aliens, and be in as compact form as practicable, and shall remain unaltered until
the first year of the next decade as above defined, and shall at all times consist of
contiguous territory, and no county shall be divided in the formation of a senate
district except to make two or more senate districts wholly in such county.
Clause 7. No town, except a town having more than a full ratio of
apportionment, and no block in a city inclosed by streets or public ways, shall be
divided in the formation of senate districts; nor shall any district contain a greater
excess in population over an adjoining district in the same county, than the
population of a town or block therein adjoining such district.

- 13 -
State compelling interest Mandate.

12. That Declarant agrees with Mr. Forjone and Mr. Van Allen that there are

three compelling Issues involving:

13. FIRST: whether or not the State of New York Constitution takes precedence

for the questions to be posed in the census enumeration every ten years as to the

actual numbers of qualified state residents within state jurisdiction in having the

questionnaire ask, “Are you a citizen or permanent resident alien?”

14. SECOND: whether or not the State of New York Constitution takes

precedence under one-person-one-vote with Article 3 that results in the

Clause 8. Counties, towns or blocks which, from their location, may be

included in either of two districts, shall be so placed as to make said districts most
nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. No county shall have four
or more senators unless it shall have a full ratio for each senator. No county shall
have more than one-third of all the senators; and no two counties or the territory
thereof as now organized, which are adjoining counties, or which are separated
only by public waters, shall have more than one-half of all the senators.
Clause 9. The ratio for apportioning senators shall always be obtained by
dividing the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, by fifty, and the senate shall
always be composed of fifty members, except that if any county having three or
more senators at the time of any apportionment shall be entitled on such ratio to an
additional senator or senators, such additional senator or senators shall be given to
such county in addition to the fifty senators, and the whole number of senators
shall be increased to that extent. (Declared unconstitutional in WMCA v Lomenzo )
Clause 10. The senate districts, including the present ones, as existing
immediately before the enactment of a law readjusting or altering the senate
districts, shall continue to be the senate districts of the state until the expirations of
the terms of the senators then in office, except for the purpose of an election of
senators for full terms beginning at such expirations, and for the formation of
assembly districts. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 1945.)

- 14 -
enlargement of both houses of the State Legislature using as Mr. Forjone alleges

the smallest County, e.g. Schuyler County with 19,244 total persons per the 2000

Census, other than Hamilton that shall elect with Fulton; for say 126,510 total

persons per AD divided by 19244 equals 6.58 times 150 equals say 987 Assembly

Members, and thereby say 987 divided by say 3 equals say 329 Senate Members

that must be done for this year or as Mr. Van Allen points out a return to the

mandate of 50 Senators and 150 Assembly members immediately for this 2010

election cycle and for which Mr. Van Allen as an Independence party member is

keen to participate in;

15. THIRD: the State compelling first impression issue as to whether or not the

State of New York Constitution expressly determines that the City of New York is

too large as presently configured in that the once home-rule (7) are defunct Counties

7
ARTICLE IX * Local Governments (*New article adopted by amendment
approved by vote of the people November 5, 1963. Former Article IX repealed,
execept for sections 5, 6 and 8 which were relettered subdivisions (a), (b) and (c)
respectively of new section 13 of Article XIII. ) Bill of rights for local
governments.
Section 1. Effective local self-government and intergovernmental cooperation
are purposes of the people of the state. In furtherance thereof, local governments
shall have the following rights, powers, privileges and immunities in addition to
those granted by other provisions of this constitution:
(a) Every local government, except a county wholly included within a city,
shall have a legislative body elective by the people thereof. Every local
government shall have power to adopt local laws as provided by this article.
(b) All officers of every local government whose election or appointment is
not provided for by this constitution shall be elected by the people of the local
government, or of some division thereof, or appointed by such officers of the local

- 15 -
government as may be provided by law.
(c) Local governments shall have power to agree, as authorized by act of the
legislature, with the federal government, a state or one or more other governments
within or without the state, to provide cooperatively, jointly or by contract any
facility, service, activity or undertaking which each participating local government
has the power to provide separately. Each such local government shall have power
to apportion its share of the cost thereof upon such portion of its area as may be
authorized by act of the legislature.
(d) No local government or any part of the territory thereof shall be annexed
to another until the people, if any, of the territory proposed to be annexed shall
have consented thereto by majority vote on a referendum and until the governing
board of each local government, the area of which is affected, shall have consented
thereto upon the basis of a determination that the annexation is in the over-all
public interest. The consent of the governing board of a county shall be required
only where a boundary of the county is affected. On or before July first, nineteen
hundred sixty-four, the legislature shall provide, where such consent of a
governing board is not granted, for adjudication and determination, on the law and
the facts, in a proceeding initiated in the supreme court, of the issue of whether the
annexation is in the over-all public interest.
(e) Local governments shall have power to take by eminent domain private
property within their boundaries for public use together with excess land or
property but no more than is sufficient to provide for appropriate disposition or use
of land or property which abuts on that necessary for such public use, and to sell or
lease that not devoted to such use. The legislature may authorize and regulate the
exercise of the power of eminent domain and excess condemnation by a local
government outside its boundaries.
(f) No local government shall be prohibited by the legislature (1) from
making a fair return on the value of the property used and useful in its operation of
a gas, electric or water public utility service, over and above costs of operation and
maintenance and necessary and proper reserves, in addition to an amount
equivalent to taxes which such service, if privately owned, would pay to such local
government, or (2) from using such profits for payment of refunds to consumers or
for any other lawful purpose.
g) A local government shall have power to apportion its cost of a
governmental service or function upon any portion of its area, as authorized by act
of the legislature.
(h) (1) Counties, other than those wholly included within a city, shall be
empowered by general law, or by special law enacted upon county request
pursuant to section two of this article, to adopt, amend or repeal alternative forms

- 16 -
of county government provided by the legislature or to prepare, adopt, amend or
repeal alternative forms of their own. Any such form of government or any
amendment thereof, by act of the legislature or by local law, may transfer one or
more functions or duties of the county or of the cities, towns, villages, districts or
other units of government wholly contained in such county to each other or when
authorized by the legislature to the state, or may abolish one or more offices,
departments, agencies or units of government provided, however, that no such
form or amendment, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subdivision, shall
become effective unless approved on a referendum by a majority of the votes cast
thereon in the area of the county outside of cities, and in the cities of the county, if
any, considered as one unit. Where an alternative form of county government or
any amendment thereof, by act of the legislature or by local law, provides for the
transfer of any function or duty to or from any village or the abolition of any
office, department, agency or unit of government of a village wholly contained in
such county, such form or amendment shall not become effective unless it shall
also be approved on the referendum by a majority of the votes cast thereon in all
the villages so affected considered as one unit.
(2) After the adoption of an alternative form of county government by a
county, any amendment thereof by act of the legislature or by local law which
abolishes or creates an elective county office, changes the voting or veto power of
or the method of removing an elective county officer during his or her term of
office, abolishes, curtails or transfers to another county officer or agency any
power of an elective county officer or changes the form or composition of the
county legislative body shall be subject to a permissive referendum as provided by
the legislature. (Amended by vote of the people November 7, 2001.)
NYSC ARTICLE IX * Local Governments Powers and duties of
legislature; home rule powers of local governments; statute of local
governments. Section 2. (a) The legislature shall provide for the creation and
organization of local governments in such manner as shall secure to them the
rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to them by this constitution.
(b) Subject to the bill of rights of local governments and other applicable
provisions of this constitution, the legislature:
(l) Shall enact, and may from time to time amend, a statute of local
governments granting to local governments powers including but not limited to
those of local legislation and administration in addition to the powers vested in
them by this article. A power granted in such statute may be repealed, diminished,
impaired or suspended only by enactment of a statute by the legislature with the
approval of the governor at its regular session in one calendar year and the re-
enactment and approval of such statute in the following calendar year.

- 17 -
 (2) Shall have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs or
government of any local government only by general law, or by special law only
(a) on request of two-thirds of the total membership of its legislative body or on
request of its chief executive officer concurred in by a majority of such
membership, or (b) except in the case of the city of New York, on certificate of
necessity from the governor reciting facts which in the judgment of the governor
constitute an emergency requiring enactment of such law and, in such latter case,
with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the
legislature.
(3) Shall have the power to confer on local governments powers not relating
to their property, affairs or government including but not limited to those of local
legislation and administration, in addition to those otherwise granted by or
pursuant to this article, and to withdraw or restrict such additional powers.
(c) In addition to powers granted in the statute of local governments or any
other law, (i) every local government shall have power to adopt and amend local
laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution or any general law
relating to its property, affairs or government and, (ii) every local government shall
have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of
this constitution or any general law relating to the following subjects, whether or
not they relate to the property, affairs or government of such local government,
except to the extent that the legislature shall restrict the adoption of such a local
law relating to other than the property, affairs or government of such local
government:
(l) The powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection and
removal, terms of office, compensation, hours of work, protection, welfare and
safety of its officers and employees, except that cities and towns shall not have
such power with respect to members of the legislative body of the county in their
capacities as county officers.
(2) In the case of a city, town or village, the membership and composition of
its legislative body.
(3) The transaction of its business.
(4) The incurring of its obligations, except that local laws relating to
financing by the issuance of evidences of indebtedness by such local government
shall be consistent with laws enacted by the legislature.
(5) The presentation, ascertainment and discharge of claims against it.
(6) The acquisition, care, management and use of its highways, roads,
streets, avenues and property.
(7) The acquisition of its transit facilities and the ownership and operation
thereof.

- 18 -
 (8) The levy, collection and administration of local taxes authorized by the
legislature and of assessments for local improvements, consistent with laws
enacted by the legislature.
(9) The wages or salaries, the hours of work or labor, and the protection,
welfare and safety of persons employed by any contractor or sub-contractor
performing work, labor or services for it. (10) The government, protection, order,
conduct, safety, health and well-being of persons or property therein.
(d) Except in the case of a transfer of functions under an alternative form of
county government, a local government shall not have power to adopt local laws
which impair the powers of any other local government.
(e) The rights and powers of local governments specified in this section
insofar as applicable to any county within the city of New York shall be vested in
such city. (Amended by vote of the people November 7, 2001.)
NYSC ARTICLE IX * Local Governments Existing laws to remain
applicable; construction; definitions. Section 3.
(a) Except as expressly provided, nothing in this article shall restrict or
impair any power of the legislature in relation to:
(1) The maintenance, support or administration of the public school system,
as required or provided by article XI of this constitution, or any retirement system
pertaining to such public school system,
(2) The courts as required or provided by article VI of this constitution, and
(3) Matters other than the property, affairs or government of a local
government.
(b) The provisions of this article shall not affect any existing valid
provisions of acts of the legislature or of local legislation and such provisions shall
continue in force until repealed, amended, modified or superseded in accordance
with the provisions of this constitution.
(c) Rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to local governments
by this article shall be liberally construed.
(d) Whenever used in this article the following terms shall mean or include:
(1) "General law." A law which in terms and in effect applies alike to all
counties, all counties other than those wholly included within a city, all cities, all
towns or all villages.
(2) "Local government." A county, city, town or village.
(3) "People." Persons entitled to vote as provided in section one of article
two of this constitution.
(4) "Special law." A law which in terms and in effect applies to one or more,
but not all, counties, counties other than those wholly included within a city, cities,
towns or villages.

- 19 -
now considered only Boroughs without home-rule within NYC that is a territory

like a County as described with NYSC Article IX Local Governments Section

2(e) that mandates quote:

(e) The rights and powers of local governments specified in this section
insofar as applicable to any county within the city of New York shall be vested
in such city.

that therefore, NYC may not have more than one-third of all the Senators within or

one-half when combined with an adjoining home-rule sub-division.

16. Declarant agrees that this matter must be expedited to the New York State

Court of Appeals for appeal if necessary at the U.S. Supreme Court expeditiously

before the Court Panel herein may appropriately reach a decision as a matter of

Comity within the Lincoln-Eisenhower Doctrine defining the relationship between

the Federal and State courts and between the State of New York of the several

States and the Federal social contract that has not had an increase in U.S. House

members since 1912 as a result of the questionable 13 USC §141 “Capping” of

seats in June of 1929.

17. The 120 day extension is opposed but even if it weren’t given

wouldn’t change the need for a Local Rule §.27 Certification with an expedited

calendar to meet the March 15, 2010 census questionnaire deadline and Election

Law process in preparation for the 2010 party primaries and General Election for

- 20 -
the say 329 Senators and say 987 Assembly members to be elected this year or

return to the mandate of 50 Senators and 150 Assembly members immediate for

this 20 10 election cycle.

18. Not to grant the expedited certification and New York State Appeals Court

review would cause irreparable harm.

Respectfilly submitted and certified to be true under penalty of pejury,

Dated: January'
Brooklyn, New York -
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281
Brooklyn., New York 1 1238
(845) 90 1 -6767
Email: chris@strunk.ws
 APPELLANT H. WILLIAM VAN ALLEN IN ESSE DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANTS T1080 CROSS MOTION FOR THE
NEW YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATION OF
COMPELLING STATE ISSUES OF FIRST IMPRESSION WITH LOCAL
RULE §.27 AS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITH IRREPARABLE HARM
IN RESPONSE TO APPELLEES REQUEST TO THE CLERK IN THE
TRANSITION TO NEW LOCAL RULES FOR A DISCRETIONARY 120
DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE APPELLEES RESPONSE IN
APPEAL CASE 08-4323-CV

I, H. William Van Allen in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28 USC
§1746:
1. Declarant is the Appellant/Petitioner herein Appeal Case Loeber et al.

v. Spargo et al. 08-4323-cv, and with place for service at 351 North Road Hurley

New York 12443 with Email hvanallen@hvc.rr.com .

2. Declarant files this declaration in support of the Appellant’s T1080

cross motion for the Local Rule Certification with Local Rule §.27 to the New

York State Court of Appeals of several compelling State issues of first impression

which control the outcome of this case as time is of the essence with irreparable

harm in response to Appellees request to the clerk “the transition to the new local

rules” for a discretionary 120 day extension of time to file the Appellees response

in appeal case 08-4323-cv.

3. Declarant is an Ulster County Committee member of the

Independence Party of New York (IPNY), was a member of the State Committee

in the 101st Assembly District (AD); and the IPNY 3rd JD Judicial Nominating

Convention Delegate (101st AD).

-1-
4. Declarant currently has ripe 2nd circuit cases:

Van Allen v Cuomo 07-3118 (USDC-NYND 07-722 Sharpe) Sheila

Galvin attorney (SG) That on August 1, Bill Van Allen filed his appeal brief

in the 2nd circuit, in Van Allen v Cuomo, 07-3118. This lawsuit challenges

New York’s unique law that when a registered voter changes his or her

registration to join a party, the change does not take effect until the

following year. Yet, if someone who is not registered to vote newly

registers, that person is permitted to join a party and have that membership

take effect immediately. The U.S. District Court had upheld the law last year

(2007). The case is being expedited, since Van Allen sought to vote in the

September 2007 primary of the Independence Party.

Van Allen v Walsh Case 08-4731 (USDC-NYND 08-876 USDC-

NYND Kahn) Lewis Oliver attorney (LO) the appeal involves the OTB

(opportunity to ballot) primary election for Ulster County committee is still

in progress — pending the outcome of litigation now at the USCA 2nd

Circuit. Case 08-4731 Van Allen v Walsh. Election districts in the New Paltz

area as well as the rest of the county await the go ahead from the courts to

complete the election of committee-persons via OTB process (since no

IPNY Designating petitions were filed in the entire county, and since there is

currently no standing constituted county committee to “raid” the litigation

seeks to extend the right of non-affiliated voters to avoid the enrollment

-2-
 change “lock-box” and change their enrolled and vote in the to-be-

continued” IPNY OTB primary for county committee.

5. Of great importance to this appeal matter and the requested

certification as instruction to this Court, includes reference to Lopez-Torres raising

these issues in my counsel’s amicus brief that all though denied after SCOTUS

oral argument and SCOTUS Clerk Bickell’s denial of due process rejection of

motion to intervene from Van Allen v Cuomo emergency injunction motion there,

Mr. Strunk having petitioned to intervene in the EDNY successfully filed his

amicus brief in Second Circuit in support of the Association of State Supreme

Court Justices in opposition to the Fabian Progressive tinkering with the State

Constitution and process of Law; and that Declarant wishes to enter substantive

arguments on the record applicable both for the New York State Court of Appeal

review of the issues to be certified and for this Court’s expeditious reversal of the

district order and as time is of the essence a de novo hearing herein, that will

relieve the irreparable harm if properly expedited for the 2010 Election cycle.

6. On background, at about the same time we filed the Loeber et al. v

Spargo et al Case in NDNY 04-cv-1193, about gerrymandering challenging the

legitimacy of the size and makeup of the legislature, the Brennan Center filed a

challenge to the manner in which the State of New York elects Justice to the New

York Supreme Court in Lopez-Torres et al. v. New York State Board of Elections et

al. EDNY 04-cv-1129, both with a real similar injury but each based upon a
-3-
different approach to New York Law. We embrace the law and the Brennan Center

wanted to change the law without addressing the fundamental underlying basis for

the flaws that have developed in the Assembly based election system of the Judges

as we have and correctly so; and we have been vindicated by the opinion of the

SCOTUS which reversed the Social Justice Doctrine emanating from Judges

Straub, Sotomayor and Hall from the Appeal by the New York BOE; and in which

Mr. Strunk had joined with an amicus on the side of the New York BOE for a

change, and I as a Judicial delegate tried to join with an amicus belatedly that

carried to the Supreme Court by the Writ of Certiorari filed by the New York

Board to over turn the Fabian Progressives of the Second Circuit panel. In short we

contend that if the State Constitution were followed within the requirements of

one-person-one vote there would be a more representative election of members to

the Legislature and the State Supreme Court that better reflects the interests of the

State constitutional mandated form of government, in which we contend herein

with a demand for the certification of three issues of first impression to the NYS

Court of Appeals for an opinion that a Federal Court is not able to interpret and

construe the intent beyond the express terms and requirements of the State

Constitution per se must be done by the State’s highest Court.

7. That on January 16, 2008 SCOTUS by Justice Scalia delivered the

opinion of the Court for the New York State Board of Elections, et al., petitioners v.

Margarita Lopez-Torres et al. no. 06–766 on writ of certiorari to the United States
-4-
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and stated that:

“The State of New York requires that political parties select their nominees
for Supreme Court Justice at a convention of delegates chosen by party
members in a primary election. We consider whether this electoral system
violates the First Amendment rights of prospective party candidates. …

…A law enacted in 1921 required parties to select their candidates for the
Supreme Court by a convention composed of delegates elected by party
members. Act of May 2, 1921, ch. 479, §§45(1), 110, 1921 N. Y. Laws
1451, 1454, 1471. …

New York retains this system of choosing party nominees for Supreme
Court Justice to this day. Section 6–106 of New York’s election law sets
forth its basic operation: “Party nominations for the office of justice of the
supreme court shall be made by the judicial district convention.” N. Y. Elec.
Law Ann. §6–106 (West 2007). A “party” is any political organization
whose candidate for Governor received 50,000 or more votes in the most
recent election. §1–104(3). In a September “delegate primary,” party
members elect delegates from each of New York’s 150 assembly districts to
attend the party’s judicial convention for the judicial district in which the
assembly district is located. (Emphasis by Declarant) …

The reason one-party rule is entrenched may be (and usually is) that voters
approve of the positions and candidates that the party regularly puts forward.
It is no function of the First Amendment to require revision of those
positions or candidates. The States can, within limits (that is, short of
violating the parties’ freedom of association), discourage party monopoly—
for example, by refusing to show party endorsement on the election ballot.
But the Constitution provides no authority for federal courts to prescribe
such a course. The First Amendment creates an open marketplace where
ideas, most especially political ideas, may compete without government
interference. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
(Holmes, J., dissenting). It does not call on the federal courts to manage the
market by preventing too many buyers from settling upon a single product.
Limiting respondents’ court-mandated “fair shot at party endorsement” to
situations of one-party entrenchment merely multiplies the impracticable
lines courts would be called upon to draw. It would add to those alluded to
earlier the line at which mere party popularity turns into “one-party
dominance.” In the case of New York’s election system for Supreme Court
Justices, that line would have to be drawn separately for each of the 12
-5-
 judicial districts—and in those districts that are “competitive” the current
system would presumably remain valid. But why limit the remedy to one-
party dominance? Does not the dominance of two parties similarly stifle
competing opinions? Once again, we decline to enter the morass.

***

New York State has thrice (in 1846, 1911, and 1921) displayed a willingness
to reconsider its method of selecting Supreme Court Justices. If it wishes to
return to the primary system that it discarded in 1921, it is free to do so; but
the First Amendment does not compel that. We reverse the Second Circuit’s
contrary judgment.”

8. In addition to the opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy

and Breyer Concurring in the NY BOE appeal to the SCOTUS in Lopez 06-766

stated quote:

“Rule of law is secured only by the principled exercise of political will. If

New York statutes for nominating and electing judges do not produce both
the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of
the law, they ought to be changed and to be changed now. But, as the Court
today holds, and for further reasons given in this separate opinion, the
present suit does not permit us to invoke the Constitution in order to
intervene.”

9. We emphasized therein and now for restraint and caution to be

exercised by the Second Circuit and Federal Courts political Fabian Progressive

operative tinkering with the New York State Constitution and Laws as it has for

many decades leading to the morass and collapse of New York Governance at the

Legislative, Executive and local municipal level isolation and denying the people

expectation of effective participation in the electoral process of self-governance by

refusing to allow for the prescribed growth in the size of the Assembly that will

-6-
afford a greater opportunity for election of Judges more reflective of the political

will of the voting citizens in each judicial district composed of significantly greater

representation at the Assembly and as required by the State Constitution with the

enlargement formula with the one person-one-vote requirement left as is.

10. The long-term neglect of the relationship of the people resident within

any county must have an expression of representation dedicated to them with a

reasonable expectation of participation in a republican form of government now

denied for so long now that the only way for the people with suffrage in each

home-rule county may have what the State law requires is for at least one assembly

member wholly within done now not later; and that all other Counties with enough

residents for one senate district wholly within have at least two Assembly members

wholly within any senate district as a basic mandate to deter gerrymandering and

for that mandate to have at least two assembly members wholly within a senate

district, properly nested accordingly, related to the U.S. House district that must be

redistricted also infers such nested relationship as with the legislature too.

11. To our detriment the State Constitution has not been respected for

decades either at the Legislative or Federal level, and must be done immediately

before the 2010 primary cycle goes much further in anticipation of competition of

all those wishing to participate with a reasonable expectation of success.

12. This court must act now to certify the three issues to the New York

State Court of Appeals to accomplish that:

-7-
 FIRST: whether or not the State of New York Constitution takes

precedence for the questions to be posed in the census enumeration

every ten years as to the actual numbers of qualified state residents

within state jurisdiction;

SECOND: whether or not the State of New York Constitution takes

precedence under on-person-one-vote with Article 3 that result in the

enlargement of both houses of the state legislature using as Mr.

Forjone alleges the smallest county other than Hamilton that shall

elect with Fulton for more Assembly Members and thereby more

Senate Members that must be done this year or return to the mandate

of 50 Senators and 150 Assembly members immediately for this 2010

election cycle as an Independence party member am keen to

participate in; and

THIRD: the State compelling issue of first impression as to whether

or not the State of New York Constitution expressly determines that

the City of New York is too large as presently configured in that the

once home-rule defunct Counties within are eliminated and NYC is a

territory like a county that may not have more than one-third of all the

Senators within or one-half when combined with an adjoining home-

rule sub-division.

and or be ready to expedite the mandate in which Judge John M. Walker in the
-8-
 APPELLANT JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE APPELLANTS T1080 CROSS MOTION FOR THE NEW YORK STATE
COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATION OF COMPELLING STATE ISSUES
OF FIRST IMPRESSION WITH LOCAL RULE §.27 AS TIME IS OF THE
ESSENCE WITH IRREPARABLE HARM IN RESPONSE TO APPELLEES
REQUEST TO THE CLERK IN THE TRANSITION TO NEW LOCAL RULES
FOR A DISCRETIONARY 120 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE
APPELLEES RESPONSE IN APPEAL CASE 08-4323-CV

I, John-Joseph: Forjone in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28 USC §1746:
1. Declarant is the Appellant/Petitioner herein Appeal Case Loeber et al.

v. Spargo et al. 08-4323-cv, and with place for service at 141 Harris Avenue Lake

Luzerne New York 12846 with Email jjforjone@hotmail.com.

2. Declarant files this declaration in support of the Appellant’s T1080

cross motion for the Local Rule Certification with Local Rule §.27 (1) to the New

York State Court of Appeals of several compelling State issues of first impression

which control the outcome of this case as time is of the essence with irreparable

harm in response to Appellees request to the clerk “the transition to the new local

rules” for a discretionary 120 day extension of time to file the Appellees response

in appeal case 08-4323-cv.

1
§0.27. Certification of Questions of State Law - Where authorized by state law,
this Court may certify to the highest court of a state an unsettled and significant
question of state law that will control the outcome of a case pending before this
Court. Such certification may be made by this Court sua sponte or on motion of a
party filed with the clerk of this Court. Certification will be in accordance with the
procedures provided by the state's legislature or highest state court rules, e.g. Conn.
Public Act No. 85-111; New York Court of Appeals Rule 500.7. Certification may
stay the proceedings in this Court pending the state court's decision whether to
accept the certification and its decision of the certified question.
 3. Declarant is the Plaintiff/Petitioner in the related Case Forjone et al.

v. the State of California et al. in the NDNY 06-cv-1002 (LEK) with an application

before the Honorable District Judge Richard J. Leon for partial severance of issues

and notice of a 28 USC §1407 multi-district litigation matter (See Exhibit 2)

related to Strunk v. The US DOC Bureau of the Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

with a pending motion for a 28 USC 2284 three-judge panel there, and in which

the outcome here would directly effect as matter of Compelling State interest there

in regards the on-going 2010 Census Enumeration matter before that court; and

that time is of the essence with irreparable harm in that the questionnaire being

challenged there goes out March 15, 2010 for the April 2010 deadline for the

enumeration that has an overwhelming Decade long impact upon New York within

each State-Sub-division for setting each debt ceiling, redistricting, elections,

government employment, Judicial Elections, State and Federal disbursement of

matching funds generally and or project specifically and that is an equal protection

matter that will widely vary in overall impact for those State Subdivisions outside

of New York City, that do not provide sanctuary and illegally harbor and abet

undocumented aliens, tourists, transients, the large diplomatic corps of various

countries including their families at will, and as a matter well defined in the New

York State Constitution as a compelling State interest to be respected and adhered

to in the taking of the Census, that otherwise would become a burden upon the
State and until now has been flouted by three Oval Office occupants since 2000

and the April 2002 outrageous Gerrymandering challenged herein.

4. The First compelling Issue is whether the State of New York

Constitution takes precedence for the questions to be posed in the census

enumeration every ten years as to the actual numbers of qualified state residents

within state jurisdiction:

a. over the census enumeration questions to be determined to determine who is

a permanent resident alien and or citizen of any age to be differentiated from

undocumented aliens, tourists, transients, the large diplomatic corps of

various countries including their families at-will impact upon New York

within each State-Sub-division for setting each debt ceiling, redistricting,

elections, government employment, Judicial Elections, State and Federal

disbursement of matching funds generally and or project specific; that is an

equal protection matter will widely vary in overall impact for those State

Subdivisions outside of New York City;

5. The Second compelling Issue is whether the State of New York

Constitution takes precedence under on-person-one-vote with Article 3 that:

a. As a result of the WMCA panel declaring of the State Senate enlargement

formula unconstitutional as to Article 3 Section 4, that then the remaining

portions of Article 3 with the requirements of one –person – vote then

 require the Section 2 mandate that there shall be 50 senators and 150

Assembly be reset after the WMCA decision and that the only enlargement

formula that would supersede would be that the Assembly shall be enlarged

based upon each home-rule county sub-division shall have at least one

assemblyperson wholly within, notwithstanding Hamilton County that shall

elect with Fulton County, so that say Declarant’s home in Orleans County is

the county with the least number of residents say 44,171 which requires that

each assembly district must have 44,171 persons each or at the requirement

of the authority of the Legislature to be eliminated or consolidated to limit

the number of Assembly members accordingly, which is now improperly say

126,500 residents per each AD instead of 44,171 persons per AD for say

450 Assembly members rather than 150.

b. Furthermore based upon the requirement of each county shall have one

assemblyperson then when each senate district requires at least two

Assembly district wholly within the senate would be increase to say 150

Senators according- that is what the express terms of the Article 3 requires

within the interpretation of one-person-one-vote.

c. The improper use of the Constitution has eliminated the competition require

in the social contract before the existence of computers – and the failure of

the State is more than apparent to all as a result.

 d. The State Constitution like the US Constitution is not a suicide pact as the

improper actions since 1965 under color of the Voting Rights Act with only

a few "covered" counties would construe.

6. The Third compelling issue of first impression as to whether or not the

State of New York Constitution expressly determines that the City of New York is

too large as presently configured in that the once home-rule defunct Counties

within is eliminated and NYC is a territory like a county that may not have more

than one-third of all the Senators within or one-half when combined with an

adjoining home-rule sub-division.

7. That this matter must be expedited to the New York State Court of

Appeals for appeal if necessary at the U.S. Supreme Court expeditiously before the

Court Panel herein may appropriately reach a decision as a matter of Comity

within the Lincoln-Eisenhower Doctrine defining the relationship between the

Federal and State courts and between the State of New York of the several States

and the Federal social contract that has not had an increase in US House members

since 1912 as a result of the questionable 13 USC §141 “Capping” of seats in June

of 1929.

8. Declarant received a request from State Appellees counsel Andrew B.

Ayers Assistant Solicitor Counsel of the State of New York Office of the Attorney

General for 120 day extension of time to file Appellees brief shown as Exhibit 1;
 APPELLANT’S T1080 CROSS MOTION FOR THE NEW YORK
STATE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATION OF COMPELLING
STATE ISSUES OF FIRST IMPRESSION WITH LOCAL RULE §.27
AS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITH IRREPARABLE HARM IN
RESPONSE TO APPELLEES REQUEST TO THE CLERK IN THE
TRANSITION TO NEW LOCAL RULES FOR A DISCRETIONARY
120 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE APPELLEES
RESPONSE IN APPEAL CASE 08-4323-CV

Exhibit 1
 -? COPY

STATEOFNEWYORK
GENERAL
OFFICEOF THE AT~ORNEY

Telephone (518) 4.74-0768 APPEALS B ~ I R E:A I

AND OPINIONS

January 11,2010

Hon. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe.

Clerk of Court
--
,-
~ < -
United States Court of Appeals fer the Second Circuit -7
\

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse

40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007

Re: Loeber v. spargo, No. 08-4323-cv

. .
Dear Ms. Wolfe:

I represent defendants-appellees Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, the .

State Senate, Sheldon Silver, the State Assembly, George E. Pataki, Randy A.
Daniels, Eliot Spitzer and all members of the New York State Senate and Assembly
named a s defendants in these proceedings.

Pursuant to this Court's new Local Rule 31.2, and the Notice to the Bar dated
December 17, 2009, concerning briefing deadlines in cases pending during the
transition ta the new Local Rules, we respectfully propose May 6,2010, as the date
for filing our brief in this matter.
--
:.*
-. w
- This proposed date is 120 days from the date we received appellant
Christopher Strunk's brief. We have not previously requested a n extension in this
matter.

Thank you for your assistance.

.
Respectfully submitted,

ANDREW B. AYERS
Assistant Solicitor General
 'Page 2

cc: H. William Van'Allen

35 1 North Road
Hurley, New York 12443

John-Joseph Forjone
141 Harris Ave.
Lake Luzerne, NY 12846

Christopher Earl Strunk

593 Vanderbilt Avenue # 281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
E
, 3-
, ....
...
., .
>. > . ,
.:,*
-.
..
.<-..:. ... ..
James E. Konstanty, Esq.
Konstanty Law office ,-
,252 Main Street
Oneonta, NY 13820

James E. Long, Esq.

Law Office of James E. Long, Esq.
668 Central Ave.
Albany, NY 12206

Kimberly Galvin, Esq.

The New York State Board of Elections
40 Steuben St.
Albany, NY 12207

Christopher C. Wang, Esq.

( United States Department of Justice
-
Civil Rights Division, Appellate Section
Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 14403
- Washington, DC 20044-4403 .
%
 APPELLANT’S T1080 CROSS MOTION FOR THE NEW YORK
STATE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATION OF COMPELLING
STATE ISSUES OF FIRST IMPRESSION WITH LOCAL RULE §.27
AS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITH IRREPARABLE HARM IN
RESPONSE TO APPELLEES REQUEST TO THE CLERK IN THE
TRANSITION TO NEW LOCAL RULES FOR A DISCRETIONARY
120 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE APPELLEES
RESPONSE IN APPEAL CASE 08-4323-CV

Exhibit 2
 APPELLANT’S T1080 CROSS MOTION FOR THE NEW YORK
STATE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATION OF COMPELLING
STATE ISSUES OF FIRST IMPRESSION WITH LOCAL RULE §.27
AS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITH IRREPARABLE HARM IN
RESPONSE TO APPELLEES REQUEST TO THE CLERK IN THE
TRANSITION TO NEW LOCAL RULES FOR A DISCRETIONARY
120 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE APPELLEES
RESPONSE IN APPEAL CASE 08-4323-CV

Exhibit 3
 ;i F->
C...)

A C o R N ( & m d ~ W s f ~ ~ f. a r ..:.,, c -.-

w~ mj;
c-3
Refarm Now) ACORN Institute, Inc., and NEW YORK
-.-
j,A
-..-
=--.
L... .,.%
-.."!
ACORN HOUSING INC. ; ,. r7t u':...?
4.-
C

r\3
-..
,
,.. . ,,.,: :- !
'<.-:.<'.,.. ?
0 2 --
-v-..

. -..;''1
, ..-,
PMntita I
>J 0
, -g
3,
'

'. . -9
v. =
-3
cz3
r= :e
CZ
0
2 -.
F
UNFTED STATESof AMERICA et aL. X
m

and
&hphe$-Ea?k!%u&fai&%1e.593V~A~
- #28 1 BmoHya, Mew York 11238
(845) 901-6767 FJnlrit: Cuishsbvnkw~

~ ~ h ~ N m C I T , O F M m O N T o ~ ~ M A
RELATOR MTERVENER-DEPENDANT U.S.A. cIl3ZEN AM)
STATE OF NEW YORK C m N .

P L Q g $ E T A l B m ~ m * ~ t h e ~ ~ ~ d ~ g r i : ~
SH-Appearance, affirmed J~smwry20,2010 will move tbis Court to intervene ass e x - r e b
menerdef-t USA. Ci- rrnd ~ ~ ~ Y Cftficn o befort
r District
k Judge W i
Gershon st a time afforded by tbe Court if necessay at the United States Courthouse, at 225
~PlaeEaErrstBm~NewYork,mtfme:dhyandmoslthin201O,atatimtandcourbrrnnn
designated by the court,or as soon thereah as counsel can be heard.

B d y n , New York;
Email: chi-ws
Ce1I-845-90 1-6767
c w - E a r l :Sbunlr 8in eese
Darius Charney, Esq.
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012

Peter D. Leary USAAG

US Department of Justice
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7322
Washington, DC 20530

Andrew Cuomo
New York State Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
120 Broadway 24th Floor
New York New York 10271
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------x Case No.: 09-cv-4888

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for

Reform Now) ACORN Institute, Inc., and NEW YORK (NG) (LB)
ACORN HOUSING INC.

Plaintiffs,
v.

UNITED STATES of AMERICA et al..

Defendants
and

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse. 593 Vanderbilt Avenue

- #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws

Ex-relator-Intervener-Defendant.

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

Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE

NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR
INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND
STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:
COUNTY OF KINGS )

I, Christopher–Earl: Strunk in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say:

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

New York 11238 with telephone 845-901-6767 and email; chris@strunk.ws.

-1-
 2. Affirmant files this Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is to be filed by January 21, 2010.

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

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

1
(a) “Related” Civil Case Defined. A civil case is “related” to another civil
case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and
legal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a
substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases
to the same judge and magistrate judge.
(e) Assignment of Related Cases. Cases which have been judicially
determined to be related shall be assigned by the clerk to the judge to whom was
assigned the case with the lowest docket number in the series of related cases. The
clerk shall advise the judge of such assignment of a related case. In the interest of
judicial economy, the following categories of civil cases shall be deemed to be
“related” without further order of the court: (1) all habeas corpus petitions filed by
the same petitioner; (2) all pro se civil actions filed by the same individual; …

-2-
by a Pro se litigant. In that Judge Nina Gershon was assigned Strunk v. United

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

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

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

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

injury complaint Strunk v. Department of Housing & Urban Dev’t, No. 99-CV-

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

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

Democratic Party Defendants that in retrospect involve Party Boss Clarence

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

55th AD, whose vendetta against Affirmant’s HUD housing project were essential

parties notwithstanding anything the Court would desire otherwise; nevertheless

the Court’s desire to protect the Brooklyn Democrats compounded Affirmant’s

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

Affirmant’s family too.

5. Further, that Affirmant’s marriage and family had been irreparably

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

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

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

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

-3-
from ever getting General Contractor insurance in the State of New York (a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RICO enterprise fraud involving Alvin Dworman’s Sub-prime Mortgage scheme

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

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

Andrew Cuomo’s plenary rules for Freddy and Fanny government backed

mortgages combined with Secretary Cuomo’s mandate after 1998 that NYC HPD

-4-
and NYC Housing Development Corporation divest a large number of hoarded

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

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

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

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

ACORN affiliated entities.

8. That Affirmant contends that the ACORN plaintiffs close partisan

political dealing as unregistered lobbying agents against State Lobbying Law with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-5-
that challenge the appearance of mere privileges afforded by men not Almighty

God all started here in Eastern District in 1999.

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

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

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

Circuit, one of which awaits Affirmant’s motion for more specific proof as to 28

USC §144 and 28 USC §455.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defendant status herein; and

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

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

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

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

-6-
mysteriously the Transcript of the hearing has been lost by the Court Reporter

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

13. The activities of ACORN affiliated organizations are a compelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

public benefit agencies and entities with unelected boards of directors that

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

14. That based upon direct observation during February 2007 Affirmant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-7-
a) Affirmant’s motion to intervene is timely filed by Local Rules as herein;

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

subject of the action in that the Usurper Barack Hussein Obama’s

impropriety as the prior attorney to ACORN and its affiliates in

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

continuing enterprise that have maliciously orchestrated a friendly

constitutional tort herein to: circumvent due administrative process under

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

due process and oversight required under statutes including the RICO Act

that beyond the tame report issued by Representative Issa must also

investigate offenses related to:

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

activity in connection with identification documents);
• 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens);
• 18 USC §1341 (mail fraud); 18 USC §1343 (wire fraud);
• 18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization
unlawfully);
• 18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with
witness, victim );
• 18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents);
• 18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) – (interstate and foreign travel
in aid of racketeering Enterprise) ;
• 18 USC §1957 – (engaging in monetary transaction in property
derived from specific unlawful activity);

the False Claims Act by obtaining government funds under false pretense

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

-8-
“Social Justice” organizations closely affiliated with the Holy See that

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

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

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

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

relations relate to:

• § 951. Agents of foreign governments;

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

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

relate to any exclusive membership organizations whose partisan political

activities are subject to compelling State interest and oversight; and

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

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

being alleged by Plaintiffs Counsel to be to big to fail, ACORN appears

as an out of control leviathan that as a Federal matter is involved in a

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

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

-9-
 not before a single Judge as herein to the determent of Affirmant and all

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

office usurpation of the 2010 Census Enumeration intend to be executed

with the Usurper’s ACORN, its affiliates and SEIU cronies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d) Affirmant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties, in

that the Usurper’s Attorney General and or his agents have not

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

and or any other State’s citizen of the several states accordingly, and as

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

Affirmative defense to the Complaint and counter claims have not been

entered into the record.

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

exhausted the administrative process with the various contracts;

- 10 -
 17. That Affirmant contends that an alleged Bill of Pains and Penalty /

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

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

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

government authority, and because only 3 of ACORN’s entities out of say 300 or

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

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

• Rule 12 (b) (1) The Court lacks Jurisdiction over the subject matter as
administrative process has not been exhausted with the various Contracts;
• Rule 12 (b) (2) The Court lacks jurisdiction over the person without
necessary in esse injured persons joined;
• Rule 12 (b) (3) that due to the nature of the litigation and complexity 28
USC §1407 applies and as such there is improper venue;
• Rule 12 (b) (4) without an opportunity of other direct parties of interest
involved especially the New York State Attorney General and the various
attorneys general of the several States with authority over ACORN and
affiliates and SEIU, as such there is an insufficiency of process;
• Rule 12 (b) (6) without the proper parties and not having exhausted
administrative process plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted especially since with prior admission of wrong doing Plaintiffs
do not have clean hands contrary to clean hands doctrine the court lacks
jurisdiction; and

- 11 -
 • To reiterate given the foregoing, as with Rule 12 (b)(7) Plaintiffs fail to join
a party under Rule 19.

18. That in the matter of Affirmant’s response to Defendants Counsel’s

letter and allegations shown in Exhibit B:

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

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

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

motion.” is done in bad faith with the court.

20. Defendants’ Assistant Counsel F. Franklin Amanat had previously

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

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

Teilhard De Chardin S.J. who had died in April 1955 who had been instrumental in

facilitating Mao’s genocide in China, and that Affirmant contends such records are

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

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

21. Further the Usurper’s choice for Attorney General, which Affirmant

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

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

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

matter how great an assistant attorney general they may otherwise be, can’t

- 12 -
possibly represent my interests herein.

22. That as a direct injury to Affirmant as a result of the Court’s Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. That Affirmant takes strenuous exception in opposition to Defendants’

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

to impose a bill of pains and penalty against Affirmant.

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

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

many non-parties, as well; and that Affirmant’s intervention, in particular, should

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

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

the parties with frivolous and tendentious litigation over collateral and

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

a friendly suit filed in bad faith with this court.

- 13 -
 25. I have read the foregoing abng with Plaintiffs' Complaint with
3
Exhibits and hereby oppose equity relief for Plaintiffs pursuant to ab&e

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

both sides and kno%the contents thereof, and effects those matters have upon me,
. I
:.*
and that this affidavr't is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein

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

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

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

Christopher -Earl: Strunk in esse

Sworn to befm me this

NOTARY PUBLIC

QEOROE ANbERSON
Netary Public, State of New Vkk
No. OlAN5070990
Qualified in Mngr County
Commission Expires Jan. 6,20 1 I
Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR
INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND
STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

Exhibit A
Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23 Filed 12/16/09 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23 Filed 12/16/09 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23 Filed 12/16/09 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23 Filed 12/16/09 Page 4 of 4
\

Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF

THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR
INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND
STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

Exhibit B
 U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, New York 11201-1820

December 21, 2009

BY ELECTRONIC COURT FILING

Honorable Nina Gershon

United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201

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

Dear Judge Gershon:

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

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

We likewise request that the Court bar Strunk from filing any motion in this case
without paying a plaintiff’s initiating filing fee, and that it correspondingly deny any
application for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. As the Court is no doubt
aware, Strunk is a “frequent filer” in this and other federal courts, and the vast majority of his
proceedings have been dismissed as frivolous. PACER shows 31 cases involving Strunk in the
last ten years, nine of which have been in this District. In one recent case, Judge Ross
dismissed the bulk of Strunk’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that the facts
alleged “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible . . . and that there is no legal
theory on which he may rely.” Strunk v. CIA, No. 08-CV-1196 (ARR/LB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27,
2008) (docket no. 4). See also Thomas v. Federal Reserve Bank, No. 07-CV-1171 (ARR/LB)
Honorable Nina Gershon
ACORN v. United States, No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.)
December 21, 2009
Page 2

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

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

Regardless of Strunk’s filing history, we can envision no circumstances under which

Strunk could meet the requirements of Rule 24 for either of-right or permissive intervention
in this case. Intervention as of right is governed by Rule 24(a), which provides that, unless
a right to intervene is unconditionally granted by federal statute, a non-party has no right to
intervene in a case as a plaintiff or defendant unless it shows that (1) its motion to intervene
was timely filed; (2) it has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action; (3) it is so situated that without intervention the disposition of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4)
its interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Butler,
Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 2001). “All four parts of the test
must be satisfied to qualify for intervention as of right.” Washington Elec. Coop., Inc. v.
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 1990); accord D’Amato
v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Denial of the motion to intervene is proper
if any of these requirements is not met”); United States v. New York, 820 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir.
1987). “The moving party has the burden of demonstrating its entitlement to intervene.”
Seils v. Rochester City Sch. Dist., 199 F.R.D. 506, 509 (W.D.N.Y. 2001).

Permissive intervention is governed by Rule 24(b), which provides that, unless a right
to intervene is conditionally granted by federal statute, a court may not exercise its discretion
to permit a non-party to intervene in an action unless the non-party shows that its “claim or
defense . . . shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(2). “The district court has broad discretion to deny an applicant’s motion for
intervention under Rule 24(b)(2).” Seils, 199 F.R.D. at 512 (citation omitted). In exercising
Honorable Nina Gershon
ACORN v. United States, No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.)
December 21, 2009
Page 3

this discretion, the Court may consider “the nature and extent of the intervenor’s interests,
whether the intervenor’s participation will contribute to a just and equitable adjudication of
the issues, and whether the intervenor’s [interests] are adequately represented by the parties
of record.” Sharif v. New York State Educ. Dep’t, 709 F. Supp. 365, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)
(citation omitted); Seils, 199 F.R.D. at 513.

Strunk seems to be seeking to intervene largely for purposes of appealing, or seeking

reconsideration of, this Court’s preliminary injunction order of December 11. Given that the
Government has already sought reconsideration of that order, and has also filed a notice of
interlocutory appeal from it, Strunk’s proposed intervention can serve no valid purpose.
Moreover, Strunk may not be allowed to intervene as a defendant in this case because he has
no bona fide individualized interest relating to the transactions that are the subject of this
proceeding. The “interests” Strunk claims in his premotion conference letter – to avoid injury
“by Plaintiffs involvement in the alleged racketeering enterprise otherwise properly protected
by the . . . Continuing Resolution,” to ensure that other “essential parties in-interest” (namely,
the State Attorney General) are brought into the suit, to prevent this Court from exceeding
its equity jurisdiction, and to seek your Honor’s recusal – are either frivolous on their face or
else are not distinguishable from any interests that the public at large has in the outcome of
this case. And even if Strunk could demonstrate that he possesses such an individualized
interest in the outcome of this litigation, he can make no showing that such interest will not
be adequately protected by the existing defendants. Any interests implicated by this
litigation will more than adequately be advanced and protected by the parties to the case.

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

We appreciate the Court’s time and considered attention to these matters.

Honorable Nina Gershon
ACORN v. United States, No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.)
December 21, 2009
Page 4

Respectfully submitted,

TONY WEST BENTON J. CAMPBELL

Assistant Attorney General United States Attorney
Civil Division Eastern District of New York

IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN

Deputy Assistant Attorney General /s/ {FILED ELECTRONICALLY}
F. FRANKLIN AMANAT (FA6117)
MICHAEL SITCOV Assistant United States Attorney
PETER D. LEARY (718) 254-6024
BRADLEY H. COHEN franklin.amanat@usdoj.gov
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 7322
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 514-3313
peter.leary@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

cc (by ECF notification only):

Counsel for Plaintiffs

cc (by regular mail and e-mail):

Christopher Earl Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue, Apt. 281
Brooklyn, NY 11238
chris@strunk.ws
Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR
INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND
STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

Exhibit C
 F A MaNJO &JUMO !$ddSMXl
ar(l JO no saum pneg uogeumadlll! lo hpwp!
* W U ( ~ pm pear* Jo =
s,=1 vlo!
-
- w mq - l =Is 'Jyuaq s! wF@d
q q n~ S,-huncx, q 1
G o- 8-q u! pntq
fD PUP1 W JOJ
P T W d U7aq Sey O\Ul- 1V
s~pmr w PIW wsTI p~ed*- =PI
'myp q uoddm 01*-arm Apmama s! pnuj J ~ A
"Uad-ul!lmq mase 'uaqzo %uoure '-1 q q
M N nU JO WolTpa w 'rcrlod ?w ~ ~ I ~ J O ~ I
14J)f!lu"
e s!q ~ 'awn q sum~ 3ql le s ~ o dxp le a t q m @ulr\q
fl) pampneuosladur! %q WA

-
a.p pue ~ o r e u o u d w ~
a q ~q u n .~4euouadur! J a w e Buypuaqudde
~o~-ar~pnonqru43iltuuu~~
nram;l~!nbuo~re~g~mqn UP-n xwap 01 pzpm
,OW &;IA p p &f! J! ~ 0 ~ ~ U i I a d ~
ne r a ~ o q pMXUQ s p g o w g q ~:uosea~q d
-q e loj s! s q Inq '4arum 01 p~erls!p n q lpnsJO
maprna m ! p mp aw s!11 - p a KJU sop X l d q
%u!llodq le "P"EIJ U O P W ~ ~ ! . m-q
h s s m u u n are mq qms q-~ pna~uor,s q q
-s@addv30 uno3 w=!3
W-%.ul4~~~"nm~!mFFPi~.kl~pldn
! oloqd m - J u =
mpba enelprrI JO ~ ! @ u o ~ n r p ; ~ ~
7ql~*uJl@q3=e't~~08~mww
-A pI;wo~3U! n
d @u> m m w!Un
Jo Unq) V '8002 '6 W
&SAoyDds UOA *VSUDH
8002 '01
ZZ 'ON
U O ~ ~ H W ~ ~ " ~
NO. 22 Legal memo ran dun^ March 10, 2008

A 14-Year Vote-Fraud Conspiracy This 14-year conspiracy was detailed by wit-

A striking example of identity fraud at polling nesses who participated in the fraud and were able
places, well within living memory, is described in a to describe in great derail how it was accomplished.
grand jury repon publicly released in 1984 by the The grand jury founcl evidence of fraudulent and
Kings County District Attorney and former Demo- illegal practices in "two primary elections for Con-
cratic Congresswoman Elizabeth ~ o l t z m a n Had
.~ gress held in 1976 and 1982, four primary elec-
it checked its own archives, The New York Times tions for the Assembly in three difierent assembly
would have found a story from 1984. "Boss Tweed districts, three primary elections for the State Sen-
Is Gone, But Not His Vote," that detailed the find- ate in one senatorial district and two elections for
ings of the grand jury7 As that article reported, the state committee in two different districts."1° For 14
grand jury report "disclosed that cemetery voting years, the conspirators engaged in practices that
and other forms of stuffing the ballot box were not included:
buried with Tammany all."' the forgery of voter registration cards with
The grand jury report revealed extensive voter the names of fictitious persons, the filing
registration and voter impersonation fraud in pri- of these cards with the Board of Elections,
mary elections in Brooklyn between 1968 and [and] the recruitment of people to cast
1982 that affected races for the US. Congress and multiple votes on behalf of specified
the New York Smte Senate and Assembly. Accord- candidates using these forged cards or the
ing to H o l ~ m a n ,"[~Ihegrand jury investigation cards of deceased and 01her persons.1 '
has uncovered a systematic attack on the integrity The grand jury explained that "the ease and
of elections in Brooklyn." Holtzman warned that boldness with which these fraudulent schemes
unless there were immediate changes in proce- were canied nut shows the vulnerability of our
dures, there was "a danger that serious fraud could entire electoral process to unscrupulous and fraud-
occur in connection with the upcoming e~ection."~ ulent manipulation.n12

1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., Nos. 07-21 and 07-25 (U.S. Supreme Court, cen. granted Sept. 25,2007);2005
IND.LEGIS.S m . PL. 109;scc IND. CODE§§ 3-11-8-23.1(c),3-5-2-40.5. This voter ID law does not apply to those who are
over 65, disabled, or confined by illness or injury, all of whom may cast absentee ballots. See IND.CODE§§ 3-11-10-
24(a)(3)-(5).The law a h does nor apply LO individuals -who vore in person at a precinct polling place that is located at a
stare licensed care facility where the vorrr resides." Id. at § 3-11-8-25.1(e).
2. Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 E Supp. 2d 775 (S.D. Ind. 2006).
3. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 E3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007).
4. The Court and Voter 1D5,N.Y. TIMES,Jan. 9, 2008.
5. Linda Greenhouse,Justic~sIndicate They May Uphold VoterID Rulcs, N.Y. IIMES, Jan. 10,2008. According to Mr. Smith,
-there's not a single recorded example of voter impersonation fraud.. .. ItS not happening and, indeed, every single indica-
tion in this record is that the evidence of this kind of fraud occumng, to call it scant is to overstate it." Transcript at 19-20.
Crawford v. hlarion County Election Bd., Nos. 07-21and 07-25 (U.S. Supreme Court, cert. granted Sept. 25.2007). avail-
able at h ~ ~ p ~ / ~ ~ ~ . s u p r e m e c o u ~ . g o v / o r a l ~ a r g u m e n t s / ~ e n t ~ t r a ~ ~ n p ~ O 7 - L 1 ~ p d f .
6. Press Release, Brooklyn, New York, District Attorney's OEfice, D.A. Holtzman Announces Grand Jury Report Disclosing
Systematic Voting Fraud in Brooklyn (Sepr. 5, 1984);In the Matter of Confidential Investigation, No. R84-11 (N.Y.
Supreme Court 1384) [hereinafter Grand Jury Report].
7. Frank Lynn, Boss hveed Is h e , But Not His Vole, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 9. 1984.
8 Id
9. District Attorney's Office,supra n. 6, at 1-2.
10. Grand Jury Repon, supra n. 6, at 2. Although the grand jury could not determine whether these illegal activities had
altered the outcome of those elecrions. it did find that the ourcome of at least one State Committee election in 1978 was
changed by fraudulent voting. Id.
11. Id.
NO. 22 Legal Memorandum
The Tools of Vote Fraud
One of the key factors in the success of this
scheme was the "advent of mail-in registration [in
New Yorkl in 1976 [which] made the creation of
bogus registration cards even easier and less subject
to detection."13 Congress mandated the same lype
of New York-style mail-in registration nationwide
in 1993 with the passage of the National Voter Reg-
istration Act, thus ensuring that the security prob-
lems caused by unsupervised mail-in registration in
New York were spread nationwide. In fact, accord-
ing to the grand jury, "mail-in registration has
become the principal means of perpetrating elec-
tion fraud" in New york.14
Another change in the law that increased fraud
was the new practice that allowed any organization
to obtain bulk quantities of voter registration forms
from the Board of Elections h a t "contain no identi-
fyin serial number at the time they are given
The conspirators obtained blank voter reg-
istration carcls and then filled them out with ficti-
tious first names and real last names taken from
party enrollment books within the targeted voting
~recinct:
For example, if a John Brown actually lived at
1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York, the
application would be completed in the name
of Mary Brown, 1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New
York. It was anticipated that when the mail
for the fictitious Mary Brown was delivered to
John Broun at his address, John Brown
would discard the nolice rather than return it
to the post office. This plan reduced the
likelihood that the voter registration notice
card would be returned to the Board of
Elections. hereby mi~umiiingt l ~ e ~ i b d i t y
that the fraud would be detected.'
I2. Id. at 3.
13. Id. at 11.
14. Id
15. Id. Without serial numbers, an election jurisdiction cannoL determine which organization may be responsible for problem-
atic or frdudulent registration forms that are received.
16. Id at 12.
17. Id. at 10-1 1.
18. Lynn,supra n. 7.
March 10,2008
This process was also successful because of the
way the Postal Service handled the mail. The nor-
mal procedure of all election jurisdictions in the
United States is to mail a voter registration card to a
newly registered voter after the reptration applica-
tion form has been received and processed.
Although the primary purpose of the mailing is to
provide the new voter with the voter registration
card, it is also intended to ensure that a real person
has registered and provided an accurate address.
The New York Board of Elections thus relied on the
Postal Service to return any registration cards that
were undeliverable because the registrant was ficti-
tious or did not live at the address on the applica-
t ion form. Election jurisdictions today still rely on
the Postal Service for this validation.
However, the grand jury found that "mail carri-
ers did not return these cards particularly where
the address on the card was that of a large multiple
dwelling.. .land] would frequently leave the unde-
liverable voter registration cards in a common area
of the buildii~g."To take advan~ageof this, the
conspirators used the addresses of multiple dwell-
ings in which members of their crews lived, which
them the ability to collect the bogus registra-
tion cards." The Executive Director of the State
Board of Elections at he time, Thomas W Wallace,
commented that the handling of voter registration
cards by the Postal Service varied greatly through-
out the state and was a continuing problem for
election officials.l8
In addition to a voter's signature, New York's
voter registration application forms at that time
included a physical description of the voter-
something that is nonexistent on the mail-in voter
registration applications used today. Even so, the
vote-fraud conspirators avoided detection eilher by
NO. 22 L e d Memorandum
using their own physical descriptions or by provid-
ing general descriptions that could be met by
numerous people engaged in the scheme.
Thc fraudulent forms wcrc cithcr mailed or dcliv-
ered to the Board of Elections. often with a group of
legitimate registrations. The grand jury reported
that in one 1978 legislative race alone, 1,000 bogus
voter registration forms were successfull filed with-
out detection by the b a r d of Elections.' Although
New York law required a check at the polling place
of the voter's signature, this proved to be no obstacle
to this fraud because the persons creating the ficti-
tious voter registration application forms would
later vote under the same names. so their signatures
at the polling place would match their signatures on
the original registration forms.
These attempts to steal elections through the use
of fraudulent voter registrations culminated each
election day with votes cast using the fictitious
cards. One witness testified that he first partici-
pated as a fraudulent voter when he was only 17.
voting in a legislative primary in 1968 "using a reg-
istration card prepared under a different name by a
member of the local Democratic club.n20
In 1970. the witness voted at least 10 times, at
10 different polling places, using bogus regis-
tration cards. He was part of a crew of five per-
sons, each of whom was paid $40 for the dayk
activities.
In the 1972 Democratic primary election, he
received a promotion to crew chief, running a
crew of five members.
By 1974, his crew had grown to eight members,
each of whom voted in excess of 20 times, and
there were approximately 20 other crews oper-
ating during that election.
In 1976, the grand jury witness led a crew of
five people who cast at least 100 fraudulent
votes.
l9. GrandJury- &port, juplu n. 6, at 13.
20. Id. at 14.
21. Id. at 14-15.
22. Id. at 15.
23. Id. at 15.
March 10, 2008
Moreover, the same witness had been present at
a meeting prior to elec~ion da that was
..attended by twenty crew chlefs.'"'lf the other
crews averaged as many lraudulent votes, then
there would have been at least 2,000 phony
votes cast in that election without detection by
precinct poll workers or election officials.
By 1982, the witness "was to have provided
twenty-five workers to vote in a Congressional
primary election again using bogus voter regis-
tration cards."22
In addition to voting in the names of fictitious
voters who had been successfully registered, the
crews used several other methods of casting fraud-
ulent votes. One method involved voting under the
names of legitimate voters. By reviewing the voter
registration records at the Board of Elections prior
to election day, the conspirators were able to Find
the names of newly registered voters. Using the
names of these voters, the crews would go to the
appropriate polling places as soon as the polls
opened in the morning to vote under those names:
The reasoning behind this method,
according to the experience of one witness,
was that newly registered voters often do
not vote. By arriving at the polling sites
early. the bogus voter would not need to
worry about the possibility that the real
voter had actually voted.23
Another method e n d e d collecting, during
nominating petition drives, the names of registered
voters who had died or moved. Members of the
various crews were then sent to polling places on
election day to vote in the names of those voters.
The signature requirement did not prevent such
fraudulent voting ei~lier,which points out the inad-
equacy of signature matching (a highly trained skill
that cannot be taught in a matter of hours to the
average poll worker) to prevent this type of fraud.
Credit cards present a similar problem, since the
NO. 22 hd Memorandum March 10, 2008

signature requirement on credit cards does not pre-
vent the ~ i ~ c avolume
n t of credit card Fraud that
occurs in the United States.
Database tcchnolog). is anothcr tool of thc rradc
that was not available then but is widespread now.
Voter registration lists are public information in
most states, and databases containing detailed
information on voters are available From a wide
variety of commercial vendors.
The databases of such commercial vendors are
usually much more up-to-date than the informa-
tion contained in Lhe voler registration databases
maintained by election officials. This makes it very
easy for anyone with access to such information to
determine the names of voters who are still regis-
tered but who have died or moved out of a jurisdic-
tion. As Justice Roberts pointed out in the Indiana
voter ID case, the record in the litigation showed
that 41.4 percent of the names on Indiana's voter
registration rolls were bad entries, representing
tens of thousands of ineli ible voters-a trove of
potential fraudulent votes.&
A Widespread Problem
The widespread impersonation fraud that
occurred in Brooklyn raises the question of
whether such fraud is a problem elsewhere in the
country today. More recent cases provide evidence
of what may be a wider problem that is very diffi-
cult to detect in jurisdicrions that do not require
voter identification.
For example, Dr. Robert Pastor, Executive Direc-
tor of the Baker-Carter Commission on Federal
Election Reform and Director of the Center for
Democracy and Election Management at American
University, testified before the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights in 2006 that he was once unable to vote
because someone had already cast a ballot in his
name at his polling place. He had no recourse at the
poll to find out "why his had occurred, whether
there was some error or whatever else, and the poll-
ing station iwlf didn't keep any record of it."25
In a 2007 city council election in Hoboken. New
Jersey, the former zoning board president noticed a
group of men near his polling place being given
index cards by two people shonly before the June
election. One of those men later entered the polling
place and triecl to vole in the name of another reg-
istered voter who. it turned out, no longer lived in
the ward. The imposter was caught only because he
happened to be challenged by the zoning board
president. He admitled ro the police that the group
of men from a homeless shelter had been paid $10
each to vote using others' names.16
Last year, in a case reminiscen~of Boss Tweed
and the Brooklyn grand jury report, the U.5.
Department of Justice won a voting rights lawsuit
in Noxubee, Mississippi, against a defendant
named Ike Brown, as well as the county election
board.27 Brown, a convicted felon, was the head of
the local Democratic Party. He had set up a political
machine t h a ~worked to guarantee the election of
his approved candidates to local office+sentiaUy
his version of Tarnrnany Hall. One of the conten-
tions in the litigation was that the local election
board's "failure to purge the voter registration roll
to eliminate persons who have moved or died and
who are thus no longer eligible voters" increased
the opportunity for voter fraud by creating "the
potential for persons to vote under others' names."
The court cited the testimony of one of the govern-
ment's witnesses, a former deputy sheriff. who said
that "he saw Ike Brown outside the door of the pre-
cinct talking lo a young black lady.. .and heard him

2-t. Transcript in Cruwford, supru n. 5 , at 18.

25. Transcript of Briefing on Votcr Fraud and Voter Intimidation,Unitcd States Commission on Civll Rights, OCL.13,2006. nr 185.
26. See Madehe Friedman, Anatomy oJVokr Fraud- WIIIOJ& Follow Up on Alleged $10 Vote Payoff?HUDSONREP~RTERJuly 1,
2007; Unclear Which Agency Wd Investlgm F r a d Proseatnrk 0 )Nhnng for Rejenai, kIvmor\i R E P O K Jdy~ 8,2007.
27. U.S.v. Brown, 494 E SUPP.2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007). The lawsuil was filed under Sections 2 and 11 of the Voting kghts
Act and led to the first judgment in the U.S. Finding racial discrimination in voling by black officials against white voters.
The court said that it had -not had to look far to find ample direct and circumstaruial evidence of an intent to dk-rimmina
against white voters which has manifested itself through practices designed to deny and/or dilute the voting rights of white
voters in Noxubee." ld. at 449.
NO. 22 Legal Memorandum March 10. 2008

tell her to go in there and vote, to use any name,
and that no one was going to say anything."2a
Mississippi does not require a photo ID for in-
person voting, but it is now uncler court order to
implement such a requirement due to a federal case
filed by the Mississippi Democratic Party over its
concern that the suteS open piirnaiy system and
lack of party registration makes il unable to identlfy
non-Democrats and prevent them from voting in
its primaries.29 This effort by the Mississippi Dem-
ocratic Party is instructive because it discloses that
threats to free, fair. and open elections concern not
only elective office and those who eventually hold
them, but also the political parties as they recruit
and organize voters and nominate heir candidates.
Political parties merit protection as much as indi-
vidual voters whose franchise is diluted and denied
by the commission of fraud.
The Indiana voter ID case itself also demon-
strates the problem of double voting by individuals
who are illegally registered to vote in more than
one state. Because different states do not generally
run database matching comparisons between their
voter registration lists, there is no national process
by which to detect multiple registrations. One of
the Lndiana voters highlighted by the League of
Women Voters who supposedly could not vote due
to the voter ID law turned out to be registered to
vote not just in Indiana, but also in Florida, where
she o ~ m 3s home and claimed a homestead exemp-
tion (which requires an individual to assert resi-
dency). She was not allowed to vote in Indiana
because she tried to use a Florida driver's license as
her I k l e a r evidence h a t the law worked as
intended to prevent a fraudulent vote by an indi-
vidual who not only had claimed to be a resident of
a stale other than Indiana, but also had actually
registered to vote there as well.30
Unfortunately. attempts by neighboring states
such as Kentucky and Tennessee to compare their
voter re@trauon lists Lor individuals registered iil
both states have been met with lawsuits contesting
their right to do so.31 A federal court even issued
an injunction barring the State of Washington from
refusing to regis~erindividuals whose application
information (such as their residence address) does
not match infoinntion on that inditidual that is
contained in other state databases, such as the
Department of Licensing's (drivers licenses),
thereby making it extremely difficult for a state to
verify the accuracy and validity of information
being provided by an individual in an attempt to
register to vote.32
One of the changes recommended by the New
York grand jury to prevent problems caused by
outside organizations filing fraudulent voter regis-
tration forms was "serializing and recording the
serial numbers of all voter registration cards dis-
tributed in bulk and insisting on greater account-
ability by organizations engaged in voter
registration."33 A number of states have recently
attempted to implement such requirements after
they received large numbers of fraudulent voter
registration forms, or received legitimate forms too
late to be effective for an upcoming election, from
third parties such as the Association o: Commu-
nity Organiza~ionsfor Reform Now (ACORN).
These fraud-prevention rlki~rts, however, were

28. Brown, 494 E SWP. 2d at 486, n. 73. According to news accounts and sources in h e Justice Depamnent, in an apparent
attempt to intimidate this witness, a Noxubee deputy sheriff and political ally of Brown arrested the witness for disorderly
conduct and reckless drihlng only days after the government named him as a witness in a filing with the federal court. In
an unprecedented move, the federal judge stayed the county prosecution. See John Mott Coffey, Noxubee Voting Rights Trial
to Begin Ticesday, COMMERCWL DISPATCH,Jan. 13,2007;Bill Nichols, Voting Rights Act Pointed in a New Direclion, USA TODAY,
April 3,2006.
29. See Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F: SUPP.2d 641 (N.D.Miss. 2007).
30. Cindy Bevington, Voter Cited by Opponents ojlndianak ID Law Registered in Two States, EVENINGST* January 9, 2008.
31. See Stumbo v. Keniucky State Board of Elections, No. 06-(3-610 (Franklin Cir., Ky. OCL.2,2006).
32. See Washington Association of Churches v. Reed, 492 E Swr. 2d 1264 (W.D. Wash. 2006); see also Florida State Conf. of
NAACP v. Browning, No. 4:07CV-402 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2007). appeal filed Dec. 19, 2007.
33. Grand Jury Report, supra n. 6, at 22.
NO. 22 Legal Memorandum March 10.2008

halted by lawsuits filed by organizations such as Even though it led to no indictments, the New
Project Vote and the League of Women Voters that York investigation still serves a valuable purpose.
claimed that such requirements would impede Most clearly, it demonstrates that voter imperson-
their voter registration ation is a real problem and one that is nearly
Similarly, Ohio's attempt to improve third-party impossible for election officials to detect given the
voter registration was also struck down. The law weak tools usually at their disposal. Further, the
mandated training for individuals who assist appli- investigation provides good reason to believe that
cants in voter registration; required them to pro- this 14-year-long conspiracy to submit thousands
vide their name, signature, address, and employer (if not tens of thousands) of fraudulent votes in
on the voter registration form of each individual New York City could not have occurred if voters
they assist; and required them to return the forms had been required to present photo identification
directly to election officials rather than entrust when they voted.
them to a third party for delivery. Thezie proviisions New York's experience also demonstrata the fal-
were all enjoined as violations of the National Voter lacy of several arguments and assertions made by
Registration Act and the First and Fourteenth the petitioners' attorney, Paul Smith, in the Indiana
Amendments to the ~onstitution.~'Even if the case and by critics of voter ID in general. For exam-
court rulings w-er2 legally correct (a questionable ple, Smith told Chief Justice Roberts that imper-
conclusion), that is all the more reason for a state to sonation fraud is unlikely because it is not hard to
correct for potential fraud by requiring some form detect: "When you're going into the polls and say-
of reasonable voter ID at the polls. ing, I'm Joe Smith, you're dealing with a neighbor-
hood person who knows a lot of people who are
Lessons Learned there, you have to match that person's signature."38
There were no indictmen& issued by the New The idea that, in our mobile society today, all of
York grand jury as a result of its investigation the poll workers in a precinct will be "neighbor-
"because the statute of limitations had run out in hood" workers who know everyone in their pre-
some cases and because several of those involved cinct (even a small precinct) does not match reality.
were given immunity in return for t e ~ t i r n o n ~ . ' ' ~The
~ poll worker manual for the Board of Elections
Remarkably, [he fraud was apparently discovered for the City of New York states that polling places
only because of the actions of a former state senator, have only 750 registered vo~ers,~' yet the imper-
Vander L. Beatty, who was convicted of voter fraud sonation fraud that occurred in Brooklyn involving
and conspiracy. After Beatty lost the 1982 Demo- thousands of fraudulent votes went undetected for
cratic congressional primary election, some of his 14 years even in such relatively small precincts.
"supporters hid in the Brooklyn Board of Elections Many jurisdictions in other states and counties
office until after business hours and then made have much larger precincts, some of them contain-
some obvious forgeries of registration cards to cre- ing thousands of registered voters.
ate the appearance of irregularities" in order to give
Beatty the ability to challenge (unsuccessfully) the Contrary to Mr. Smith's claims, New York's sig-
winner of the primary election.37 nature requirement also did nothing to stop this
successful voter fraud conspiracy from casting

34.Szr: Projtxi Volt. v. Blacl\wcll, 455 E Sb-PP. 2cl69+ (N.D. Oluo 2006), Lrague oi\Vo~nerrVo~crbof Florida v. CULL,+S7 E
SUPP.2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
35. Project Vote v. Blackwell, No. 1:06CV-1628(N.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2008).
36. Lynn, supra n. 7.
37. Id.
38. Transcripi in Crawford, supra n. 5, at 19.
39. N.Y. Bd. Of Elections, POLL WORKERSMANUAL2007 15, at ht~p://vote.nyc.nyus/pdVdocumen~s/bodpollworkers~
pollworkersmanual.pdl, page 15.
NO. 22 Lgd Memorandum March 10,2008

b o p s votes in person at polling places. The partic-
ipants in the Brooklyn case impersonated newly
registered, deceased, and moved voters by voting
in their place for years without detec~ion.
Voter ID: A Sensible Solution
In recent elections, thousands of fraudulent voter
registration forms have been detected by election offi-
cials aU over the country. Given the minimal to non-
existent screening efforts engaged in by most election
jurisdictions, there is no way to know how many
others slipped through. In states without identifica-
tion require men^, election officials have no way to
prevent bogus votes from being cast by unscrupulous
individuals based on fictitious voter registrations, by
impersonators, or by noncitizens who are registered
to vote-another growing problem.40 This is a secu-
rity problem that requires a solution.
As the New York voter fraud investigation and
other cases illustrate, impersonation fraud does
occur and can be difficult or impossible to detect.
States such as Indiana and Georgia have a legiti-
mate and entirely reasonable interest in requiring
voters to idenufy themselves when they vote in
order to prevent impersonation fraud and voting
through the use of fraudulent voter registration
forms. The Indiana case also demonstrates that
voter identification can detect unlawful multiple
voter gistr rations by individuals in ddferent states.
Finally, requiring a govemmenr-issued photo ID
can prevent illegal aliens from voting (except in
states that issue driver's licenses to noncitizens). A
simple requirement that a voter demonstrate his
authentic identity assures that free elections remain
untainted by fraud that undermines their fairness
and, in turn. disappoints the expectations of the
voting public
In 1984. the New York grand jury recommended
that the governor and state legislature examine as a
possible remedy "requiring identification from vot-
ers at the time of voting or regi~tration."~'In 2005,
the bipartisan Baker-Carter Commission on Fed-
eral Election Reform also recommended requiring
photo ID for in-person voting because "[iln close or
disputed elections, and there are many, a small
amount of fraud could make rhe margin of diKer-
ence. And second, the perception of possible fraud
contributes to low confidence in the system.n42
Voters in nearly 100 democracies are required to
present photo identlhcation to ensure the integrity
of elections.43 Our southern neighbor, Mexico,
requires both a photo ID and a thumbprint. and
turnout has increased in its eleclions since this
requirement was implemented.34 If Mexico can
implement a s~~ccessful photo ID program for its
voters, there is no valid reason the United States
cannot do the same.
As the grand jury in New York properly con-
cluded at the end of ics investigation of a vote-fraud
conspiracy that had been successfully carried out
without detection for 14 years, "The core of the
democratic process is the right of the people to
choose their representatives in fair elections. Fraud
in the election process is into~erable."~~
-Hans A. von Spahovsky served as a member of the
Federcll Election Commissionfor twoyears. Before that,
he was Counsel io the Assistani Attorney General for
Civil Rights at the U.S. Department oflwtice, where he
specialized in voting and election issues. He also served
as a counfy election oficial in Georgiaforfive years us
n member of the Fulton County Registration and Elec-
tion Board.

40. In just one Texas county, jury summonses led to the discovery that ar least 330 ille~alaliens were registered to vote and
that 41 had voted repeatedly "in more than a dozen local, state and federal elections between 2001 and (20071." Guillermo
X Garcia, Vote Fraud Probed in Bcxar, EXPRESSNnvs, June 8,2007.
41. Grand Jury Report, supra n. 6, at 2 1-22.
42. Commission on Federal Election Reform, B ~ ~ D M G
C~NFIDENCI: I N U.S. ELECTIONS 18, Sep~.2005
43. Id. at 5.
44. John R Lott, Jr., Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Irnpacl that REgulations ro Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates,
August 18,20C%,pp. 2-3, at htcp~/~~.vore.caltech.edunioterID/ssm-id~2561l .pdi.
45. Grand Jury Report, slipra n. 6. at 3.
Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR
INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND
STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

Exhibit D
 L/

pLPF'Z"PAVtT

I, TBRZ lRl€U,ws,do wjraby #

.
t
s that 3n t& matt.+

& ftnxssk uz8m Patensma bcld NommWr 2 4 . 2009 in

~~ && rs&lcWidt, ctsAig.ar rtfort. Wtr m& to

fEwB;tMmrnalLQdbctb.h ~~ %xm

rrci nreil; tbndtosa* no tmmeript cur b. pruQc%W.

18

39
20

ar
32
22

itr
zs

I.
Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR
INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND
STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

Exhibit E
 Left-Wing Radicalism in the Church:
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development
By Matthew Vadum
Summary: Each November around Thanks-
giving every Roman Catholic parish takes
up a collection for the nonprofit Catho-
lic Campaign for Human Development
(CCHD), a program run under the auspices
of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops (USCCB). Last November, under
intense pressure from Catholic parishioners,
CCHD finally stopped collecting money for
the fraud-ridden radical group ACORN.
But the Bishops’ Conference continues to
support other radical community activist
groups with similar goals, such as the In-
dustrial Areas Foundation (IAF) founded in
Chicago by Saul Alinsky, the founding fa-
ther of “community organizing.” President
Obama, a self-professed community orga-
nizer, has ties to both ACORN and CCHD.

I
t must have been a sad day at the offices
of the Catholic Campaign for Human De-
velopment (CCHD) in Washington, D.C.,
last year when the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) announced that
its temporary suspension of funding for the
embattled radical group ACORN was being
made permanent.
Bishop Roger Morin announced last fall that CCHD was cutting off the corrupt group
CCHD is the grantmaking arm of USCCB, ACORN but as this year’s Thanksgiving collection approaches, the church’s charity
the 350-person Washington, D.C.-based or- continues to support similar radical community organizing groups.
ganization that acts on behalf of the nation’s Catholic bishops were coming under intense
Roman Catholic bishops, a group widely pressure from conservative Catholics who September 2009
assumed to be conservative defenders of were outraged by reports of gross legal and
traditional morality. However, CCHD and ethical improprieties involving ACORN. CONTENTS
ACORN share a left-wing sociopolitical
ideology that puts a premium on aggressive Founded in 1969, CCHD has given more Left-Wing Radicalism
community organizing – but more on that than $280 million over the years to fund in the Church
in a moment. what it calls over “7,800 low-income-led, Page 1
community-based projects that strengthen
After channeling $7.3 million of parishioners’ families, create jobs, build affordable hous- Philanthropy Notes
money to ACORN over the last decade, the ing, fight crime, and improve schools and Page 8
FoundationWatch

neighborhoods.” The projects funded must

develop local solutions to “help break the
cycle of poverty.” CCHD says it educates
Catholics “about the causes of poverty and
seeks to build solidarity between impover-
ished and affluent persons.”

Its mission statement calls for raising funds

to support “organized groups of white and
minority poor to develop economic strength
and political power.” It also declares CCHD’s
purpose is to “educate the People of God to
a new knowledge of today’s problems…
that can lead to some new approaches that
promote a greater sense of solidarity.”

On Nov. 11, 2008, Bishop Roger Morin,

chairman of the Bishops’ subcommittee
on CCHD, announced that ACORN was
permanently cut off as a grant recipient.
No funds from the annual collection taken
at every Catholic parish during the third
Sunday of November “will go to ACORN in
any place or at any level,” he said. ACORN
stands for Association of Community Orga-
nizations for Reform Now, a group that has
hundreds of affiliates across America. (For
more on ACORN, see the November 2008
editions of CRC’s Foundation Watch and
Labor Watch.)
Bishop Morin announced that the five-
Editor: Matthew Vadum
Publisher: Terrence Scanlon
Foundation Watch
is published by Capital Research
Center, a non-partisan education and
research organization, classified by
the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity.
Address:
1513 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-1480
Phone: (202) 483-6900
Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950
E-mail Address:
mvadum@capitalresearch.org
Web Site:
http://www.capitalresearch.org
Organization Trends welcomes let-
ters to the editor.
Reprints are available for $2.50 pre-
paid to Capital Research Center.
Heather Booth of the Midwest Academy
month-old provisional suspension of fund-
ing for ACORN had been made permanent
“because of serious concerns about financial
accountability, organizational performance
and political partisanship.”
He made it clear that “a major case of em-
bezzlement eight years ago that was covered
up by ACORN staff leadership,” was the
tipping point and noted that CCHD and the
Bishops Conference had hired forensic ac-
countants “to help determine if any CCHD
money was taken or misused.”
It is unclear if that forensic audit has been
completed. Ralph McCloud, director of
CCHD, said the groups “that will benefit
from this year’s collection have yet to be
determined.” The decision will be made in
June next year, McCloud said.
CCHD, which insists it does not support
organizations that engage in partisan politics,
became concerned that ACORN had used
its money in a way that might jeopardize
CCHD’s tax-exempt status. Morin said
that although CCHD had funded only local
affiliates of ACORN, the national group’s
conduct, including its involvement in alleged
election fraud, “raised serious concerns about
national ACORN’s financial accountability,
transparency, governance and organizational
integrity.”
Of course public concerns about ACORN
have only grown since Morin announced
the funding cutoff. In July congressional in-
vestigators released a report concluding that
ACORN was a highly partisan organization
involved in racketeering and serial violations
of tax, campaign finance, and other laws.
CCHD and ACORN are cousins in a
sense, and their common bonds must have
made it excruciating for CCHD to disown
ACORN.
Both CCHD and ACORN were inspired by
Saul Alinsky, the father of community orga-
nizing. Alinsky is the Marxist Machiavelli
who dedicated his 1971 manual on grassroots
activism, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer,
whom he called “the first radical known to
man who rebelled against the establishment
and did it so effectively that he at least won
his own kingdom.”
Alinsky believed poor people had to rise up
and take what belonged to them. “I tell people,
‘The hell with charity. The only thing you’ll
get is what you’re strong enough to get.’”
To that end, he developed the concept of
“community organizing” to mobilize poor
neighborhoods to make demands, long and
loud, on public officials and the private sector.
To Alinsky, “organizing” was a euphemistic
term for “revolution.”

2 September 2009

Radical Goals
While CCHD poses as a mainstream Chris-
tian charity trying to help the poor, it uses
left-wing euphemisms in its mission state-
ment. It seeks to address “the root causes of
poverty in America through promotion and
support of community-controlled, self-help
organizations and through transformative
education.”
ACORN’s mission statement, by compari-
son, is far more aggressive. Its “People’s
Platform,” is a manifesto for America’s
downtrodden:
“But we have nothing to show for the
work of our hand, the tax of our labor.
Our patience has been abused; our ex-
perience misused. Our silence has been
seen as support. Our struggle has been
ignored. Enough is enough. We will wait
no longer for the crumbs at America’s
door. We will not be meek, but mighty.
We will not starve on past promises, but
feast on future dreams.”
CCHD’s website sells bumper sticks that say,
“If you want peace, work for JUSTICE.” It’s
a variation on the radical slogan “no justice,
no peace,” that Thomas Sowell notes “has
been used to justify settling legal issues in
the streets, instead of in courts of law.”
CCHD’s 2007 annual report declares,
“Poverty is caused not simply by the lack
of financial resources, but by the lack of
quality education, affordable housing, health
care, child care, fair wages, and vocational
training.” In the same report, CCHD states
that it “supports programs that help poor and
low-income people to help themselves.”
Indeed it does, if helping the poor consists
of funding Alinsky-inspired poverty groups
to help themselves to taxpayer money.
Here are some of the left-wing local groups
that received grants from CCHD in 2008:
Chinese Progressive Association; VOZ
Workers’ Rights Education Project; Texas
Tenants’ Union Inc.; Border Network for
Human Rights; Figueroa Corridor Coalition
for Economic Justice; and Power U Center
for Social Change. With names like these,
do these groups seem focused primarily on
helping the poor?
September 2009
Funding the Radical Left and Community
Organizers
CCHD reported distributing $10.2 million
for grants and projects in 2007, up from $9.7
million the year before.
But not much of CCHD’s money over the
years has actually gone to the poor. Almost
all of it has been disbursed to ACORN-like
groups for political activities and commu-
nity organizing – and many of those groups
Edward T. Chambers of the Industrial
Areas Foundation (IAF)
have been founded or are run by Catholic
priests.
Here are some select recipients of CCHD
grants:
*Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation,
the mother of all community organizing
networks with dozens of affiliates nationwide
(and affiliates in Canada, Germany, and the
United Kingdom), has received plenty of
money over the years from CCHD. Alinsky
referred to its training institute as a “school
for professional radicals.” It has been headed
by ex-seminarian Edward T. Chambers since
Alinsky’s death in 1972.
*The Midwest Academy founded by
Heather and Paul Booth has been funded
by CCHD, according to Catholic writer
Paul Likoudis. IAF trained Heather Booth,
the founder of a number of activist training
academies, including the Midwest Academy,
Citizen Action and USAction. Her husband
FoundationWatch
is Paul Booth, a founder and former national
secretary of Students for a Democratic Soci-
ety (SDS), now an aide to Gerald McEntee,
president of the powerful public sector union
AFSCME
According to the David Horowitz Freedom
Center, the Midwest Academy is an Alinsky-
inspired school that teaches “radical activists
tactics of direct action, targeting, confronta-
tion, and intimidation.” It describes itself as
“one of the nation’s oldest and best known
schools for community organizations, citizen
organizations and individuals committed to
progressive social change.”
*People Improving Communities Through
Organizing (PICO), was founded in 1972 by
Father John Baumann, a Jesuit priest trained
in Alinsky’s techniques. The training school
and activist group was originally called Pa-
cific Institute for Community Organizations,
but five years ago it adopted its current name.
It claims to have 53 affiliates in 17 states.
Also known as the PICO National Network,
the group describes its mission as trying to
“increase access to health care, improve pub-
lic schools, make neighborhoods safer, build
affordable housing, redevelop communities,
and revitalize democracy.” PICO also says,
“[W]e need to insure that new Americans
are welcomed and not exploited.”
According to the group, “government can
play a vital role in improving society.” It
favors using “people of faith” to maximize
“the potential for transformation – of people,
institutions, and of our larger culture.” This
year it has worked with Sojourners and Faith-
ful America, which is a political arm of the
National Council of Churches, to encourage
churchgoers to campaign for a government
takeover of the nation’s healthcare system.
*Direct Action and Research Training
Institute (DART) was created in 1982. It
boasts 20 locally affiliated organizations in
six states and claims to have trained more
than 10,000 community leaders and 150 pro-
fessional community organizers. Academic
David Walls wrote that it “practices strictly
congregation-based community organization
[and]… conducts five-day orientation train-
ings for community leaders and has a four-
month training program for organizers.”
3
FoundationWatch
*Gamaliel Foundation, founded in 1968 in
Chicago, says its mission is “to be a powerful
network of grassroots, interfaith, interracial,
multi-issue organizations working together
to create a more just and more democratic
society.” Its executive director is Gregory
Galluzzo, a former Jesuit priest.
Originally focused on helping low-income
black Americans, Galluzzo changed its focus
to community organizing when he took over
in 1986. It is “refocusing its efforts on wider
metropolitan areas and assessing how to im-
Father John Baumann, founder
of People Improving Communities
Through Organizing (PICO)
pact national policy on immigration reform,”
according to Walls. As of last year, Gamaliel
reported having 60 affiliates in 21 states, as
well as affiliates in the United Kingdom and
South Africa. The group claims to represent
more than one million people.
Gamaliel brags on its website about its
connection to President Obama. Obama
worked for the Developing Communities
Project, which was a spinoff of the Calumet
Community Religious Conference, itself a
creation of several Chicago area Catholic
churches.
The Obama Connection
Both President Obama and his secretary
of state, Hillary Clinton, were inspired by
Alinsky’s teachings. Clinton even wrote her
4 September 2009
senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky.
It has not been widely reported that CCHD
has a longtime friend in the White House. Ac-
cording to “The Catholic Case for Obama,”
a monograph published by a group called
Catholic Democrats, Barack Obama “re-
ceived support in his community organizing
work for Chicago from the Archdiocese of
Chicago and the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops through the Campaign
for Human Development.” (It is available at
http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/pdf/
Catholic_Case_for_Obama_booklet.pdf.)
Candidate Obama himself acknowledged
CCHD’s importance to his early career in
community organizing in an October 2008
interview with Catholic Digest:
“I got my start as a community organizer
working with mostly Catholic parishes
on the South Side of Chicago that were
struggling because the steel plants had
closed. The Campaign for Human Devel-
opment helped fund the project, and so
very early on, my career was intertwined
with the belief in social justice that is so
strong in the Church.”
From 1985 to 1988 Obama ran the CCHD-
funded Developing Communities Project
(DCP) from an office located in Chicago’s
Holy Rosary Church.
Obama has said he “tried to apply the precepts
of compassion and care for the vulnerable
that are so central to Catholic teachings to
my work [such as in] making health care a
right for all Americans – I was the sponsor
in the state legislature for the Bernardin
Amendment, named after Cardinal Bernar-
din, a wonderful figure in Chicago I had the
opportunity to work with who said that health
care should be a right.”
The Alinsky Connection
CCHD has long supported groups such as
ACORN that engage in left-wing community
organizing.
In fact, it was created specifically to do so.
Former Treasury Secretary William E.
Simon, a prominent Catholic layman who
served on the board of Capital Research
Center, complained in the late 1980s that
CCHD was a “funding mechanism for radi-
cal left-wing political activism in the United
States, rather than for traditional types of
charities.”
Catholic writer Paul Likoudis observes that
CCHD could be considered “a political
mechanism bonding the American Church
to the welfare state.”
Likoudis wrote that CCHD was created in
Saul Alinsky’s twilight years specifically to
serve as a permanent funding mechanism
for his Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). In
turn, IAF’s “model of organizing religious
congregations into powerful local and re-
gional networks has been taken up by three
other groups – PICO, Gamaliel [Foundation],
and DART – most of whose leaders got their
start with IAF,” according to David Walls of
Sonoma State University.
The connections between CCHD and Alinsky
were clarified in a March 2002 article in So-
cial Policy, a journal of the ACORN-affiliated
American Institute for Social Justice.
While organizing in Chicago, Alinsky gained
many Catholic allies. He began working in
1938 for the Institute for Juvenile Research
in Chicago, which worked with local leaders
to combat juvenile delinquency. While there,
Alinsky teamed up with Joseph Meegan, a
devout Catholic who was director of a local
recreation facility, to create the Back of the
Yards Neighborhood Council.
“Among friends, he could be openly con-
temptuous about not only Catholic rituals but
religious rituals in general,” wrote Sanford D.
Horwitt, an Alinsky biographer. But despite
his atheism Alinsky found common cause
with religious leaders on political matters.
Sometimes he invoked religious imagery
and used salty language to make a point:
“I think that somebody who goes off in a
monastery and starts praying for the salvation
of mankind and doesn’t do a damn thing but
sits there and prays, I think that when that
guy comes up for judgment that the judge is
going to sit there and say ‘why you cruddy
bastard.’”
Alinsky concentrated his efforts on unions,
while Meegan focused on churches and
community groups. Meegan helped Alinsky

ingratiate himself with the Chicago Archdio-
cese. His brother, Monsignor Peter Meegan,
served as Bishop Bernard Sheil’s secretary.
Over time Alinsky’s organizing efforts in the
Back of the Yards, a section in the Southwest
Side of Chicago, gained the support of Bishop
Sheil, a liberal who founded the national
Catholic Youth Organization.
Alinsky also worked with Jack Egan, a
student at Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary,
who later became a crusading left-wing
priest. Monsignor Egan became an important
Alinsky ally and a member of the board of
Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF).
He also went on later to play a significant role
in the creation of CCHD and the Catholic
Committee on Urban Ministry (CCUM).
CCHD’s kinship with ACORN is further
discussed in a March 2000 Sojourners maga-
zine article by Helene Slessarev, a professor
of urban ministries at Claremont School of
Theology:
“Congregation-based community or-
ganizing is the fastest growing form of
organizing in the country, according to
Doug Lawson of the Catholic Campaign
for Human Development (CCHD). ‘No
one else approximates faith-based orga-
nizing,’ he says. The only non-faith-based
organization that has built comparable
power is ACORN.”
Alinsky’s ideas about the aggressive use
of power are controversial within church
congregations, but Slessarev points out that
churches are excellent sites for organizing
angry and alienated people, a point not lost
on CCHD and ACORN.
“For people who have been marginal-
ized by mainstream society, the church
is often the one institution offering them
the space to freely develop their leader-
ship abilities by serving as deacons,
trustees, musicians, and teachers. This
makes the church an excellent starting
point for building a powerful community
organization.”
Alinsky trained generations of community
organizers who in turn begat their own ac-
tivist groups and community organizing
schools.
September 2009
What Made the Bishops De-Fund
ACORN?
1. Embezzlement
The embezzlement that led Bishop Morin
to announce that Catholics would no longer
be making Thanksgiving-time contributions
to ACORN organizations took place around
2000. The basic facts of the crime are not
in dispute.
Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder
Wade Rathke, stole $948,000 from the
ACORN network. When the theft was discov-
ered, ACORN leaders refused to contact law
enforcement officials. Instead, they embraced
an uncharacteristically libertarian approach
to dispute resolution.
Wade Rathke, who had covered up his broth-
er’s action for eight years, called it a “mis-
appropriation,” and his senior colleagues at
ACORN allowed the Rathke family to quietly
and privately pay restitution at the meager
rate of $30,000 per year. Observers note that
it would have taken more than 30 years to pay
off the debt. Throughout the eight years of the
cover-up, Wade Rathke kept his brother on
the payroll as his $38,000 a year “assistant”
at ACORN headquarters.
Dale Rathke had previously served as a
senior official at Citizens Consulting Inc.
(CCI), the shadowy financial nerve center
of ACORN. As former ACORN national
board member Charles Turner said earlier
this year on “The Glenn Beck Program,”
FoundationWatch
CCI, an affiliate of ACORN, “is where the
shell game begins.”
“ACORN has over 200 different entities that
the money gets moved around to - for this
purpose to that purpose, this organization to
that organization,” said Turner. “We believe
the way the money has been moved around,
they’ve been laundering money.”
Former ACORN officials say these activi-
ties are controlled by the mysterious CCI,
which is located in ACORN’s headquarters
in New Orleans. CCI handles the financial
affairs of hundreds of affiliates within the
ACORN network. ACORN member dues,
government money, and foundation grants,
are all sucked into the CCI vortex often never
to be seen again.
When the cover-up became public in the
summer of 2008, Drummond Pike, the
founder of the far-left Tides Foundation,
stepped forward and paid off the debt using
his personal funds. Wade Rathke had been
a member of the board of the Tides Founda-
tion (2007 assets: $186 million), which has
provided more than $400 million in grants
to activist nonprofits since 2000.
ACORN concealed the embezzlement by
entering the missing funds as a loan to
an ACORN officer on the ledgers of CCI.
At the national ACORN board meeting in
June last year, Wade Rathke told his fellow
community organizers that he had to cover
up the embezzlement so the group’s right-
5
FoundationWatch

wing adversaries wouldn’t use it to destroy

the organization.

It is unclear what other ACORN activities

were considered by Bishop Morin’s subcom-
mittee. The bishops could hardly ignore the
fact that ACORN is relentlessly, emphatical-
ly, exuberantly partisan. However, to protect
the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates,
ACORN loudly claims to be community-
oriented and officially nonpartisan.

2. Partisanship
During last year’s Democratic Party prima-
ries, the Obama campaign paid $833,000
to Citizens Services Inc., another ACORN
affiliate, for get-out-the vote activities. Hav-
ing ACORN do the political work evidently
made sense to candidate Obama, who had
once led a voter drive for Project Vote, an
ACORN affiliate. Obama also represented
ACORN in court, and he had lectured at
ACORN on organizing techniques.

Last year ACORN and Project Vote proudly

announced they had registered 1.3 million
new voters. The impressive 1.3 million
figure didn’t hold for long. After hundreds
of thousands of registrations were tossed by
election officials, the groups had to admit the
true total was closer to 450,000.
In October ACORN’s CEO and “chief
organizer” Bertha Lewis, endorsed Barack
Obama for president. She appeared in a
YouTube video in front of a banner reading
“Working Families Party: Fighting for Jobs
and Justice.” (The Working Families Party,
a minor New York state political party, is an
ACORN affiliate.)
Only Democrats were showcased in another
YouTube video, called “ACORN Grassroots
Democracy Campaign.” The video featured
Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Robert
P. Casey Jr. (D-Pennsylvania), and Reps.
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Barney Frank
(D-Massachusetts). Democratic strategist
Paul Begala says in the video, “I love ACORN
because they’re a direct impact organization.
They focus on meat and potatoes, the real
lives of real people.”
ACORN’s national political action com-
mittee, ACORN Votes, endorsed Obama.
ACORN national president Maude Hurd
said Obama was “the candidate who best
6 September 2009
An undated photograph shows ACORN founder Wade Rathke (left) visiting Peru
with Drummond Pike (right), founder of the Tides Foundation.
understands and can affect change on the
issues ACORN cares about like stopping
foreclosures.”
3. Racketeering
Surely other reported instances of ACORN
malfeasance must have found their way into
the bishops’ deliberations. ACORN is under
investigation in at least a dozen states for elec-
toral fraud, and is reportedly being probed
by the FBI. A group of disgruntled former
ACORN members called the “ACORN 8”
has asked U.S. attorneys across the nation
to pursue civil and criminal litigation under
the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act, along with mail
fraud and civil rights charges.
Republican investigators on the House Over-
sight and Government Reform Committee
released a report on ACORN in July called
“Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a
Criminal Enterprise?”
There is “a pattern of loose financial ac-
counting and no firewalls” within the
community-based group’s byzantine network
of hundreds of affiliated groups, said Rep.
Darrell Issa (R-California), ranking member
on the committee.
“It’s very clear that that’s for a reason,”
said Issa. “It is impossible to hand over
government money “to ACORN and its af-
filiates without knowingly delivering it to
partisan operatives who in fact engage in
campaigning.”
The report was “specifically done so that
the facts speak for themselves so that very
clearly we could make the case that ACORN
cannot be receiving government money and
should lose its tax-free status,” the congress-
man said.
The investigators also found that by “in-
tentionally blurring the legal distinctions
between 361 tax-exempt and non-exempt
entities, ACORN diverts taxpayer and tax-
exempt monies into partisan political activi-
ties.” They argued that ACORN should be
stripped of its jealously guarded tax-exempt
status because it illegally spends taxpayer
dollars on partisan activities, commits “sys-
temic fraud,” and violates racketeering and
election laws.
“Operationally, ACORN is a shell game

played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District
of Columbia through a complex structure
designed to conceal illegal activities, to use
taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan
political purposes, and to distract investiga-
tors,” the report said. Structurally, it is “a
chess game in which senior management
is shielded from accountability by multiple
layers of volunteers and compensated em-
ployees who serve as pawns to take the fall
for every bad act.”
The report examines the ACORN network’s
abusive interlocking directorates, and claims
that the group deliberately organized itself to
escape legal and public scrutiny. “ACORN
hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit
corporate protections to conceal a criminal
conspiracy on the part of its directors, to
launder federal money in order to pursue a
partisan political agenda and to manipulate
the American electorate.”
What Took CCHD So Long?
ACORN misbehavior is well-documented
and it’s been going on for years. The group
choreographs sit-ins to force banks to lend
to high-risk borrowers. It buses schoolchil-
dren to the nation’s capital to demonstrate
against tax cuts. It sends mobs to shout down
conservative speakers. It raises the dead and
leads them to voting booths.
It’s strange that only in 2008 did CCHD
get around to noticing that ACORN was
crooked. CCHD director Ralph McCloud
told Catholic News Service he knew some
of CCHD’s past ACORN funding must have
gone for voter registration. “But by the same
token, we didn’t find any voter registration
irregularities, the allegations we are finding
now.”
A massive dose of bad publicity crippled
ACORN fundraising. Ironically, it has come
during a recession just as the people that
ACORN claims to help are most in need of
real assistance, and it comes at a time when
ACORN’s good friend has made it to the
White House. As a candidate for president,
Barack Obama promised the friends of
ACORN that they were on his call list:
“Before I even get inaugurated, during the
transition, we’re going to be calling all of you
in to help us shape the agenda. We’re going to
be having meetings all across the country with
September 2009
community organizations so that you have
input into the agenda for the next presidency
of the United States of America,” Senator
Obama said in December 2007.
It’s fortunate that Catholics noticed last year
what was happening at ACORN. As their
parishes geared up for “second collections”
in November, Catholics throughout the nation
launched local boycotts of the CCHD col-
lection, according to a Nov. 26 Washington
Times report.
Parishioners at Queen of Apostles Church
in Alexandria, Virginia, were informed in
the church bulletin that in the 1990s the
CCHD had given money “to organiza-
tions diametrically opposed to the Catholic
Church, i.e. the pro-abortion group National
Organization for Women and the American
Civil Liberties Union.”
“There are so many tremendous Catholic
apostolates that work with the poor that are
in need,” read the bulletin item written by the
Rev. Thomas Vander Woude. “One wonders
if one’s donations could be better spent else-
where until the CCHD has proven its ability
to fund truly Catholic apostolates that truly
work with and help the poor?”
During a Sunday homily at St. Mary’s
Church, also in Alexandria, Rev. John De-
Celles told his congregation, “I personally
haven’t given a dime to the Campaign for
Human Development in years.”
Some Catholics were apparently inspired by
a blog post written by the late Rev. Richard
John Neuhaus, the editor of the journal
First Things. Father Neuhaus wrote that the
collection for CCHD was “misbegotten in
concept and corrupt in practice, [and] should,
at long last, be terminated.” He added that
a decade ago the CCHD was “exposed as
using the Catholic Church as a milk cow to
fund organizations that frequently were ac-
tively working against the Church’s mission,
especially in their support of pro-abortion
activities and politicians.”
Anita MonCrief, a Washington, D.C. area
Catholic and former ACORN employee who
personally witnessed ACORN abuses from
the inside, told Catholic World Report that
she was delighted that CCHD finally came
to its senses.
FoundationWatch
“I’ve been a Catholic all my life and I’ve
been a little disturbed it took them so long to
realize what was happening with ACORN,”
MonCrief said. “ACORN and its shenanigans
have been in the news since 2000 and they
should have known.”
Matthew Vadum is Editor of Foundation
Watch and Organization Trends. This article
is based on his article about CCHD and
ACORN that was published in the April 2009
edition of Catholic World Report. It also
relies upon DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the
online encyclopedia of the left maintained
by the David Horowitz Freedom Center,
“The Legacy of CHD: a critical report and
analysis of the U.S. Bishops’ Campaign for
Human Development,” a monograph by
Paul Likoudis that was published in 1996
by the Wanderer Press, and Let Them Call
Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, his life and legacy,
by Sanford D. Horwitt, published in 1989
by Knopf.
FW
Please consider contributing
early in this calendar year to
the Capital Research Center.
We need your help in the
current difficult economic
climate to continue our im-
portant research.
Your contribution to advance
our watchdog work is deeply
appreciated.
Many thanks.
Terrence Scanlon
President
7
FoundationWatch

PhilanthropyNotes
New York Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos criticized a federal government program that allows a $35 million
matching grant from George Soros and the Open Society Institute to clear the way for New York state to access an
additional $140 million in federal economic stimulus funding. Under the program 813,000 poor children will each receive
$200 in back-to-school shopping money. Skelos says the hand-out is “ripe for fraud and abuse.” The $175 million is “a
helicopter drop of cash” that will have a negligible impact on the economy, added E.J. McMahon, director of the Empire
Center for New York State Policy, part of the Manhattan Institute.

The William J. Clinton Foundation plans to construct the world’s largest solar power generating station in an Indian
desert near the Pakistani border. Indian officials said the foundation has signed a memorandum of understanding to move
forward with a facility with a generating capacity of 5,000 megawatts. The Clinton Foundation reportedly has $12 billion in
backing from companies such as GE Energy and Microsoft.

California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, a former community organizer, told the Los Angeles Times that support for lim-
ited government is tantamount to terrorism. Lawmakers in a state budget fight “were essentially threatened and terrorized
against voting for revenue,” Bass said. “Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: ‘You vote for
revenue and your career is over.’ I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist.” Bass founded a local group in
South L.A. called the Community Coalition.

The Catholic News Agency reports that Catholic Charities USA has been awarded a five-year contract by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Administration for Children and Families (ACF) section. Under
the $100 million agreement, the charitable group will render disaster aid nationwide. Although CCUSA has long received
federal funding in the form of government grants, Roger Conner, a spokesman for the group, said that this is the first
contract CCUSA has ever had with the federal government in its 100-year history.

Patients United Now, a project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, is now running an effective TV ad opposing
a proposed government takeover of healthcare. It features Canadian brain tumor patient Shona Holmes who was told by
Canada’s dysfunctional government-run healthcare system that she would have to wait for six months to see a specialist.
“In six months I would have died,” Holmes says in the spot. She received successful treatment in the U.S. at the Mayo
Clinic.

President Obama plans to nominate healthcare investor and Democratic Party fundraiser Alan Solomont, current chair-
man of the Corporation for National and Community Service, to be U.S. ambassador to Spain and Andorra. CNCS
oversees the AmeriCorps program. In June, the CNCS inspector general, recently fired by President Obama, issued a
blistering report criticizing CNCS grants, and the House Appropriations Committee cut the administration’s 2010 budget
request for the agency, citing its many managerial failings. Solomont has been a member of the CNCS board since 2000.

“What’s bad for America is good for Goldman Sachs,” writes Terry Keenan, anchor of “Cashin’ In,” a Fox News Chan-
nel show about investing. The bank makes big money selling and trading federal, state, and local debt and as one of
the largest primary dealers in U.S. Treasurys it “has a huge vested interest in the United States digging a deeper and
deeper hole.” Goldman forecasts the U.S. will borrow a record $3.25 trillion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, which
is quadruple the total borrowed last year, Keenan writes in a New York Post op-ed. Its biggest competitors in the debt
world, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, are defunct. That leaves Goldman as the “major toll collector on Washing-
ton’s red-ink railroad,” she writes. “To put it bluntly, Goldman Sachs is a play on the bankrupting of America – the more
we borrow, the more they make.”

Conservative pundit Ben Stein said he was recently relieved of his fortnightly column in the Sunday New York Times in
part because he criticized Goldman. One of the things Stein did was make a “new set of antagonists by repeatedly and
in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the ‘investment bank’ Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me ques-
tionable behavior,” he wrote in the American Spectator.

8 September 2009
\\\\

Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF

THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR
INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND
STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN.

Exhibit F
Case 1 :09-cv-OW-NG -LB Document 1-7 Filed W 2/09 .Page 1 1 of 27

Attachment 2

Listing of Organizational Names for

Association of Community Organizatioa frReform Now (ACORN)and
mliates, Subsidiaries, rmnd AIIied Organizations

Association of Co-tJI Organheions for Reform Now ("ACOW')

ACORN National Office: Brooklyn, NY
ACORN Bronx, NY
ACORN Brooklyn, NY
ACORN Buffalo, NY
ACORN Hempstead, NY
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Brooklyn, IVY
PROECT VOTE Bmoldyn, NY
MH[ANY BreokIyn, NY
ACORN National Off~ce:Washington, D.C.
ACORN Washington, DC
ACORN HOUSING COWORATION Washington, DC
ACORN Political 1334 G St,N W Suite B Washington, DC 20005
AISJ Washington, DC
ACORN National. Office:Little Rock, AR
ACORN Pine Bluff, AR
ACORN Housing Corporation Little Rock, AR
ACHC Little Rock, AR
AM' Little Rock,AR
PROJECT VOTE Little Rock, AR
KABF Little Rock AR
SEK3 LOCAL 100 Little Rock; AR 72206
ACORN National Office:Phoenix, AZ
ACORN Glendale, AZ
ACORN Mesa, AZ
ACORN Tucson, AZ
ACORN Housing Corporation Phoenix, AZ
ACORN National m c e : DalIas, TX
ACORN Arlington, 'SX
ACORN Dallas, TX
ACORN El Pasq TX
ACORN FL WorQ TX
ACORN Houston, TX
ACORN Inting, TX
ACORN San Antonio, TX
ACORN Research Dallas, TX
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Dallas, TX
Case 1 :09-cv-04B8-N6 -LB Document 1-7 Filed W12109 Page 12 of 27

ACORN HOUSING COWOMTION Houstm, TX

ACORN HOUSING CORlrORikTIOW San Antonio, TX
AGAPE Dallas, TX
SEW LOCAL 100 Conpus Christi, TX
SEW LOCAL 100 Dallas, TX
SEW LOCAL 100 Houston, TX
S E N LOCAL 100 San Antm'o, TX
ACORN National Office: Boston, MA
ACORN Boston, MA
ACORN Brockton, MA
ACORN Springfield, MA
ACORN HOUSING CORPOUTION Boston, MA
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Springfrdd, MA
ACORN National OBce: New Orleans, LA
ACORN Baton Rouge, LA
ACORN Lake Charles, ]LA
ACORN New Orleans, LA
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION New Orleans, LA
Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing Organization New Orleans, LA
ALERT New Orleans, LA
AISJ New Orleans, LA
SEW LOCAL 100 Baton Rouge, LA
SEW LOCAL 100 Lake Charles, LA
SEIU LOCAL 100 New Orleans, LA
S E N LOCAL t 00 Shveport, LA
HOTROC New Orleans, LA
ACORN Bay Point, CA '
ACORN Fresno, CA
ACORN LQSAngels, CA
ACORN Oakland, CA
ACORN Sacraments, CA
ACORN San Berndino, CA
ACORN Sm Diego, CA
ACORN Sm Fmcisco, CA
ACORN Sm Jose, CA
ACORN Santa Am, CA
ACORN HOUSNG CORPORATION Fresno, CA
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION h s Angel=, CA
ACORN HOUSING COWORATION Oakland, CA
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Sacramento, CA
ACORN HOUSING C O W O W I O N San Diego, CA
ACORN HOUSlMG CORPORATION San Jose, CA
ACORN HOUSING CO'RPORATION Sank AM, CA
ACORN Aurora, CO
ACORN Denver, CO
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Dmver, GO
Case 1 :09-cv-O¶+iW-NG-LB Document 1-7 Filed MI2109 Page 13 of 27

ACORN Bridgeport, CT
ACORN Hartford, CT
ACORN Waterbury, CT
ACORN HOUSING CORPOMTION Bridgepo* CT
ACORN HOUSmG COWOMTION New Haven, CT
ACORN 408 East 8th St. WiImingtnn, DE
ACORN Ft, Lauderdale, FL
ACORN =aieab, FL
ACORN Jacksonville, E
ACORN Lake Worth, FL
ACORNMiami, FL
ACORN Orlando, EL
ACORN St. Petenburg, FI,
ACORN d o the Progressive Center Tallahassee, FL
ACORN Tampa, FL
ACORN HOUSING CURPOUTION Miami, 1;L.
ACORN HOUSING COXPORATXON Orlando, FJL
Floridians For A11 Miami, FE
ACORN Atlanta, GA
ACORN HOUSING CORfOIL4TION Atlanta, GA
ACORN Honolulu, HT
ACORN Chicago, IL
ACORN Springfield, IIL
ACORN HOUSJNG COWORA.TION Chicago, EL
ACORN ROUSING CORPORATION of TL
SEW LOCAL 880 Chicago, IL
SEIU LOCAL S 80 East St. Louis, IL
SEIU LOCAL 880 Harvey, IL
SEW LOCAL. 880 Peoria, IL
S E N LOCAL 880 Rock Island, TL
SEN LOCAL 880 Springfield, I L
ACORN Indianapolis, IN
ACORN IA
Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas Wichita, I S
ACORN buimille, KY
ACQRN Baltimore, MI3
ACORN Hyattsville, MD
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Baltimm MD
ACORN Detroit, MI
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Detroit, MI
Edison Neighborhood Center Kalamazoo, MI
ACORN St. Paul, MN
ACORN HOUSING CORPOLU'ION St. Paul, MN
ACORN Financia1 Justice Center St. Paul, MN
ACORN Kansas City, MO
ACORN St. Louis, MO
Case 1 :09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 1-7 Filed 3.M12109 Page 14 of 27

ACORN HOUSTNG CORPORA'IION Kansas City, MO

ACORN HOUSING COWORATION St.Louis, M O
SEIU LOCAL 880 East St. Louis, M U
SEJU LOCAL 880 St. Louis, h/10
ACORN Jersey City, NJ
ACORN Newark, NJ
ACORN Paterson, NJ
ACORN HOWSING CORPORRTION Jersey City, NJ
ACORN Mbnquque, NM
ACORN Las Cruces, NM
ACORN HOUSXEJG CORPUEL9TION Albuquerque, NM
ACORN Charlotte, NC
ACORN Cincinnati, OH
ACORN Cleveland, OH
ACORN Columbus, OH
ACORN Toledo, OH
Lagrange Village Council To1edo, OH
ACORN Portland, OR
ACORN HOUSING CORPOMTION Portland, OR
ACORN Allentown, PA
ACORN Harrisburg, PA
ACORN Philadelphia, PA
ACORN Pittsburgh, PA
ACORN HOUSlNE CORPORATlON Philaddphia, PA
ACORN HOUSING COWORATION Pittsburgh, PA
ACORN Providence, RI
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Providence, RI
ACORN Memphis, TN 38104
ACORN Norfolk, VA
ACORN Richnond, VA
ACORN Burien, WA
ACORN Mihvaukee, WI
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Milwaukee, W l
ACORN Beverly, L.L.C.
ACOW Center for Housing, Im.
Aikansas Community Housing Corporation
ACORN Community &d &Assotion, hc.
ACORN Cmmtmity Land Association Albuquerque NM
ACORN Cornunity Land Association of Louisiana Baltimore MI3
ACORN Community Land Association ofLouisiana N m Orleans LA
ACORN Cornunity Land Association of Pennsylvania, Inc.
ACORN Commmity Land Association of a.
ACORN Community Labor Organizing Center, hc.
ACORN Fair Housing, A Project Of American Institute Washington DC:
h s a s ACORN Fair Housing, hc.
New Mexico ACORN Fair %using Albuquerque NM
Case 1 : 0 9 - c v - O ~ & - N G-LB Document 1-7 Filed 4%12109 Page 15 of 27

ACORN Fair Housing Washington DC

ACORN Housing 1 Associates, W (limited partnership)
ACORN Housing 2 Associates, LP (limited partnership)
ACORN Housing 2, h.
ACORN Housing Affordable Loans, LLC
ACORN Housing Corporation, hc.
Desert Rose Homes, L.L.C.
Franklin ACORN Housing, Inc.
Mott Haven ACORN Housing Development Fund
Mutual Housing Association ofNew York, Inc.
New OrIeans Cnmm~ty Housing Organization, lnc-
ACORN Community Land Association of Illinois
Massachusetts ACORN Homing Corporation
Broad Sweet Corporation
Elysian Fields Corporation
ACORN 2004 Housing Development Fund Corporation
ACORN 2005 W~nsingDevelopment FUND CORPORATION
ACORN Dumont-SnedikerHousing Development Fund Corporation
Dmont Avenue Housing Development Fund
Elysian Fields Partnership
Fifteenth Street Corporation
New York ACOFW Housing Company Inc
Development Fund Corporation
New York Organizing and Support Center, Inc
Baltimore Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
Chicago Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
Houston Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
530 I McDougall Corporation
Mew Mexico Organizing and Suppost Center, Inc,
New York -zing and Support Center, Inc.
Phoenix Organizing and Support Center, hc.
3 85 Palmetto Street Housing Development Fund. Coxporntion
Sixtk Avenue Corporation
4415 San Jacinto Street Corporation
St Louis Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
St. Louis Tax Reform Group, hc.
Greenwe11 Springs Corporation
Austin Organizing and Support Center, hc.
Boston Organizing and Support Center, hc,
American H QDay ~ Care Workers Association, Im.
American Workers Association
Baton Rouge Association of School Employees, h.
Hospitality Hotel and Restaurant Organizing Council
Illinois Home Child. Care Workers Association, hc.
Labor Link, Inc.
Labor Neighbor Research and Training Center, Inc.
Case 1 :09-cv-O#M&-NG -LB Document 1-7 Filed;YJ12109 Page 16 of 27

Missouri Home Child Care Workers Association, Inc.

Middb South Home Day Care Workers Associatioq Inc.
Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now, Inc.
Wd-Mart Association for Reform. Now
Working Families Association, XRC.
Wal-Mart Workers Association, Xne.
People Organizing Workfare WorkerdACORN/CWA, hc. WorkerslACORN/CWA,
Inc.
Texas United City-Counv Employees, Tnc.
Texas United School Employees, Xnc.
UniM Labor Foundation of Greater New Orleans, hc.
United S e ? y Workers of America
Orleans Criminal Sheriffs
SEW h a 1 loo
SEIU Local 880
Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation, hc.
Agape Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
Affiliated Media Foundation MovemenG hc.
Allied Media Projects, Inc .
ACORN National Broadcasting Network, Inc.
Alabama Radio Moveme* Inc. (Dissolved)
ACORN Television in Action for Communities, Inc.
CaIifomia Community Television Network
Flagstaff Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
Iowa ACORN Broadcasting Corporation
Maricopa Cemmunity Television Preject, Inc,
Montana Radio Network, Xnc.
Radia New Mexico, Inc.
Sheveport Community Television, hc.
Crescent City Broadcasting Corporation
KABF Radio
KNON Radio
ACORN Institute, Inc.
ACORN Institute Xnc. Washington DC
ACORN Institute Dallas TX
ACORN Institutelnc. New Orleans LA
American Institute far Social Justice, hc.
Association for Rights of Citizens, Inc.
New Yark Agency for Cornunity Affairs, Xnc.
Pennsylvania Institute for Community Affairs, hc.
Project VotOoting for America, Inc.
ACORN Tenant Union Training & Organizing Project, Inc,
ACORN Law for Education Representation & Training, hc.
American Enviranmental Justice Project, Inc.
ACORN International, hc.
Environmental Justice Training Project, hc.
Case 1 :09-cv-W68&-NG -LB Document 1-7 F i l e ~ J 1 2 1 0 9 Page 17 of 27

Movement for Economic Justice, Education & Training Center, Tnc.

Missowi Tax Justice Research Project, Inc.
ACOF?N Beneficial Association, hc.
ACORN Canada
ACORN Children's Beneficial Association, Inc.
ACORN Campaign to Raise the Minimum Wage, tnc.
ACORN Cultural Trust, Inc.
ACORN Dual Language Community Academy
ACORN Fund, Xnc.
ACORN Foster Parents, hc.
ACORN Institute Canada
ACORN Political Action Committee, Lnc.
ACORN ena ants' Union, Inc.
Community Training for Environmentaf Justice, hc.
Connecticut Working Families
Democracy for America
Hgunmwabi Fend, hc.
McLellan Multi-Family Corporation
Metm TechnicaI Institute, Inc.
New Party National Comrnittee, Inc.
VoIwteers for America, Inc.
VoIunteers for California, hc.
Volunteers far Missouri, Inc.
ACORN Management Corporation
Associated Regional Maintenance Systems
ACORN Associates, Inc.
ACORN Associates Inc.Albuquerque NM
ACORN Campaign Services, hc.
ACORN Services, hc.
Citizens Consulting, Inc.
Chief Organizer Fmd, hc.
Citizens Services, Inc.
People's Equipment Resource Corporation, Inc.
National Center for Jobs & Justice
Senice Workers Action Team
Living Wage R e s m e Center
American Rome Childcare Providers Association
Association for the Rights of Citizens Inc
Cdifomia C o m ~ t Network
y
Child Care Providers for Action FrankLin
Citizens Action Research Project
Citizens Campaign fm W e Living Wage & Labor Peace
Citizens for Future Progress
Citizens Campaign far Finance Reform
Floridians for All PAC
GreenvilIe Community Charter School Inc
Case 3 109-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 1-7 FilecW112/09 Page 18 of 27

Student Minimum Wage Action Campaign

Site Fighters
Social Policy
Southern Training Center
ACORN Votes
Communities Voting Together
Arkansas ACORN Political Action Committee
Arkansas New Party
California MAC
Citizens for April Troope
Colorado Organizing and Support Center, hc.
Citizens Campaign for Fair W o ~ k
Citizens Services Society, Inc.
Clean Government APAC
Community Voices Together
Community Real Estate Processing, Inc.
Council BmeficiaI Association
Council Health Plan
Desert Rose Homeowners' Association
District of Columbia APAC
Friends of Wendy Foy
Illinois MAC
Xllinois New Party
Institute far Worker Education
reffenon Area Public Employees
Jeff-n Area School Employees
Local 100 Health & WeLfare Fund
Local 100Political Action Committee
Local 200 Retirement Fund
Local 880 PAC
Local 880 Pobtical PAC
Louisiana APAC
Maryland M A C
Massachusetts MAC
Missouri APAC
Mutual Housing Association ofNew York Neighborhood Reslore
Neighbors for Arthelia Ray
Neighbors for Maria Torres
Neighbors for Ted Thomas
New Mexico M A C
New Orleans Campaign for Living Wage Committee
New York APAC
Oregon MAC
Orleans Criminal SheriB Workers Orgslnization, hc,
Pennsylvania M A C
Pmgessive Houston
 i L-

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

In Case - ACORN et al. v. U.S.A. et al. EDNY 09-cv-4888-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'On January 20,2010, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare &d certify under penalty of perjury
pursuant to 28 USC 51746,

That I caused the service of Three (3) copies of the Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Notice of
Motion and Amdavit in support of the notice of motion to intervene as a ex-relator intervener-
defendant U.S.A. Citizen'and State of New York Citizen affirmed January 20,2010, and that each
set was placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage for United States Postal
Service Delivery by mail upon:

Darius Charney, Esq. Center for

Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Andrew Cuomo New York State Attorney
Floor New York, NY 10012 General 120 Broadway 24' Floor New
York New York 10271
Peter D. Leary USAAG Department of
Justice 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N W
Room 7322 Washington, DC 20530 2
ru
-
.-. d
Z

-: ,- C>
Furthermore, Declarant provided ernail notice to the following parties-in-interest: - c 5
-j7 t
.s-'
-3i-(r EL
 APPELLANT’S T1080 CROSS MOTION FOR THE NEW YORK
STATE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATION OF COMPELLING
STATE ISSUES OF FIRST IMPRESSION WITH LOCAL RULE §.27
AS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITH IRREPARABLE HARM IN
RESPONSE TO APPELLEES REQUEST TO THE CLERK IN THE
TRANSITION TO NEW LOCAL RULES FOR A DISCRETIONARY
120 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE APPELLEES
RESPONSE IN APPEAL CASE 08-4323-CV

Exhibit 4
 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281
Brooklyn, New York
Zip Code exempt DM 122-32
(845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse
David A. Paterson, Governor
of the State of New York
The Capitol
Albany, New York
Reference: Governor signs Executive Order No. 30 Establishing the
New York 2010 Census Complete Count Committee
Subject: Judicial Notice and U.S.P.S. role in the 2010 Census
Dear Governor Paterson,

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, declare under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746 as follows:
The referenced Executive Order No. 30 is riddled with New York State Constitution and related law
violation that questionably begs for Federal Funds in the Federal driven decennial 2010 Census and use of the
New York Penal Law, that like the RICO Act punishes sanctuary harboring fraud related activity in connection
with identification documents, mail fraud, wire fraud, procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully witness
tamper, fraud and misuse of documents, interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering Enterprise, engaging
in monetary transaction in property derived from specific unlawful activity, I urge the Governor and the so-
called “Complete Count Committee” to question the Enterprise intent and actual Constitutional solution.
For instance, why does the Press Release (attached) suggest the Executive Order urge “New Yorkers”
not to be “afraid” to make an affirmation to strangers at the door – this is a criminal matter. The Governor uses
the dual domiciled Eliot Engel proffer that “When the census taker comes around, don’t be afraid to get counted
to help yourself and help New York State.” The Governor’s Order could have skirted Mayor Bloomberg’s
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” Executive Order No. 41, but doesn’t, and questionably initiates State action in the
Enterprise grab at the Federal Treasury. When the characterization of “FEAR” is used, would FEAR be there if
a uniformed postal carrier of the United States Postal Service knocks be a reason for fear? The USPS is best
situated to enumerate the 2010 Census, NOT the RICO tainted derivatives of ACORN’s myriad combination of
community based organizations criminally involved in Motor-voter registration, Medicaid false billing ponzi-
scheme frauds and felonious misrepresentation of public documentation and suborning witnesses for pay.
On point, Tourists per se are at will as are those associated with the diplomatic community at will are
not Permanent Resident Aliens per se or Citizens per se as required by the State to determine its application of
jurisdiction; and therefore, tourists as are diplomats not counted for the U.S. House allotment, notwithstanding
any Federal statistical interstate commerce matter that accompanies enumeration and 5 year interim survey.
The 2010 Census enumeration as any enumeration must differentiate those under state rather than
Federal or Foreign jurisdiction so as not to otherwise questionably allot more House seats based upon tourists
and diplomats as done previously for California, Texas, New Mexico Arizona and Nevada among States closer
than New York to the stream of tourists at will, and determine who the actual inhabitants defined by New York
Law as New York State citizens that are domiciled here as either Permanent Resident Aliens or Citizens of any
age is the intent of the Census. Any tourist and or diplomat except for a criminal matter or civil judicial action
in our courts isn’t under state jurisdiction as required with the 14th Amendment. Tourists, Diplomats and their
families are foreign affair matters exclusively under Federal and Foreign jurisdiction by the requirements of the
Vienna Convention treaties and associated law in its entirety. I agree New York is short changed in Congress.
As such, this Judicial Notice that Declarant is Plaintiff jus tertii in the 2010 Census Enumeration case
Strunk v. United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295 (1) before
District Judge Richard J. Leon, with a pending decision on the Motion for a Three Judge Panel with 28 USC
2284. As the ongoing 2010 Census enumeration is a nationwide matter that injures New Yorkers and singles out

1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21924443/Strunk-v-DOC-et-al-Verified-Complaint-DCD-09-cv-1295-071309

1 of 3
some citizen(s)’s suffrage, speech and liberty to have a republican form of government of laws not men for
different treatment, in that there has not been an enlargement of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1912
that is ripe for review as a substantive equal protection matter with use of the 13 USC 141 unconstitutional
outrageous disproportionately diminished dilution of suffrage that infringes speech as to our nationwide voice as
New Yorkers to Congress and the Executive Order No. 30 (attached) now involves 42 U.S.C. 1983 state action.
The so-called Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution mandate the House Representation
ratio of 1 member per 30,000 persons, remains un-amended, and today would yield say 10,000 U.S. House
members. Is the Constitution dead letter law like the State Constitution is alleged to be by pundits? In 1791 the
proposed amendment setting the size of the U.S. House was not adopted as pre-mature would now yield say
1,500 for a reason – the matter is ripe for review, join in as Al Smith once did and urge the USPS initiative to
keep New York out of the RICO Enterprise focus on false billing and usurpation of rights!
That the 1990 and 2000 reapportionment occurred without meeting the 10% mean deminimus protection
of those eligible to vote as New York citizens who are affected differently on a CD by CD basis for each New
York U.S. House seat. That unequal treatment has increasingly injured and singled out Plaintiff and those
similarly situated both by injurious gerrymandering and outrageous non-enforcement of the INA with related
law that since the notorious 1986 Reagan Administration granted the “one time amnesty” for tourists at will.
Tourists at will as with diplomats and their families are not “illegal” per se and according to New Jersey
Governor-elect Christopher Christie as the once U.S. Attorney and the New York State Constitution Article 3
Section 4(2) and Section 5-a (3) accordingly. The Section 5-a definition of ‘the term "inhabitants, excluding
aliens" shall mean the whole number of persons’ coincides with the State Constitution intent in its entirety can
only mean the mandatory use of the census as defined in the Articles especially Article III as to the Legislature
in its entirety, Article IV as to the Executive (4) , Article VI as to the Judiciary (5), Article VIII as to Local

2
Article III as to the Legislature Section 4. Readjustments and reapportionments; when federal census to control. Except
as herein otherwise provided, the federal census taken in the year nineteen hundred thirty and each federal census taken
decennially thereafter shall be controlling as to the number of inhabitants in the state or any part thereof for the purposes of
the apportionment of members of assembly and readjustment or alteration of senate and assembly districts next occurring,
in so far as such census and the tabulation thereof purport to give the information necessary therefor.
The legislature, by law, shall provide for the making and tabulation by state authorities of an enumeration of the
inhabitants of the entire state to be used for such purposes, instead of a federal census, if the taking of a federal census in
any tenth year from the year nineteen hundred thirty be omitted or if the federal census fails to show the number of aliens or
Indians not taxed.
If a federal census, though giving the requisite information as to the state at large, fails to give the information as
to any civil or territorial divisions which is required to be known for such purposes, the legislature, by law, shall provide for
such an enumeration of the inhabitants of such parts of the state only as may be necessary, which shall supersede in part the
federal census and be used in connection therewith for such purposes.
The legislature, by law, may provide in its discretion for an enumeration by state authorities of the inhabitants of
the state, to be used for such purposes, in place of a federal census, when the return of a decennial federal census is delayed
so that it is not available at the beginning of the regular session of the legislature in the second year after the year nineteen
hundred thirty or after any tenth year therefrom, or if an apportionment of members of assembly and readjustment or
alteration of senate districts is not made at or before such a session.
3
Article III Section 5-a [Definition of inhabitants]. For the purpose of apportioning senate and assembly districts
pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this article, the term "inhabitants, excluding aliens" shall mean the whole number of
persons. (New. Added by vote of the people November 4, 1969.)
4
Article IV as Executive §6. Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state and all of the civil divisions
thereof, including cities and villages, shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by
examination which, as far as practicable, shall be competitive; provided, however, that any member of the armed forces of
the United States who served therein in time of war, and who, at the time of such member's appointment or promotion,
is a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and a resident of this state and
is honorably discharged or released under honorable circumstances from such service, shall be entitled to receive five
points additional credit in a competitive examination for original appointment and two and one-half points additional credit
in an examination for promotion…

2 of 3
 Finance limits upon Indebtedness 'Q,Article XVILI as to Housing etcetera and inter alia that the census requires
all "aliens" per se to be clearly differentiated from citizens per se, to mean between permanent resident aliens
and citizens of any age, but especially as to the Article I1 suffrage guaranteed with the Article I Bill of Rights.
May I remind that the Ratification of the Constitution by the People of New York July 26, 1788,
declared: " n u t a11 Power is originally vested in and consequently derived- the People, m d that Government is
instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security. That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the
purstrit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect andpreserve. That the Powers of
Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every
Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is nof by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United
States, or the departments of the Government thereox remains to the People ofthe several States, or to their
respective State Governments to whom they may have granted tl?esame; ... ?hat the PeopIe I~avean equal, natural
and unalienable right,freely andpeaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and
that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference of others. "
Declarant has complied with the Attorney General's Office urging not to name the State of New York in
DCD 09-cv-1295 to prevent a burden upon the budget as no cause of state action thexexisted. Your Executive
Order No. 30 has initiated several causes of action, which I will join in the Court of Claims for damages and
seek restraint with an Article 78 for failure to follow the Constitution- if not clarified expeditiously within seven
working days. To date the Governor has ameliorated the potential action against the executive by firing his prior
Jesuit Chief of Staff, is distant from the Usurper with dual allegiance at birth, and perhaps those permanently
embedded in New York Government at the hub of the Enterprise. Declarant seeks a rapid clarification and
meeting at the Governor's earliest convenience to avoid further action; and were the Honorable Governor, like
A1 Smith in 1928, to demand an enlargement of the United States House of Representatives for the first time
since 1912, I would be forever respectfully yours.

Dated: November 17" 2009

Brooklyn, New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk 0 in esse
-/

Attached:
Governor signs Executive Order No, 30 Establishing the New York 2010 Census Complete Cozmt Committee

cc: Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General

for the State of New York
The Capitol Albany New York

5
Article VI as Judiciary Section 6 for judicial dstricts how constituted at subsection d. The supreme court is continued. It
shall consist of the number of justices of the supreme court including the justices designated to the appellate divisions of the
supreme court, judges of the county court of the counties of Bronx, Kings, Queens and Richmond and judges of the court of
general sessions of the county of New York authorized by law on the thuty-first day of August next after the approval and
ratification of this amendment by the people, all of whom shall be justices of the supreme court for the re ainder of their
2'
terms. The legislature may increase the number of justices of the supreme court in any judicial district, cept that the
number in any &strict shall not be increased to exceed one justice for fifty thousand, or fraction over thl@ thousand, of the
population thereof as shown by the last federal census or state enumeration.
6 t
ARTICLE VIII Local Finances Section 4 ILimitations on local indebtedness]
$4. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, no county, city, town, village or school district described in this
section shall be allowed to contract indebtedness for any purpose or in any manner which, including existing indebtedness,
shall exceed an amount equal to the following percentages of the average full valuation of taxable real estate of such
county, city, towq village or school district: (a) the county of Nassau, for county purposes, ten per centurn; (b)any
county, other than the county of Nassau, for county purposes, seven per centum; (c) the city of New York, for city
purposes, ten per centwn; (d) any city, other than the city of New York, having one hundred twenty-five thousand or more
inhabitants according to the latest federal census, for city purposes, nine per centum;
Executive Order Page 1 of 2

EXECUTIVE ORDER

NO 30: ENHANCING PARTICIPATION OF NEW YORKERS IN THE 2010 CENSUS

WHEREAS, the decennial census of the population of the United States will be conducted on April 1, 2010, as
required by Article I, § 2 of the Constitution of the United States and Title 13, § 141 of the United States Code; and

WHEREAS, the census is a count of every person living in the United States and its territories, including people of all
ages, races and ethnic groups, both citizens and non-citizens; and

WHEREAS, it is illegal for the U.S. Census Bureau, or its employees, to share personal information about individual
respondents or households with any other government agency, including immigration and law enforcement
authorities and the Internal Revenue Service, and the unlawful release of census information is punishable by a fine
not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both such fine and imprisonment; and

WHEREAS, the census count is used to determine each State’s congressional representation for the next ten years
and to establish new boundaries for congressional, state legislative and many local government districts; and

WHEREAS, the federal government uses census data to allocate more than $400 billion in federal funds annually for
community programs and services, such as education, housing and community development, health care, services
for the elderly, job training and more; and

WHEREAS, state, local and tribal governments use census information for planning and to allocate funds for new
school construction, libraries and other public buildings, highway safety and public transportation systems, new
roads and bridges, location of police and fire departments, and many other projects; and

WHEREAS, federal estimates suggest that over 202,000 New Yorkers were not counted in the 2000 census,
including more than 103,000 New York City residents, despite aggressive government and community-based efforts
to reduce the 2000 census undercount; and

WHEREAS, it is of vital importance to New York State to ensure that each and every New York resident is counted in
the 2010 census;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, David A. Paterson, Governor of the State of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me
by the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, do hereby order as follows:

1. There is hereby established the New York 2010 Census Complete Count Committee (“Committee”), which
shall raise awareness of the 2010 census and maximize the response of New Yorkers.

2. The Committee shall be comprised of the heads of all state agencies subject to this Order and their
designees and such other members as the Governor may appoint in his discretion. The work of the
Committee shall be coordinated by a New York Census Action Council (“Council”), which shall be comprised
of the following individuals or their designees: the Secretary of State, who shall serve as Chair; the
Governor’s Counsel; the Governor’s Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs; the Commissioner of
Economic Development; the Commissioner of Children and Family Services; the Commissioner of Health; the
Commissioner of Housing and Community Renewal; the Commissioner of Labor; the Director of the Lottery;
the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles; the Commissioner of Temporary and Disability Assistance; the
Commissioner of Transportation; and the Chancellor of the State University of New York. All actions and
recommendations of the Council shall require approval of a majority of the total members of the Council.

3. The Committee, through the Council, shall work with the U.S. Census Bureau, local Complete Count
Committees, Census Partners, community-based organizations and other local and regional entities to
develop, recommend, and implement a census outreach strategy to encourage full participation of all New
Yorkers in the 2010 census. The census outreach strategy shall include, but not be limited to:

a. dentification of barriers and obstacles that may interfere with full participation of New Yorkers in the
2010 census, including geographic, linguistic, cultural and other barriers, and the development of
strategies to overcome those barriers; and
b. b. the development and coordinated distribution by state and local agencies, organizations and

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/executive_orders/exeorders/eo_30_print.html 11/17/2009
Executive Order Page 2 of 2

entities of press releases, publications, displays and other promotional material designed to heighten
the awareness of and encourage full participation in the 2010 census.

4. The first meeting of the Council shall be held not later than December 15, 2009, and thereafter the
Committee and Council shall meet as often as is necessary and under circumstances as are appropriate to
fulfilling their duties under this order.

5. Every agency, department, office, and division of this State shall cooperate with the Committee, and furnish
such information and assistance as the Committee determines is reasonably necessary to accomplish its
purpose.

G I V E N under my hand and the Privy Seal of the State in the City of Albany this twelfth day of November in the
year two thousand nine.

David A. Paterson
Governor

Lawrence Schwartz
Secretary to the Governor

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/executive_orders/exeorders/eo_30_print.html 11/17/2009
www.ny.gov - NEW YORK STATE LAUNCHES CENSUS COMPLETE COUNT C... Page 1 of 3

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

November 12, 2009

NEW YORK STATE LAUNCHES CENSUS COMPLETE COUNT CAMPAIGN

Governor signs Executive Order No. 30 Establishing the New York 2010 Census Complete Count
Committee

Governor David A. Paterson has signed Executive Order No. 30, establishing the New York 2010 Census Complete
Count Committee. The Committee will raise awareness of the 2010 Census and will work to maximize the
participation of all New Yorkers. New York Secretary of State Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez kicked off the State’s 2010
Census Complete Count Campaign today at an event in the State Capitol.

“It is critically important for the future of New York that we assure a complete and accurate count of New York’s
population in the 2010 Census,” Governor Paterson said. “Federal estimates suggest that more than 202,000 New
Yorkers were not counted in the 2000 census – we can and we must do better. That is why I have instructed my
administration to do everything possible to ensure a comprehensive count. This campaign is a real partnership
between government, community, business and religious organizations. All New Yorkers must be counted.”

The census count is used to determine each State’s congressional representation for the next ten years and to
establish new boundaries for congressional, State legislative and many local government districts. The federal
government uses census data to allocate more than $400 billion in federal funds annually for community programs
and services, such as education, housing and community development, health care, transportation and more. State,
local and tribal governments use census information for planning and to allocate funds for new school construction,
libraries and other public buildings, highway safety and public transportation systems, new roads and bridges,
location of police and fire departments and many other projects.

Secretary of State Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez said: “State agencies have a unique opportunity to play a critical role in
ensuring a successful count. Every state agency will work to spread the message that completing the Census is
easy, safe and important. Furthermore, this campaign will allow us to better coordinate our resources to target
efforts at historically undercounted communities -- immigrant, minority and low-income communities in particular.
We are truly all in this together.”

Earlier this year, Governor Paterson and leaders of the State Assembly and Senate appropriated funds in the 2009-
10 State Budget for services and expenses necessary for community outreach to assist in reducing the undercount
in the 2010 federal Census. This program will provide grants to fund public education, community outreach and
other activities targeted at hard-to-count and low response rate populations for promoting awareness of the 2010
Census, improving Census questionnaire mail back rates and encouraging cooperation with Census takers.

The Complete Count Committee comprises the heads of all State agencies and authorities. New York Census Action
Council will coordinate the Committee’s work. The Council comprises the Secretary of State, who will serve as
the Chair; the Governor’s Counsel; the Governor’s Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs; the
Commissioner of Economic Development; the Commissioner of Children and Family Services; the Commissioner of
Health; the Commissioner of Housing and Community Renewal; the Commissioner of Labor; the Director of the
Lottery; the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles; the Commissioner of Temporary and Disability Assistance; the
Commissioner of Transportation; and the Chancellor of the State University of New York.

For more information on the New York 2010 Census Complete Count Committee, please visit
http://census2010.ny.gov.

The following statements were provided in support of the New York 2010 Census Complete Count Campaign:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said: “We need to make sure all New Yorkers are counted fairly and accurately in the
census. Getting a true picture of all of our communities will help make sure we address the needs of all New
Yorkers. I will continue working with Governor Paterson, Senator Schumer and our entire Congressional Delegation
to make sure we get our census data correct, and make sure New York gets its fair share from Washington.”

Congresswoman Yvette Clarke said: “I commend Governor Paterson for establishing the New York 2010 Census
Complete Count Committee. As the Representative of the 11th Congressional District in Brooklyn, where less than
35% of my district participated in the 2000 Census, I believe the Committee will improve Census questionnaire mail
back rates and encourage cooperation with Census takers. My office has been working with the Department of

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/press_1112091_print.html 11/16/2009
www.ny.gov - NEW YORK STATE LAUNCHES CENSUS COMPLETE COUNT C... Page 2 of 3

Commerce to greatly improve my district's participation in the 2010 census. The Committee’s work will be
instrumental in helping to maximize the participation of all New Yorkers. Census data is an invaluable resource and
provides a critical understanding of our country. An accurate count of all ethnic communities will highlight their
purchasing power and economic impact both in the U.S. and global markets, particularly communities that
represent a large part of the African Diaspora.”

Congressman Eliot Engel said: “Getting a complete and accurate census count is vital for New York and for the
people who live here. Federal aid to states in based on population, so a short count hurts everyone, especially those
who need it most. Personal data from the census is not shared with other federal, state or municipal agencies, only
demographic information such as population numbers, ethnic breakdowns, etc. When the census taker comes
around, don’t be afraid to get counted to help yourself and help New York State.”

Congresswoman Nita Lowey said: “It is critical that all New Yorkers are counted in the 2010 Census. Without an
accurate count, our state will be shortchanged in Washington of federal funding, representation, and influence. I
look forward to working with New York State and local officials to ensure all our residents are counted.”

Congressman Dan Maffei said: “Democracy works when everyone is counted. We need all New Yorkers to
understand and participate in the 2010 Census, and I thank Governor Paterson for taking the initiative to make this
a priority for New York.”

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy said: “I am pleased that the Governor has launched a census committee. It is
imperative that every New Yorker be counted. By accounting for all New Yorkers it will enable the state to have the
proper amount of Congressional representation which in turn means our fair share of federal funding.”

Congressman Gregory Meeks said: “The Census plays a critical role in determining the level of government funding
and resources that a community receives for healthcare, law enforcement, and other vital public services. With the
recent closure of several Southeast Queens clinics and hospitals it is critical that programs such as the New York
2010 Census Complete Count Campaign be created to promote an accurate count of residents in the New York 6th
Congressional District. I look forward to working with Governor Paterson and the state of New York to ensure that
each and every person has access to the information and resources needed to be counted in the 2010 Census.”

Congressman Charles B. Rangel said: “An accurate count is important not only because it helps determine how our
electoral districts are drawn and the amount of federal funding for our communities, but also because Census
numbers are used by small business and nonprofits to secure resources from the private and philanthropic sectors. I
applaud Governor Paterson and other local elected officials for answering the call and gathering the diversity of
voices needed to ensure a complete count in every neighborhood across this great state.”

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter said: “I am committed to ensuring a complete and accurate census in 2010. In
recent years I’ve written to the Commerce Department urging the Secretary to allow the Census Bureau to conduct
the census in the most practical and basic ways to ensure the most accurate count. I’ve also implored the
Department to focus on the fundamental tasks of raising awareness, compiling accurate and complete lists and
getting the highest possible response rate. The Census is simply too important for failure.”

Congressman Paul Tonko said: “We need all New Yorkers to take a few minutes and participate in the 2010 Census.
An accurate count is critical to helping all levels of government plan for the next ten years, and it also ensures that
our communities will get the proper level of funding for services such as neighborhood improvements, education,
and transportation to name a few. The investment of a few minutes of time to complete the census will truly return
dividends for our state and our communities.”

Congressman Edolphus Towns said: “I am pleased to see the enactment of this important census initiative. We must
do everything possible to raise awareness about Census participation so that every New Yorker is counted. As
chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which oversees the Census, I will also be
working to ensure that the fairest assessment of population in New York, and across the nation, is reported in the
2010 Census.”

Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said: “With the 2010 Census, we
must put an end to the historical undercount of Hispanic and other minority communities. A fair and equal count in
2010 will ensure New York’s diverse communities receive vital resources for schools, health care, job training and
infrastructure. Latinos are the fastest growing population in the United States, and only through an accurate count
can we ensure they receive the federal assistance and representation they deserve.”

Senate Majority Conference Leader John L. Sampson said: “I am pleased Governor Paterson has taken steps to

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/press_1112091_print.html 11/16/2009
www.ny.gov - NEW YORK STATE LAUNCHES CENSUS COMPLETE COUNT C... Page 3 of 3

ensure each and every New Yorker is counted in the 2010 census efforts. The Senate Majority has already begun
outreach efforts in communities across the state in hope of obtaining the most accurate count of residents in the
state. The Governor’s initiative will guarantee millions of dollars in federal funding to the state’s health, education,
and construction industries.”

Senate Republican Leader Dean G. Skelos said: “Census data has an effect on everything in New York State, from
education and health care to police and emergency services. As the next census gets underway, it is important that
every New Yorker is counted to ensure we receive our fair share of federal aid and continue to have the resources
we need to continue vital services in communities throughout the state.”

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said: “It is our goal to have every New Yorker counted in the 2010 federal
Census. An accurate count will provide information essential to ensuring that New York gets its fair share of funding
from vital federal programs that help to deliver services to the elderly, unemployed and at-need residents, as well
as maintaining equal representation for New Yorkers in our federal government. This committee will inform New
Yorkers of the census process and ensure that forms are correctly completed. The Assembly Majority encourages all
New Yorkers to make sure that they are counted, and supports the creation of this important and necessary
committee to ensure that billions of dollars of federal aid is available to our state in the coming decade.”

Assembly Minority Leader Brian M. Kolb said: “Years of high taxes, runaway government spending and an
underperforming economy have resulted in millions of residents leaving our state. It has also led to New York losing
seats in the House of Representatives, which limits our ability to obtain a ‘fair share’ of the tax dollars we send to
Washington. I am encouraging every New Yorker to take part in the 2010 Census so we can ensure a fair, accurate
and complete count of our state’s population.”

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/press_1112091_print.html 11/16/2009
 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in re Appeal Case 08-4323-cv

On January 25,2010, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjury with 28 1

,
USC 9 1746 caused the service of six complete sets of the T1080 Motion with three
supporting declarations of Appellants signed January 24,2010 with four exhibits in
support of the T1080 cross motion for the New York State Court of Appeals
Certification of compelling State issues of first impression with Local Rule g.27 as
time is of the essence with irreparable harm in response to Appellees request to the 1
Clerk in the transition to new Local Rules for a discretionary 120 day extension of 1
time to file the Appellees Response in Appeal case 08-4323cv upon counsels
service by hand delivery to :
ANDREW B. AYERS Kimberly A. G M n , Esq.
Assistant Solicitor Todd D,Valentine Esq.
Attorney General of New Yorli New York State Board of Elections
The Capitol 40 Steuben St.
A1bany, New York 12224-0341 Albany ,New York 12207

And by placing each of fourt sets in a properly addressed envelope with proper
postage for delivery by the US Postal Service to :
FAY NG ESQ. JAMES E. KONSTANTY, ESQ.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK Konstanty Law Office -
Corporation Counsel Michael Cardom 252 Main Street -
NYC Law Department Oneonta, NY 13820
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007 Christopher C. Wang Esq.
United States Attorney Assistant
JAMES E. LONG, ESQ, Attorney General - -

668 Central Avenue Civil Rights Division -. -

Albany, New York 12206 U.S. Department of Justice - - - ,-+
P.O.Box 14403, Ben Franklin r
Washington, DC ,20044 4403 -

I do dedare and cerhfL under penalty bf perjury:

K
Dated: January, 2010
Brooklyn, New York

593 ~GderbiltAvenue - #28 1

Brooklyn., New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: chris@,stnmk.ws