2018.01.16 NYCLU Request For Exemption

125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004

212.607.3300
212.607.3318
www.nyclu.org
Sent by email
January 16, 2018
Mr. Seth Agata

Executive Director
New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics
540 Broadway
Albany, New York 12207
Re: Request for exemption from Source of Funding disclosure requirements
Dear Mr. Agata:
Pursuant to Commission regulations at 19 N.Y.C.R.R. 938.4(b), the New York Civil Liberties Union
(NYCLU) requests an exemption from the Source of Funding disclosure requirements.1
The NYCLU is a 501(c)(4) organization whose primary activities concern controversial and often
unpopular matters of civil rights and civil liberties; NYCLU employees and facilities have faced
episodic bomb threats, death threats, and invasions of privacy, and there is a long history of threats,
harassment and attacks against our members and supporters directly. These have been documented in
our past exemption requests, and many have taken place since the Public Integrity Reform Act of 2011
(PIRA)2 was enacted and while we have been reporting to the Commission.
We respectfully request that the Commission consider our application in light of the special solicitude
extended by the statute to civil rights and civil liberties organizations and because of the extensiveness
of the record of specific harms we have presented. If an organization such as the NYCLU cannot be
deemed exempt on even a periodic basis – despite the fact that our areas of primary activity are
expressly designated by statute for exemption and despite the fact that we have demonstrated a serious
and ongoing record of exposure to harm – then it is unclear whether and how the statute’s 501(c)(4)
exclusion provision can ever be satisfied.
I. Civil rights and civil liberties organizations such as the NYCLU are expressly identified by
statute as the sorts of organizations that are eligible for exclusion from the Commission’s
Source of Funding disclosure requirements.
1
While we would appreciate consideration for a standing or long-term exemption based on the controversial public interest
character of our organization’s activities, as is provided for by statute, we request, at minimum, consideration for an
exemption to cover the most recent reporting period, July 1 – December 31, 2017. The Commission has, in the past,
deliberated upon requests for prospective and longer-term exemptions from disclosure.
2
Ch. 399, L. 2011 (Part B).
1
The Lobbying Act specifies that organizations working on controversial public interest matters such as
civil rights and civil liberties are entitled to special consideration under the source-of-funding
disclosure requirements.3 It states that such disclosures “shall not apply to” any §501(c)(4) exempt
organization “whose primary activities concern any area of public concern determined by the
commission to create a substantial likelihood that application of this disclosure requirement would lead
to harm, threats, harassment, or reprisals to a source of funding or to individuals or property affiliated
with such source, including but not limited to the area of civil rights and civil liberties and any other
area of public concern determined pursuant to regulations promulgated by the commission to form a
proper basis for exemption on this basis from this disclosure requirement.”4
This appears in the law as the second of three provisions that exclude a class from the Source of
Funding disclosure requirements: one for 501(c)(3) organizations, one for 501(c)(4) organizations at
work on controversial matters of public concern, and one for government entities.5 The statute provides
that the Commission should set forth regulations regarding the “area[s] of public concern” that will
form a proper basis for the exemption from disclosure, and provides that “civil rights and civil
liberties” are to be included among those areas. The intent to exclude or exempt organizations such as
the NYCLU is clear in the text and structure of the law.6
Departing somewhat from the law, the Commission’s regulations treat the 501(c)(4) exclusion as a
periodic exemption, unlike 501(c)(3) and government entities, which are never mentioned in the
Source of Funding Regulations, presumably because they are excluded by statute.7 Omitting the law’s
specific mention of civil rights and civil liberties, Part 938(b)(4) provides that the Commission “shall
grant an exemption to disclose all Sources of Contributions to a Client Filer, if (i) the Client Filer has
exempt status under I.R.C. §501(c)(4); and (ii) the Client Filer shows that its primary activities involve
areas of public concern that create a substantial likelihood that disclosure of its Source(s) will cause
harm, threats, harassment or reprisals to the Source(s) or individuals or property affiliated with the
Source(s).”8
3
N.Y. Leg. Law 1-h(c)(4).
4
Id. (Emphasis supplied). Note that the Supreme Court has long held that the appropriate standard for exempting
organizations from the requirement to publicly disclose information regarding their financial donors is a showing of a
“reasonable probability” of harm, threats, harassment or reprisal. (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 88 (1976)). This standard
was originally adopted by the Commission in a 2013 regulation, but was later amended. The current “substantial
likelihood” standard has been much debated by the Commission as to its applicable meaning, and is not as protective of
associational privacy as First Amendment principles and jurisprudence require. We aver, as we have in the past, that
applying this standard is in error, both as a matter of constitutional law and public policy; and the NYCLU reserves the
right to appeal a ruling by JCOPE that is made pursuant to this standard.
5
N.Y. Leg. Law 1-h(c)(4).
6
See also Sponsor Memo for Ch. 399, L. 2011 (Part B): “In addition, not-for-profit organizations qualified as exempt
organizations under I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) are exempted from this disclosure requirement. Not-for-profit organizations
qualified as exempt under I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) shall also be exempted pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Joint
Commission if their primary activities concern any area of public concern that would create a substantial likelihood that
such disclosure would lead to harm, threats, harassment, or reprisals. The bill expressly identifies the area of "civil rights
and civil liberties" as one area in which organizations are expected to qualify for such an exemption in the Joint
Commission's regulations. Among other issues included in this area, organizations whose primary activities focus on the
question of abortion rights, family planning, discrimination or persecution based upon race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation or religion, immigrant rights, and the rights of certain criminal defendants are expected to be covered by such an
exemption.” (emphasis added).
7
19 NYCRR 938, Source of Funding Regulations.
8
19 NYCRR 938.4(b) (emphasis supplied).
2
II. The NYCLU, and our members and supporters, have historically been subject to periodic
and unremitting harm, threats, harassment, and reprisals of precisely the sort anticipated
by statute and essential for an exemption under the regulations.
The NYCLU has provided lengthy and detailed documentation of relevant “harm, threats, harassment
or reprisals” in our past requests, including:
 a 2014 bomb threat to our shared offices with the ACLU, of which we are a state affiliate;
 repeated bomb threats to our upstate New York offices;
 vandalism to the vehicle of an upstate NYCLU member and activist on account of NYCLU
activities, including the spray-painted taunts “Fuck u ACLU” and “Die Fag”;
 a District Court ruling that NYCLU members have been subjected to such hostility that
their First Amendment rights were impaired;
 protective anonymity measures taken by staff who answer NYCLU phones to avoid being
publicly identified, due to threats; and
 examples of extremely unpopular and controversial interests we have represented on
constitutional grounds, and the extreme behavior which has resulted, including targeting and
harassment of staff members at their residences as well as their workplaces.
All of this, and more, has been presented to the Commission, and is again appended to this application
for the benefit of any Commissioner who may wish to review it. We have submitted extensive
documentation of many serious incidents that impacted our organization and members directly – all
discounted as inconsequential in past Commission determinations. Once again, an appendix to this
letter includes a new sampling of the hostile correspondence received at our New York City offices by
ACLU & NYCLU over the past year.
In addition, as an organization that takes controversial stances and challenges improper government
activity, we face hostility from all corners of the political and social spectrums. One need only run an
internet search to confirm this – or to confirm how intently and malevolently some ACLU detractors
are focused on the personal details of those who work for and support the organization. To further
illustrate the sorts of hostilities regularly faced by ACLU staff and supporters, we include here
descriptions of several incidents from the last year provided by ACLU National staff and other state
affiliates. Often, documentation of these incidents is accompanied by acknowledgment that enduring
hostility of this sort is commonplace, though still unsettling, for ACLU employees and members.
 Within the last year, an ACLU employee has been a target of harassment including public death
threats on social media and menacing calls based on the employee’s ethnicity. On social media,
two self-described Trump supporters revealed where the employee lives (which is not
published to protect the employee’s privacy) and threatened to kill her, then said they didn’t
need to kill her themselves because “an illegal alien” would take care of it. The same employee
has also received calls and voice mails that said, for example, “Subversive Asians like you are
persona non grata. You don’t belong in America.”
 One state affiliate employee was the victim of “doxing” – her personal information and
photograph was compiled and published online by a pro-Confederate group with white-
nationalist ties. After this, the employee was threatened on social media on two occasions that
she was “a dead bitch.” Another employee of the same affiliate received death threats via email.
One included her address and stated “Some one paid me to kill you, If you inform the police or
any body, DEATH IS PROMISED GET BACK TO ME for details” [sic].
3
 One state affiliate has faced unrelenting harassment by an unstable person for the last year. The
person believes himself to be the source of information that formed the basis for a lawsuit
brought by the affiliate, which was in fact publicly available. He has been threatening the
affiliate since the case was announced, apparently resentful that he has not been paid or
otherwise recognized for the information he believes he provided. He has resorted to
threatening comments and messages on several social media platforms, via emails and texts,
and in phone calls and voicemails – one of which included a threat to come to the office and
“gas the place.” Though he lives in another state, the office is locked and his photo is kept on
hand at the entrance to ensure he is not let in.
 A state affiliate employee gave her business card to an audience member at a presentation who
expressed interest in volunteering. The would-be volunteer texted the employee at 6 AM on
Sunday asking if he could come in that day to volunteer, and the employee went back to sleep
and forgot to answer the text message. About a week later, the same man showed up at the
affiliate’s office wearing a heavy coat in hot weather and demanding to see the employee, who
was not there at the time. A volunteer opened the door to speak with him and inadvertently let
him in the locked office, and he became aggressive with two other employees and would not
leave the premises until police assistance was invoked.
 A state affiliate employee received several disturbing calls over the course of the last year. The
calls were very personal and “obsessed” with the employee and their gender identity. The caller
stated opposition to many ACLU positions over time, but was most irate about the existence of
transgender people and ACLU support of them. The caller stated several times that he had
“stared at [the employee’s] picture and listened to [the employee’s] voice and is convinced that
[the employee] must be transgender.” When the targeted employee was able to block his calls,
the caller began to harass another employee of the affiliate.
 One state affiliate received a letter written in black marker applauding the fact that a person
participating in a protest was “shot in the nuts with a gas canister. It’s priceless & we hope to
see more like it. Go, Trump, Go!” Less than a week later, after a policy pronouncement by
Attorney General Sessions, the same affiliate received a phone call which “consisted of
someone’s cackling laughter who stated, “you just got sodomized by Trump! Go, Trump, go!””
 A state affiliate employee received messages to her work email from someone using the
moniker “Christian Divinity” that stated “STAY THE HELL OFF OUR PENINSULA!!! Your
nothing but a bunch of muslim, satanic LGBT LIBTARDS!!!!!” [sic] and similar terms.
 A state affiliate received a hand-written postcard whose content was difficult to discern, but
included the words and phrases “MAD” “going to all mosques” “ACLU Hate Group”
“Confederacy” “ACLU hates free speech” and a strange anti-Obama image on the back. In the
context of other incidents taking place in the community at that time, affiliate staff felt they
needed to report the postcard to the police.
 A state affiliate employee received a voicemail in which the caller, who had hoped to reach her
boss’s inbox to express his displeasure about aspects of their criminal justice work, grows
increasingly irate. The message ends with the caller shouting, “maybe next time you fuckin'
die, both you guys, maybe all of you, you fuckin' die, and then you know what – after I’ll piss
on your fucking grave."
 A state affiliate employee received an anonymous and oddly-shaped package at the office. Such
packages are commonly inspected for hazards and explosives in ACLU offices around the
nation. Upon inspection, this one turned out to be an “exploding” mailpiece that showers
confetti shaped like male genitalia upon the recipient. It was accompanied by a note that said
“Eat them all! Enjoy[.]” The employee was, in his own words, “relieved.”
4
 Several state affiliates and employees received hostile and menacing messages and comments
on social media or via e-mail, often from the same person over an extended period, and often
from individuals located outside the state served by the affiliate, all based upon ACLU
affiliation. Many of these messages included statements such as “you should be thrown out of
the USA,” “you should be blown up/shot/murdered,” “you should all die,” “you should be
next,” or references to the ACLU’s “treason” and the penalty for treasonous acts. Some refer to
the ACLU and its supporters as “communists” who should be “rooted out and done away with”
or similar sentiments.
III. The grounds for past denials that have been stated by the Commission often conflict with
the Commission’s own regulatory scheme, and disregard the statutory mandate to protect
donors of non-profits that do controversial work in the public interest – a mandate that is
rooted in bedrock First Amendment law and principle.
Although regulatory treatment of 501(c)(4)s departs from the apparent construction of the Lobbying
Act as described above, the regulatory text adopts the statute’s language emphasizing the character of a
501(c)(4) organization’s activities as the basis for an exemption, and calls for a showing to the
Commission of that character and its relationship to specific harms in order to qualify. The
Commission promulgated a test for both the periodic single-source exemption set forth in statute and
the 501(c)(4) exemption, under which it considers factors that include, but are not limited to:
(1) Specific evidence of past or present harm, threats, harassment or reprisals to the source(s) or
client filer or individuals or property affiliated with the source(s) or client filer.
(2) The severity, number of incidents, and duration of past or present harm, threats, harassment
or reprisals of the source(s) or client filer or individuals or property affiliated with the source(s)
or client filer.
(3) A pattern of threats or manifestations of public hostility against the source(s) or client filer
or individuals or property affiliated with the source(s) or client filer.
(4) Evidence of harm, threats, harassment or reprisals directed against organizations or
individuals holding views similar to those of the source(s) or client filer.
(5) The impact of disclosure on the ability of the source(s) or client filer to maintain ordinary
business operations and the extent of resulting economic harm.9
However straightforward the list of factors for consideration may seem, the actual standard imposed by
the Commission for granting an exemption has been so elevated as to nullify the statutory mandate.
The Commission’s denial letters10 consistently state that “[i]t is the Commission’s view that unless an
applicant makes a persuasive showing under multiple factors it is unlikely to prevail.” This standard
for exemption is clearly much more stringent than the regulatory text itself. Even though the NYCLU’s
record has objectively satisfied several of the factors in the past, we have been repeatedly denied
exemption. Further, the stated grounds for denial often seem to conflict with the factors themselves.
For example, there is no limitation that specific harms arise during the semi-annual period in question,
or that only severe harms should receive consideration; yet Commission statements have indicated that
only serious threats from the semi-annual period at hand would be considered, or that the lengthy
9
19 NYCRR 938.4.
10
See, e.g., the most recent denial letter, dated October 16, 2017, and signed by Acting Chair Rozen (appended).
5
history presented included events that were too “remote in time” to be considered. However, neither
the statute nor the regulations calls for showing of an articulated immediate threat or prediction of
imminently manifesting harm in order to qualify for an exemption; in fact, the regulations repeatedly
require the Commission to consider “past” harms and the “pattern of threats or manifestations of public
hostility” against an organization, the content of its work, and those who make its work possible
through financial support.
Specifically, in the NYCLU’s January 2017 application, we documented one person’s public appeals
for someone to kill us and all of our members and blow up our building, as well as repeated hostile
communications from another individual received at our office. In the Commission’s denial letter,
these were dismissed on the basis that “only one was sent during the relevant filing period, and it is
directed at the NYCLU and similar organizations, not its supporters.” This suggests that the public
exhortation “ALL THE MEMBERS GOT TO [BE] KILLED TODAY” – targeting our supporters –
was dismissed simply because it was posted in 2015 and not in 2016, which would be in direct conflict
with the factors the Commission is required to consider under its own regulatory test.
This basis for denial also demonstrates the Commission’s inclination to dismiss evidence of harm to
the organization and its employees as irrelevant. In fact, the letter goes on to state that “NYCLU’s
application has limited information related to supporters” – again in direct conflict with the test set
forth in the regulation, which requires the Commission to consider harm to the organization (Client
Filer) as well as harm to the supporters (sources). The NYCLU’s past filings have documented actual
harm to NYCLU members and their property because of their NYCLU affiliation, including stalking,
vandalism, and death threats - but like the example of supporter-directed threats above, these did not
transpire during the semi-annual reporting period and apparently did not merit consideration as such.
The Commission’s most recent denial letter closes by stating that the “burden is on the applicant to
establish a substantial likelihood of harm,”11 citing its regulatory adoption of PIRA’s general
legislative intent to facilitate disclosure. The NYCLU respectfully submits that, to whatever extent that
may be accurate, the burden has been well met in our repeated demonstration of a long history with
this kind of harmful retaliation against our work and supporters.
We further request the Commission’s consideration of a different question: whether the statutory and
regulatory burden to be met is actually satisfied by a factual demonstration that the NYCLU is
precisely the kind of organization whose donors the legislature meant to shield with the provision then
known as the ‘NARAL exception’ – a protection that leading reproductive rights advocates including
the NYCLU have consistently been denied. To this end, we request that the actual language of the
statutory exemption and current regulations be revisited, and, if necessary, clarified for Commissioners
at the outset of deliberations upon this application.
The NYCLU recognizes the interests of transparency and disclosure. But, there is a countervailing
interest raised by this application. And it is an interest of constitutional import. The Supreme Court has
long recognized that the associational privacy rights of controversial, ideological organizations must be
protected; that such protection must extend to the security and secrecy of their membership lists and
the names of their donors; that without such protections those associating with such organizations are
vulnerable to threats and harassment and retaliation; and that without such protections vigorous
advocacy will be diminished at a considerable sacrifice to robust ideological debate and association.
11
Internal quotations omitted.
6
Accordingly, the Court has imposed a specific constitutional mandate holding that, under the First
Amendment, disclosure provisions cannot be imposed upon controversial, ideological associations
where there is a “reasonable probability” that persons identified with such associations will experience
“threats, harassment or reprisals.” 12The Commission’s responses to the NYCLU’s previous
applications failed utterly to respect this important concern.
We are the NYCLU, the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. We are a civil rights and
civil liberties organization, working daily on controversial matters. From time to time, we provoke
hostile responses, both from the public and from the government officials whose actions we must
frequently challenge. Many of our members and supporters are indeed open and public; but many of
our most vulnerable members and staff find themselves in situations and environments where they
cannot so openly affiliate themselves with the NYCLU or ACLU.
As an organization, and as individual civil liberties advocates, we have a long history of controversy.
That history will not end. Unfortunately, we accept that our controversial work will provoke
threatening responses in the future just as it has in the past. We seek some relief from our exposure to
such threats. Thank you for again considering our application, and please let us know if we can provide
anything further in support of it.
I declare that the information contained in this application is true, correct, and complete to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Sincerely,
Donna Lieberman
Executive Director
12
Brown v. Socialist Workers, 459 U.S. 87, 101 (1982).
7
Tried to send the below e-mail but your system is pretty screwed up and wouldn't let me send it.
Typical of a liberal outfit.
Your tweet says the Trump Muslim ban is hateful huh??? How many innocent people have to be. blown
up like in England for you to realize the Muslims are the enemy? Of course most people believe you are
the enemy of the American people. "American Civil Liberties" is just a buzz word like "Planned
Parenthood" to make ignorant people think you are really for the American people. I'm sure people like
you would have been Nazi sympathizers until history proved how wrong their thinking was. Keep up the
anti-American work and I can assure you that history will prove you wrong also. I'm sure there are fine
Muslims but they must be vetted because for thousands of years Muslims have wanted to destroy the
west and Christianity and anybody else that doesn't agree with them, including you. Like Hitler, they'll
never surrender until they are defeated. My opinion is you are fools. I hope you and your family get
blown up in the next terror attack on this country. You won't be able to blame trump. Just yourselves
and your stupid liberal judges that undermine real liberties. I think you should be tried and hung for all
your treason.
T C Atf [;íili J9. CI ¡}J/_

1-
ß4D ¡)Ô/Y' I
Warmest Greetings and

Best Wishes for the New Year
~~
~./IJ .. y)I-Hu
~fldl1~
cr 'U
_~,1 IS C"?If I C l L1 (
Position Oll
C/1 ris t nias
",
C!wiu«fJJ, VVUke¡ fux/f; 1M A CL U

Del(;w.!jiug A¡~'1iW~ T'l£ldftÚJuJ.
.fiKet 1920
CUUlghl~9 ~ou a Chftlgtmag ~QQed

wlth peaGe a~d ~o~
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad St 18th FL
New York NY 10004
fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you
fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fuck Soros fuck you fuck Sorosfuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuckSoros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you tuck Soros fuck you
fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck youfuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fuck you fuck Soros fùck you fuck Soros fuck you
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"1'.. ,s Me$t A~t ~A' I-I,4tJO DEI..WeQ..et> øtJ ,,1-, ''7
-tb ~~ Me5SeÑ6e(l.. C-6~"6fl A'- ~E ~YC.W'$·
e.\JA~reca. S.
\-\E,AO rr ~A s IN AN £'Ñve L-o,t
AOO GAt$t 6"0 -n .,-.r\~ Ñey.J ,/o,.,y,. C,\'1" .. \.,\ Ge&.TI £S
~'o.J ·
Lard assed, Pig ignorant, Vindictive,

Infantile, Pencil dick, Draft dodging,
Coward, Racist, Lying Motherfucker .
OR
Lard assed, Pig ignorant, Vindictive,

Infantile, Pencil dick, Draft dodging,
Coward, Racist, Motherfucking Liar
OR
Simply a whiny, sniveling, flatulent,

cretinous cunt.
--r;múbll e. Pr- ellnl UNI ~ e ml/e¡r-
r¡¿ ¡TIl/10 U/TlhO W v-e/ess ø tí c..
11re COlO/uMbra t~J. J1w
Was)lInc¡7ó1J ol C. 10tOo?·-2_<3'O!5
:3loll~e 2¡{)2 -!i/g - 30/&
T Mobl/e ~'lI'P/"'~_{ ?IlO - q '3" - 87n IVC'/>':ïP';l e r-
d-ea tr a c L LA ~
Yrotl Cl2/rJ e li! us /1/ '1hl r t- eC(]MM & n dAf Fr£1lVl The
~I h T e h (9US e') h e.v-es vvh CP --;" )-ó il CfOfl T' klJow"
t
, W &L a» ê!. tlí e I~ l< 1< J, e v- e 111 \tvash!!Jr.To» ci c,

IN h a'l "¡-j, t.\ '5 ho u Icl tc..IJOW) cl of)rDl cl .T Îv-UM g 7&t1 k hc:;.,.,/
h I/v\ Qs ~é R-e51 c/e/fï (J)F n: Uni Teel ~Ta'ïé's
lJUI \1\1l:.? /ç:;ttcW hl/ltl a« Tfe \¡Vl.~/?Sh/~e_PII !tIJas/e¡r- Off.
"7fe 1< )< k Ft!) 1< CI L 017 l' 7ï~) e «.r: 1. o I'I~ Icrs-:-
va e e.,« dontO/d TriLlI1/Y V/S'J- uc O'dtlsl< Li s lo
~I t'cT hIM as. ffie /7ex'1 I-It-;/ t: i- 5{ <¿r-vltlr ro (QFr7c¿;

't'ile o/tel Sl/\I'ECl Il- hIN IN as
'jlt~ !1JJ E/vb e(? ¡()¡:.~
J,_!f hc¡kb don cC cP T,:""" M f I So fl tOh) ?Jæ_ "Zit!!k-t?' h ¡- (9 F 7k

f-LA R. ({)R._ Sl_ncP k t« k IN Wir'_( hl !'l.C( T(J"fl) el e
J
hl"> cl -e '¡)cu- TI n \N(J) rdls ~"eI'-~ h Ii Je é'eIt Seo Ro OCf () '> Yu s
af'lcl h I le h II1e /1". IN e Øl, 'E_ ¡:'u I( f'- é'<;' O,oIJ5/};¡ J/Tf' f:6IJr
7líe CO/7 It?/1 Ir. F 7Jj'¡t;. f)tOTc:... hl J..e A I T1l~r-
(f)
t F er", u d nI "Lke hlfl (1)1 vI)l:' /'10 Vfl .J v.s.T 7IDícf Tg, ll,
ri)
CiCJilïac.7 L1t ct T 21fJL.-5!l? - J£/'6 -DJ- 5]00-'137 -'8791

'T lu' wh ¡{'eD ...
Ur- Q UJ )J J fJ e ¡¡-
P'IIN\D L. al l/)o ""Il e/Est,

\¡..... II c..
rAt1ob,/e @!p>~
W\ .....
. - .' .
, ..-~ ·toøe.:.:
. _- .
.. -
-.. : ~ --
'0
- /-
- -
..
.
-
i/:IfS oL - . .
__ 1. • ':, -._" •• ..
Ol. O' .-
.. ~. >:... -' .
\ -..
t¥ t\S
..,..
.. -
IA·_-
..
.0
-.
Artictes: Arnenea's Betrayal by the Democratic Party
Page 1 of3
May lB, 2017

America's Betrayal by the Democratic Party
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
Are you aware that we are facing a political and cultural tragedy right now? The Democratic Party, one of two great parties of the
USA, has been co-opted by the communist ideologues, the power-mad neo-Marxists, in our political establishment. They can call it
liberalism or social justice or togetherness, but it is my considered judgment that, without exaggeration, we are facing an intent to
subvert the electoral will of the American people.
Based only on "unnamed sources," the Washington Post, NY Times, and CNN have accused President Donald Trump of sharing
top-secret information with Russian officials. Imagine: this is "news" without any named source, without even a whistleblower
ready to risk his job for the country. This is a mainstream media cause célèbre, even though CNN wrote online, "The President did
not directly reveal the source of the information, but intelligence officials told CNN that there is concern that Russia will be able to
figure out the highly sensitive source." Without accountability, and only the most limited information, the left-wing press is
lambasting Trump. This trash is being published as "news" - i.e., as if it were fact. And this is being done with the tacit approval of
the Democratic Party leadership. This is all part of the Democrat narrative that Trump is a Russian mole occupying the Oval Office.
How did we get to this point, where the hissing vipers have come out from under their rocks to poison the body politic? While we
could go back to Eugene V. Debs, the socialist candidate for president at the beginning of the 20th century, or even before him to
"Big Bill" Haywood and the International Workers of the World (IWW), the modem threat began to reveal itself in the 1960s.
David Horowitz, in his collection of articles in the Black Book of the American Lejt, Vol. 7, sees a direct line between the Henry
Wallace candidacy and the politics of the 1960s. But the important understanding we need to draw is that "direct line" is a line
whereby the extreme left ofthe Democratic Party has moved from being rejected (1948 faction led by Henry Wallace) to becoming
the center of the Democratic Party.
The success in drawing the Democrats leftward was the ability of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to unite youthful
opposition to the Vietnam War with the urgent push for desegregation and "freedom" by the civil rights movement. While the civil
rights movement was divided between the middle-class, church-going, nonviolent program of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Ralph
Abernethy; and Andrew Young and the Black Power advocates like Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, who espoused violence in
varying degrees, both factions were able to agree in their anti-war stance. If SDS could be characterized as the brains of this trinity
of rebels, King's organization could be considered the idealists, and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), led
by Stokely Carmichael and the Black Panthers, could be considered the gangster-lite aggression. Thus, intellect, idealism, and
aggression or thuggery became fused to create a new neo-faselstic trend. Love of country played second fiddle to "needed change."
To characterize the trend as neo-fascistic is in no way in opposition to seeing that trend as communistic. A common anti-democratic
thread runs through both fascism and communism. Although fascists are hyper-nationalistic or chauvinistic in one sense, they have
internationalist ambitions as shown in their urge to conquer. Economic and political imperialism is central to their modus operandi.
Further, government for fascists does not exist to facilitate competition, nor even to merely regulate some ofthe negative fallout that
inevitably occurs as business grows. Rather, fascism affirms tight political control over the economic sphere even if it does not take
ownership of major industries or of all commercial dealings, as did the USSR under Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong in the PRC.
I
MAKE
COPIES
· -."
'It.. , '~~., ,~ i
.' ,I I, ti,,-
r. _ _ f;\'-
/
blVER5JIY
--15
(J'\\,
'1l17i't r: I '\y\( \!..\~ ....;..:\
\ \ 1
--------,~------. -12 j.
¡
)j, ~ ¡
~'ll,'.·
_.¥--. -- ....---t--"t--------------
'J \ \ - ,
~_._-, .JL - --
---,-------- •
··---------4J1ifE " lfJ· ~'ßJll[Jl-,-tIfl_- --

------¡--
-_'·---1----7fJi;J4~ W]nc____:__-J_-' ----

-_. __ ._---1----- ,-'----
-l"A~""CLU_; _~_
-_l---fIit \Li~tiL tt~----:J=ilIi:;'._
._- _.~_.
_..-- ..-~-~-., ....

-A717Tjr~7~----it:"-71~-J-:?·.· --
._ _,..,;;"L-I-r!t1_. --o J)_J)_LVL'f:V.¿_UI-_-I-Z-7-LL-2 L.. \ __ o.
--- ~--tjtllf~{ f> i
-=tø ----~."
. -rSL---1J
~L~~J~_~ . _
·-Jf~tJd-A)Æ-~:"---h '- 'I:¡.,!-";!~
",.-;;--
WONI I
\JV/ I. J
- - Jioo
'=000'·0':
OO----
O O •
-",
,~ .-
--
,-'-- ~
i-----l--:,-I-----o-·-,-~-o
--ç·..fV~-.ltt .~..;....._._~-
-'00
-O
---·-------0 0·1----·------------~---"------
~--tt-.7)~lZ~_a;IT-:"·L-··'·.-)t .-P-E:R--)~}rt
-----_._--_._._---- F..v,
I _o' "X~ r
l 1
,
/ ' /
!
------ ---_.._. ...
------·'1--
or HERE!
~------
-
-... ...........
_, '-=tt--,..
-, ,,'. -'-------~-------,:_¡ ---
--7;_-;-eJi~al_- __- -
" .' i ' /
'-----'------
-._, j;)-~, "~~--,- . _..

L__ ,._._,_,__
;'
~....._=...._..__
-------,_,--.._-- ._"-"""'=--
\A',,·U'
\ ,','r
;.;\
'-;.:,-~ ~--'--
i '
---_ _-_._-------------~---
..
NofÖnlyis thisÖél!iRnJbr~~t~.n~.<:t 2YJ~·2iÇª.LI.slªrni~t~~$WE:!ba_vè,,$~$rjl~ºmi.~ç¢nt¡

tsl ~.rt1iÇ.!~xtºri$t•ªna¢I<~.[ff.Sª(l.J~~rl1ªtº.in.g;ç!\~t.tt1~Méltt9f;~.m.e.ricai
• fl!
I3IºQmihgfoh,MNt¿¡tOhiö-State 'o', ':_'- " • "." ,,--' _. " .,- ~ _.-
University,'.and··in'my hoiriët9wn
" ~_. -, Co "-"',:."' - .',., ,_,.,':_. __- ,',_ c_ • -_ . __ ', ~ c: ,:;,' "J';~-. >', ' '-,,__
'''''''~,-: -_ '_' '_,<,
'__
of Qrlàndo; FL¡,:
' .. '_,' __:,," :.__...:_ _,_',_._.
_~_: .. -_'c:. __.": ..•. _', __, __ •._~ _-o;
.tfJªV~••·.ºèèö.wårniñgfórso·méfimetHatrâaréârisrârrÇ¡sts ..arè·àHeriî¡ning·t'Q'i
in.fjltr~n¢thèVêlyçQieÓfóÛrnåtiÔriüsrhg·,:/çuœûrªIJi.háâ'!Jö'prëyofl.thfámO'sfl
Vuinerabié .ani9fl9 üs.:.:th~Jfli"iºn.spfpqºH~~~hQºJÇ,hil~!~rt.iI'lAm~riç~JJ ~.,.~~ "_.-~, -'_- "'- - ,._- _'. ~-, -- -_o
lr1ñÖc~nt.anqihipr~s~ionaplgSêh9Qlj:hildrèriâç'l'ó~sJhe.:nªtiQr:(ªrø·.I:>~ihgtàúgh[J
;Is laJl'liç,'1i.had:'.9êJ)1~.~
•••
,.~.;~f9rç~d.t.º·.J:rble···plåY'~àñ(lW,~ªt!~!ªtrtIçh~ª9·,çºygti:rj9~+ªtjq;
c' .....• P Y nl¿eMüslim~s'~';':'âifd'evêh'lêd"'eållê"iâhêejtQ;AllahZ;l
'föbes'äfl'd 'rà' · _
'••• '.' •• ,.P~..~..g
c .. c g.~<.h..
'" """ •• •• - .•.•••• VY.h+á.:}"',"<."';, " ••• i
':._""'.,~-~.,
'·.Th·isís···frl.HYfrlghtêñin'g:;/~'·ISlàrñ¡ç:rffêlºçttiriªtiºijI$Jª.K!Ö9J)!ªfêjl'l~m:~r"içªn;.!$ç;tg~ql~.!'1
,
.¡..,.........-_.- ~-_._-.-----,-_.-- --_ .._._~._----'-_._--_.-\ ----_.
¡
--~-.- ~-_.- ... Il' .c

,
--"---------~.---_. ~'--. _..___--
."~.
,·'
··
···
..
,- -
ti
.'
.,
.~\(
1 _.-
__ _--_.. --_._-_. __
. ... .
,-'f!flJI!__:_"...---.
-:~
. .
'_.-\~-
\¢e fe lLA ~
Yo Gl ~œm ~ ~tW~~~~ ~
'~..' , .ÇD~s
~'
{ -- \jJtJ r¿D O.Ç
\\ Å'
. . . Il
I(
œ~13~ IS / \UBî2"lCaM /,
3Tf\f2--\ r:rrw-hck~ lAS

ND-r :celé; ~~.I i
~ .
All, ~.~ ~?r

roeJ vhl, l
LAG~ L_~ W- 'LÅ I
.lrfu.Jz.- 4( .x. ~~ t~. c::kM~, I

..to ~ U/YlÆM- .~ C¡A,¿tzffi G~ .~
yo u f~ex:Jf\--Y\S~ -\o
~.p~ !
)Jo ~-e__~~ =-b ~ ,1
À, , ~tJ2h:P~
êare
¡Peaceful,
'Most Prosperous,
Most Progressive era in human
Remarks by President Obama in Address to
Hannove Messe Fairgrounds

Hannover, Germany
f\pril 25, 2016
·G ,aß._¿ 1'- ~ö
~o (,;, e,~,M
(¡I)I ¿..S-.D I--> I
f'loí1C, s.
N S/'tt1...L:t s.-V P'é. 1) ¡::: .
Ll'1-vJ V SIZ sz'êJY\. ¡-o A-uJ.Jf.t-~ S
;1'1'0 S I)Jríl+ rr+E.. o'i-ftU'c../tMS
td-"i'P 11fz.'1. -v'O"Í e: o s- rvuo ci~jff-- 'p. é)t eJ. .- A" ~. L. lúJ t cl r-) I...
A:5 uJ C¿ L.L lP ,·t L C rt-- t: £.fI. ¡) ~S II pf-ti S' o'" ~ s o ç- c) (\"s 11(/>ll)f" v f-I t( ~
A- .=3(6. {)ls'WJJtJ~ wi"T7+ 1'L 5' 0AA ¡:fa ~ ¡'Ö 4{ çQ.{)dC ~

-rt« t._. p SP U (02.. A-t? C S I lz_ o f-
j
It rv\f'.;I~Lw-tJ S W (res 'rH €. ÆC.l.t( ¡J£.w '1o~I<'( NV 1000 '-f 'il
s e 85 -t» P.> ~ ffI v.J tt-A .,v ( nf- 'Víh-1: fj'. 1"\, /t ~)~¡j Prß/) l~e
A- tV O ~ó rrrf (1+ ~ p,.J c.. AS
c» _/?J<¿L.~~fJ-etJT S fl- P- s. .
{} .... ,.J ¡.II " ei 'Öl> o ""' ¡.lu. rYl I:~ 00.< ~or €- ~ ¡J CS ,,,~,,.ú
17f~ $1'4¡JoI)-NJ ~mmn,ølè uf £. ¡JTl-rL-VV! f!.,.)'r~~ 11-5
(Il ¡:;I.L It S o .a-fli 1)-".",,,) €-12-- IP.77+ (J1LP.y f!.¡ fi Gi ( ¡j li 11-" í)
qUI) q 'i;§ff
d
pP ( ¡lé; v:
A- ¡J l> /Ar"; £(L ¡Jo,J tAt.ß 't £fl_. TO
P__S<ltG'i kl4 ç_¡2.{G4- bHílhJo::{ 1/ tJ '( I/-I'! £l2<_cA-" $ ,,J (r
Il"" -x 5ußPj $€.- I T S ¡}IlWI)( ()¡IIU_"T1T{ ,J (;', !..4 I<, £_ fl¡J L
14,J0 6' £e (26 ~ SD (UJ'S ¡J o fl oJ.Lll> II ¡S 7JfL W( ,J fi :5
'Tte.uVVtp
ya)) ~owJ{
~~r~;
£f-rk~~XM
-1.
<v.~~).~~
~u are in our thoughts
~ G (>eP) y 11V H) ()AA~,~¡Ú,
«-J.« ... - . .,v.¡-¡ ..
this Christmas season
. ) /~
and in our hearts always!
Why ARf y6uWOR!C¡UJ
SD H-ftRD to efA-o!lcJtfe ~ êJ úJ~ø S!v1dtJ
A IP/~t(û;U?
~~
~~~~
~~ ¡-f/Mø.
~. He .ß;/;:jj.~ .: ~
I-f e: j;;tJ ~ ker t;1j ~- c;Jj ff / m
-~ ' . b om thiTS day tn
For unto you TS . oif
. th e city
David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
LUKE 2:11 KJV
" .._".
~MEnICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
'. ACLU 50·STATE SURVEY
Complete our SO-State Survey to share your"

opinions about fundamental freedoms at risk.
Dear Friend,
Our country is facing a mighty struggle over the vibrancy of our democracy and the strength of
~itm~nt~¡p-the-fund¡¡mental,.freedoms-that-define'America, -Every-day-Donald Trumpand·his··
admin~de~Jllstrate an utter disregard for the Constitution and a terrifying willingness to abuse
power and trample on people's rights.
p
unprec~~. ~;;,~~~:;;~ ,~.~,~,~vid:;:~f,.
~:~.:~
~.'.e~.~~e...."".er sta.t.'.' se..izin.g.. w t.'.th
-.ha.... . ..." .. h
...
:o
.... .e..is.~n
~\CLU leads a determined, passionate movement to defend people's civil liberties,
we nee~dur ideas and opinions. That's why Larn hopingyou will take a momeritrÎght now to
complet return the enclosed. ACLU SO-State Survey.." . ;. ','
.•. re than ever, the ACU/and bur membersmu's~ do what al\'¡lay'sdo hi moments ofwe
crisis - wag a vigorous, robust and effective defense bf freedom,' And, as ölÎrÍ11Ítionwïdi(il'etwork§f
law '. advocates, policy experts and organizers works to do just that, we needyóürstreri:gtIïårict your
persona port,
if'
We want to know what your biggest concerns are in th escalating tilreats,t?ou_rdvil
liberties, and how you andyour community are feeling the impac of . ies that run
éonf~ácitolhL
_' __ ~l!~!ÉEion ~!!<i.!b.~
rule oUmv--,,--_.__ .~,_._,~_,_ ......__ ---,.,-. · c._.. :::"--o.--:.ë.è.} ,:·"'~:2'~j"0"'ó~'i;'
':':"~;: ;',.,,!
Completing th, enclosed ACLU 50-State Survey is one way you can help u, aa w,
work to protect people's basic rights in the face of extraordinary cha es. ..,' ..
.'!~~~
Please seize this opportunity to speak up. And, if you're r take one more step to defend
om, don'tj t return your survey response to ACLU headquarters ...
_ ACLU,' ~~~~a::l::.mh!32.!~¡~ti~~'~~d
::::¡~~~¡:::,ntum to the
, If y~'u answer "Yes" tó ~ny,?f the following questions,T urge yo.u,tor:e~pondtd thís'Ietter: .'
• Are yo~ alarmed thatabus.~sOf ~o.w~r by Do~al,d um~\.:h.·; iCcs

~~mi:¡s~~:i~n
o W~l1'do"~~ep
~ng damage to ,our democracy? ,~, '. •... <. •
• Do you believe a new round of voter suppression I'

will impact the outcome of the 2018 elections?
oncerned that we will see immigration raids based on racial and ethnic profiling that
get schools, hospitals and churches and tear families apart?
~: . . ..... ."....--;.....,.-..
--<-'"--~-"-"'''m''eyu ùITi1!tl"dmt President Tlûn1¡:l'
aml"Cull'gfes·S·Will"suCC'eed:itr'defurrdîng'Planned'~~' ~
-'
Parenthood and passing a federal abortion ban? ~ ..

. .
Are you concerned about the disregard for the First Amend . t an the suppression of free
speech and protest that is emanating from the White House an' e legislatures across the
countr ?
gree that banning refugees and others f

'iolates our mostdeeply held principles?
I hope you wi!' few moments to answer questions such ~U-_"""-.J~ completing our survey
about freedoms at risk in your state and across the country.
(over, please)
125 BROAD STREET' 18TH FLOOR' NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400' WWW.ACLU,ORG

: CALLED W ONDERFUL COUNSELOR,
LL BE . "
"AND HE SHA . ER PRINCE OF PEACE.
TY GOD EVERLASTING FATH ,
MIGH , ISAIAH 9':6
THE NIGHT THE WISE MEN FOLLOWED

AS THE STAR OF BETH.LEHEM .
.J1~i1) , ,.
IT {)J}fJj ~lVcrhv~ pcrttlcj1c.
I ¡;;ald TfU11p~(;[~t: .
~ &AvJ'ÚV,4 J CAl-v V7?lt( r
~ l f ~FM-LI ttlY\t;{L-\1Â SJe;d'/~/.v'J I
·------------..----·-~--------
..---- h_---------.---------k~f / _
----~-_._._
..~-+--------~------~-----~------~_._~_._--._-------
..------_._-_._-----_._._.-.--_.~-----
-.----------------
------_._L QtJ.r}'-4.'11!W...Hß:C.~/....'E'.([M/-T.D. u"C_of_ -rQ~clL_.
f¿)J-Ttf__MAL!__í\f_.¡ __.£~Le_~_r_~{1__t:tíE_QJJ..[_,A..r'S fu~L:rI:i!_N Jf A-mEß.l_~ __
T II . ._ ,-"-
- U __ h -------------
---------.----- __ o N 0''- -_,á.--Uj)4··-·Q£__-j¿AJ_b:!_f'tJL:r~e_L&f¿£M(UÆ£_-AU_~''(r.'-L_..1::!_ß ~-~(J_ .._
-----.-----.--- ~@-ki-L--¡g--if-VÉ-AW.A4--~.k.t J.r~è!:r1Yf_-"XQ--4.N1--.I.Mm-L~.M:r...['------
.--------------- ltUd---~l.L~~~-3HL~-___¿.tn'l.I.J.LJ-~€----ble¡¿g.j-----------------------_
--------_. __ .._--~--_.__ . - -~._--- -- - ----_--- - _------- _------_.---- - -- - ---- ---------;-- - . - -- _-. __ -- - -~----
------~---~-------~ -~ --- ...-~--- ---
"------
---.-----.--------.--
;.-----.lÜ·.-f.&tJf-A{íH~J2E.--lLºN¡¿_ft 1'i~~tLJ.J.JiQ. ..:;cJ: .. H.lLl-¡&<%¡
.--------~--.--_.--- li.Q_cn._~u.J: ..[__
__
~_LJ 1-r8J')-u_-(-H-éà¡¿(4LI1IJ..6 .t.n,,__A.._~.ß 0J IIH-.....£'t£-rAlbL..4 (? 1& _
'j bLca~-~t-~Jj-~Atd-run£---£U-([-fjA:L!fQ.-R...L6~--.:xt2---ß.-tkLl:~~L
----.------------. 9----.:t-~~----
-----.~.----------.--- ~aÆ.-- ....º~-H&f-£----&jàf2.¡-J1é-li--P.L'.~_§__~£.{]..50HAI¿-...rLr:.un-!.QHL
------~_._'---_ .. .._----~-'-~----~-.~~-~~._-.-._--. __ ._.
, __ .-~----_._------~--~~_.--
-......-._--_._----~---~.~......... _.------------~~----
.. ...
, -~~-- ...
fl J I I
___ h_
..- ...' - ...~~-----

--- ----------- __ --- - -tk:_-_ß-lb_k_Il:lC.AtJ_
- _c,_t!_tL::__tie.~f:N
;:pJ~.ßjJ'---lI.--~Aln£ß
----__ß-~I.)--o/_1±L-ß:.tJ' d__
-
!:}.~.ù..-~--
lC&-N.£._¿u.tLJ.2Ufl.,._Afuf¿tkJ.bA-)V__.
..ß-y-73··f:J¿---l;:)J,/!J;i£L-±--;[d-~t14-r:_.LCé..-----
...-- -.------------ l£-.--Alli.Jç_&Ltkf:,J.J~
-
f~ __
-:-.
&~_t:A:.t:Y£_~ Nó_r_._ß_.!4--_{ E_l.Æ..-=lku71.-~-L
-f
.._~
_ _tJ.
- .... - i1L.k .ßrrc.iliil..- ~-~ 3J¿_f_'Coj(,.,ÆN'1 . Ç-¡.¡ oo.re:n~~}1tcr.:ej
- -~-- -_.-._._._._-~~-~_._-
. __ ------.-------- --------~._---- ...---~---~------_._--_._- .•.. ---_._~---------------- ....-.-._----~-------_.- -- --. -_._~"--- ..----.-----------------
-.-------- ._ .J:t¿ _f1b2 r t'f" IZ rf__g_}_t!.7--- ...-Il{'[lirLi&- J lc·.f '(£_-~

.. ..rHffL.--mA;t.L_--~NL7__-Æ{kJl'r:L-
-----..-..:.-- ..Lmn}-L~tJA:--IL¡)_AL---':LH !rr_--.:s:!..---::f:2..eJ:'ÍfJÆ_JLt!j--~--

-.-.------------ ~r:C.¡¿b:TlLke-t--.------
-..--------.------- ~e_CAl.kŒi_--,--McL--f.¡_JI...A J...;ry- beCk; f!r.ttfF(--~-HA.'!( __E~}'gJ.fY___-t:__~_~c/-

- .-.__
-"__
..----.-_..... .f!2&i ... ~_.. ..__.._.._ ...__._. . .. . ..._
._-- -.•. -- ."--- --_- ----_ .__ --------- ----- __
.-- ---- __ r ~_~_. .. • . ._. • • • __ ._. ~ " •• _~ _.._. "__ .. _
- -.. ---.- -- .. "_'_n_. -+:f-.-~-~WPdL'L--.n-JJ-~~f.-- ¡)_-f}['fß-¡-_£rw:ro--~b---toV_1l7gyG-~r--eæ--E.~~f/94
.-- --.----~-..------- S.2f.T"-,=-Ùl }:!-..~D.1kLkfIk{[,,:::, SfCdLPL..--A[,J!_-~--~~rtterU...-.¿tLl-H-e.1P---T..H1:'l!L-IJH.~
...- -.-.---------.. CXC_EI£{'1--0_N_e_---Gfrly--~-'!-H9.-lj~L£ç:_ __Ah! __Ame&'!CAH._!_J¡h_~~q_trt!l __

7YK d_
.. ------------- .!Qf--tf!4-..!gx---fM2-}je~---!'~--$-!-!-!:?-!-~-ltY¡---Ct:?\)-f);,_---!f~pÙ!l--f1/
..---
..----------.---
..--
--'..---- ..-.. --.------ ...--.. ----.-.-....------ ..---------- --.-.-' ..- .Go__~ .._Hélk ..Dyl('; Kf4f'S!( ._._,,_
(So ~ i .S
It
-to ~ o'" ...,.---- ......
ø. ...at__.. \\
1l'e, "o\.De ti\) sr P II)

t\tsW'1J ;
I ~SUlT PS'1¿HOPATlts AND p~eDA-WR)"bA
I A CR.IMINAl- Plta./oMFNON ~EF~~RltJb
fI...
OOS11l-'f AFFILIA-reo ~P\Ç'
...
WOO" N A œbAN\ZW ~ND OF

~"s"
~~~i:~'
IT IS
S~~-m-MAllG MAU€R/MANN€'R J RclEN11t%Çt..'1 tN'tAre AN

! \tJDIV1DVAL-'5 L-rp:¡;; ,oN A CON1lNlXlS BAÇ\S }-ro AN ~Cfv\t-·
r Ol%~ J A s VA ¡qDr: ,::rna\'<.:
Lt-Fe~1'fI£. WH\tE EAat I ND\-
f VIDVAI,... f,ANl. smu-:..~ DOSS l-\\~ D~ H~ sMAIl PArq",wt\ltr
I DeBNES ~"f3DIm>~'1 6ANbs:TAI..\L\Nb ~ ~ COIItal\1e- .
I¡ \ tJ1cNT ïZ> DO \tArzM!" - ?REI/In'l)~i 'ANbSlAl..\'-ERS A~B
RAf\ST (,etnNh OFF DN %\\'J(, ~~\STI USt1\J.b rt:3\F- iV
~\..- -n\~ tAINDS Dr -nre= 'TA~ IN~\I\DVAI,..S'- 'GAN(,
S-ml-¥-\Ñ'- IS \N1t=,;tH)8) \ti repF..\\IB S01"\BOtJt: or TttetR ~M
. AND \\\J~AN R\httTS I. -m: AC,W
.,-E"l~lc. we=Af1DtJS 12'5 ~oAD ~ l~ f1~ ~
- vt3tK-U\Ar<- S1Al'AW£ NeN ¥O/<y..-wy t\{
DEPtffi ltW.-a\TS l\-.
. SM€1\-fZ-. CirMpAtf,NS JDØf tii
b~J~il~.M\...S
__ perl""=-> Ac I.
'''~''_'~'''''¡~'>i'~~~;;~1~,"fiit~~\~~_~..__~~.~!e~\N~?l'A~ ~VATlON', <Cl
~Elg-~~~~~~~i~~~~~~'~~ ;
"On Response-Ability, which side?"
For Pro-Choice believers to encounter Pro-Life .....
seems a risk of quite great magnitude.
For Pro-Life believers to encounter Pro-Choice .....
is a sad lesson in learning non-gratitude.
The preferred response of Pro-Choice to Pro-Life encounter,

is to discourage, dis-invite, evade and shut off.
The preferred response of Pro-Life to Pro-Choice encounter,
=_
~.:" ""-....,r.~J:"<"'!.~
Vt-'GIII ••• "....,~' +....
40'4J 4= •• .,.<th.,.",
• ...,;.·'''' ...
~II
lo~",¡""~n('t
oI...,,,,,,,, .. :t ..:J¡,j~ ~nrl no blow-off
.....
~<'I .. __ ~ " •• --",~, .11
Is one side maybe sensing

tts weakness and queasy fear .....
when the other side's
confident truth may come near?
Like a sunrise on a clear-skies morning .....

truth freely comes forth seeking to teach and bless.
But this light of day seems to become a threat. ....
Pro;.Choice responds as if put under stress/duress.
Is this maybe what happens

when non-truth meets truth .....?
And so, a strategy of protective defense .....
is to hunker down like a silent sleuth??
.An!! life goe$ on ..... , guess not ~Iways exactly in prime:

so, here's some words set in verse and rhyme .....
and by this I wish to say: Thank You for your time.
Discounting (away)
Every
Naturally
Inherent
Actuality (in) ¿f¡.¡ttën

September 1999
LIFE
-S:1: v<1o ~~~
--CU:k_i.L__CO~~
ó
~ß4LL)-. ~~._I _
_.J ::J.4~ J, ~
~~~.-
-~~-l
_. _- -:J¿-_ ~~" __
o Very Concerned o Not Very Concerned
OSomewhat Concerned O Not Concerned At All
2. Donald Trump and the anti-choice majority in Congress moving to defund

abortion providers across. the country, depriving millions of women of cz,_. 11 f) «: '
essential health care services. ~_.í?~ jJ~ ~ ~"

O Very Concerned O Not Very Concerned
O Somewhat Concerned O Not Concerned At All
"
3. Efforts to squelch free speech and dissent through the in.tim'.idati~ ..:a,n.,~ d m. O. '" .2'. _.' J
surveillance of media, activists and protestors. ~~. ~~'-'---·.YL ~ ,
O Very Concerned O Not Very Concerned " ~,~

O Somewhat Concerned ONot concernedÄfAJr~"~~o..==·~~
4.EmboldE3ned extremists across the country escalating efforts to turn backtheo-t' f~

clock on reproductive freedom and LGBT rights.
O Very Concerned ,O Not Very Concerned

O Somewhat Concerned , D Not Concerned At All
,5. Efforts to impose a religious test on Muslims, banning them from entering the . ~. O·
.•.
country. " ~~.~ AY7'L 'YVl~
O Very Concerned O N()t Very Concerned .,~ fr ~

DSomewhalConcerned . D.~olco.nçernedAtAIl ~~ ;;p.~
6. Are there any observations or concerns, specifically, that you would like to add ' ~
~* ~
about how our freedoms are at risk, either nationwide or in your community or .,
state?
* ~~ dc:l-u_
A~
lA Q_
avD
\~
fQßt;:_ ~ .;;ç~
1J(0-L~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.
U /9 C l li JA- ~_ 4-- 0- ~ _:r.
praver 11¡ickedout of schools.
"
Nativity Scenes destroyed.
Ten Commandments ripped írom courthouses.
Prayer banned at graduations .
.Prayer banned from after-school events.

b
úI!!J ? ílzy tút-M¡ß(NAß( 1<jló5/ i'L
--:::s-
.r:
\b
'"1
- )I'
'~
c-, D ~
*
+
~~~
~1
~ ~ r- ~ ~ ~~
~ s;::
~
')
::r ~ t-,~~ ~\!',
t ~~~~
c, ~
~\
~
~ ~ ~~.
~. ~
~
++ +
22 Week
Abortion
peaceful moments to fill your heart
with everything joyful the season means to you.

May your cfays 6e merry and 6ríghd
AiL ~;tf¿ r r
<of ~
r~~~(~
ah~
MICHAEL K. ROZEN SETH H. AGATA
ACTING CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ROBERT COHEN
JAMES E. DERING
MARVIN E. JACOB
SEYMOUR KNOX, IV NEW YORK STATE
GARY J. LAVINE JOINT COMMISSION ON PUBLIC ETHICS
J. GERARD McAULIFFE, JR. PHONE: (518) 408-3976
BARRY C. SAMPLE FAX: (518) 408-3975
DAWN L. SMALLS
540 BROADWAY
GEORGE H. WEISSMAN ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207
JAMES A. YATES www.jcope.ny.gov
MEMBERS
November 22,2017
Donna Lieberman
Executive Director
New York Civil Liberties Union
125 BroadStreet, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Dear Ms. Lieberman:
In response to your letter dated November 6,2017, there is no right to appeal the determination of
the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (the "Commission") denying the July 13, 2017
application of the New York Civil Liberties Union ("NYCLU") for an exemption from the
source of funding disclosure requirements under §1-h(c)(4) of the Article One-A of the
Legislative Law (the "Lobbying Act") and the Commission's regulations at 19 NYCRR Part
938.4(b).
As set forth in the Lobbying Act and the Commission's regulations at Parts 938.6 and 941.18,
only applications for exemption submitted pursuant to Part 938.4(a) may be appealed to an
independent hearing officer. This type of exemption is applicable to a particular source or
particular sources of funding upon the requisite showing of harm to those specific sources.
NYCLU, rather, applied for an exemption for all of its sources under Part 938.4(b). The
exemption for all sources is available to corporations that are qualified as exempt organizations
under LR.C. §501(c)(4) upon the requisite showing that disclosure will create a substantial
likelihood of harm to the sources based on the nature of the organization's primary activities. The
Lobbying Act does not provide for an appeal for these types of exemptions, and Parts 938.6 and
941.18 of the Commission's regulations expressly state that an entity which applies for an
exemption under Part 938.4(b) is not entitled to an appeal.
Donna Lieberman
November 22, 2017
Page2
Notwithstanding NYCLU's arguments to the contrary, the Commission will not reconsider its
determination on NYCLU's application for an exemption under Part 938.4, and NYCLU is not
entitled to an appeal to an independent hearing officer in this matter.
Sincerely,
:11...1,--
1)'h~ ..-_.'."
".øø.•"•..••
.Monica J. Stamm
General Counsel
NYCLU
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
1.25Broad Sheet
New York, NY 10004
212.607.3300
21.2.607.3318
www.nyclu.org
November 6, 2017
Acting Chair Michael K. Rozen

General Counsel Monica Stamm
Joint Commission on Public Ethics
540 Broadway
Sent via email
Re: Appeal of the denial of an exemption from Source of Funding disclosure

requirements
Dear Mr. Rozen and Ms. Stamm:
Please accept this letter as notice of the NYCLU's intent to appeal the Commission's
denial of our July 14,2017 application for an exemption from the source of funding disclosure
requirements made pursuant to Part 938.4(b). As required by the Commission's regulations at
Part 941.18(b), we append our application, as well as the denial letter dated October 16,2017.
The Commission's regulations at Part 941.18 set forth its procedures for administrative
appeal. Those regulations expressly bar administrative appeal to a Judicial Heating Officer for
client filers who seek a 'blanket exemption' under 938 .4(b). l However, the regulations also state
immediately thereafter that "[a] client filer may appeal a denial of an application for
exemption,"? The regulations do not further clarify whether any other form of administrative
appeal may be available where the Commission has denied a blanket exemption application
made under Part 938.4(b).
Additionally, the NYCLU notes that the regulations provide "15 business days" for a filer
to take one of two prescribed actions: either provide notice of appeal, or waive the right to appeal
and instead comply with the disclosure requirement following denial.' TIle regulations state:
A client filer may appeal a denial of an application for exemption. A notice of
appeal must be in writing and include the original application for exemption
1 19 NYeRR Part 941.18(a). See also Part 938.6.

2 Part 941.l8(b)
3 Part 938.5(e); Part 941.l8(b).
The New York Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union I Robin Willner, President I Donna Lieberman, Executive Director
together with any supporting materials that were submitted pursuant to section
938.5 ofthis Title. The written notice of appeal must be received by the commission
no later than 15 business days after the date of the denial. Any notice of appeal
received by the commission later than 15 business days after the date of the denial
will not be considered and the client filer will be deemed to have waived the right
to appeal,"
The regulations similarly require that "[if] a request for an exemption is denied, and the client
filer does not appeal, the client filer shall, within 15 business days of the date of denial, amend
the client semi-annual report to include required information relating to the subject of the
application for exemption.r"
Again, the Commission's regulations do not clarify what action any filers barred from the
regulatory appeal process must take in order to avoid having been administratively deemed to
have 'waived' the right to appeal. The regulations indicate that a filer's failure to provide notice
within 15 business days will have this result. For this reason and others, the NYCLU hereby
provides in good faith such notice as the regulations might require of our intent to seek whatever
review may be available.
In addition, it is unclear whether those who intend to seek review of a denial may still be
bound to request any further administrative review before the Commission, such as a rehearing
or reconsideration. Therefore, the NYCLU requests that the Commission consider referring our
appeal to a Judicial Hearing Officer for review; below, we argue as we have in the past that
grounds for such referral remain in the statute itself. If the Commission will not refer our appeal,
we request that the Commission instead reconsider our exemption applioation in its entirety, in
the specific light of the Lobbying Act's mandate that the Commission's disclosurerequirements
"shall not apply to" any§SOI(c)(4) exempt organization working in controversial areas
"including ... civil rights and civil libertiesj.]"?
***
Authority for referral of this appeal to a Judicial Hearing Officer rests, first and foremost,
within the Lobbying Act itself.
Sectionl~h(c)(4)(H) of the Lobbying Act sets forth an exemption from its source of
funding disclosure requirement, and three categorical exclusions. The second of the three
exclusions provides that source of funding disclosures "shall not apply to" any §5O1(0)(4)
exempt organization "whose primary activities concern any area of public concern determined by
the commission to create a substantial likelihood that application of this disclosure requirement
would lead to harm, threats, harassment, or reprisals to a source of funding or to individuals or
property affiliated with such source, including but not limited to the area of civil rights and civil
Uberties and any other area of public concern determined pursuant to regulations promulgated by
the commission to form a proper basis for exemption on this basis from this disclosure
requirement. ,,7
4 Part 941.18(b).
SPalt 938.5(e). .
6N.Y. Leg. Law §1"h(o){4), §1"j(o)(4). References to §l"h(o)( 4) hereinafter also refer to the identical §1"j(c)(4).
7 N.Y. Leg. Law §1"h(o)(4) (emphasis supplied). Note that the Supreme Court has long held that the appropriate
standard for exempting organizations from the requirement to publicly disclose information regarding their
2
Rather than promulgate regulations on those "area]a] of public concern" that would form
a "proper basis for exemption" from disclosure, however, the Commission opted to lump blanket
exemptions for 501(c)(4)s seeking coverage under this provision in with the periodic exemption
provided for in the prior paragraph of the statute." In its regulations at Part 938, the Commission
provides the standards of'review for both types of application, including at Part 938A(a) factors
the Commission will consider for both;" it also sets forth a periodic, semi-annual application
process for both types af exemption.l?
The Commission later clarified, in its regulations, its view that SOl (c)(4) organizations
applying for a blanket exemption from the disclosure requirement pursuant to Part 938.4(b) are
not entitled to a statutory appeal before a Judicial Hearing Officer.'! However, the Lobbying Act
expressly provides for an appeal before a Judicial Hearing Officer for filers whose periodic
exemption applications are denied - and so, to the extent that blanket exemption applications are
treated as periodic exemption applications in the Commission's regulations, it remains a matter
of uncertainty whether and why blanket 501(c)(4) applicants should be treateddifferently and
denied an appeal before a Judicial Hearing Officer.
Regarding appeal from denial of a periodic source of funding disclosure exemption
application, Section I-h(c)(4)(ii) of the Legislative Law provides that, if the Commission denies
an exemption,
"[tjhe reporting lobbyist may appeal the commission's determination and such appeal
shall be heard by a judicial hearing officer who is independent and not affiliated with or
employed by the commission, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the commission.
The reporting lobbyist shall not be required to disclose the sources of funding that are the
subject of such appeal pending final judgment on appeal."
First, as noted above, to deny the NYCLU an appeal before a Judicial Hearing Officer
while treating its eligibility for exemption as periodic and not categorical would appear to violate
the express legislative mandates set forth in Legislative Law §1~h(c)(4)(ii). The Commission
could have opted to regulate the 501 (c)(4) "blanket exemption" in an appropriately narrow
manner, as it does the other categorical exclusions in that section of statute, and set forth a rule
that describes the category of entities covered and determines eligibility for the exemption,
Instead, it has chosen to regulate the "blanket exemption" with a heavier and more authoritative
hand- just like the periodic exemption, the denial of which is statutorily subject to review by an
financial donors is a showing ofa "reasonable probability" of harm, threats, harassment 01' reprisal. (Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,88 (1976». This standard was originally adopted by the Commission in a 2013 regulation, but
was later amended. The current "substantial likelihood" standard has been much debated by the Commission as to
its applicable meaning, and Is much more strident than First Amendment jurisprudence allows. We aver, as we
have in the past, that applying this standard is in errol', both as a matter of constitutional law and public policy;
and the NYCLU reserves the right to appeal a ruling by JCOPE that is made pursuant to this standard.
8 N.Y. Leg. Law 1-h(c)(4). Arguably, this treatment alone enlarged the Commission's authority beyond the
constitutional scope of the statute, by requiring all covered 501 (c)(4) organizations to participate in a periodic
quasi-adjudicatory proceeding twice annually, when the statute deems such organizations eligible for an
ostensibly permanent or long-term categorical exclusion in ordet' to comport with First Amendment requirements.
9 Part 938.4(a). Note that Part 938.4(b) incorporates these factors and the substance ofPart 938.4(a) by reference.
10 Part 938.5.
11 Part 938.6; Part 941.18(a). Again, this disfavored treatment appears to further enlarge the Commission's authority
in violation of the express statutory mandate that the disclosure requirement "shall not apply" to qualifying
50 1(c)(4)s working in appropriate areas of public concern such as civil rights and civil liberties.
3
independent Judicial Hearing Officer. To the extent the statute provides the Commission any
heightened authority over the periodic exemptions, it also necessarily provides an additional
layer of independent review as a check on that increased authority. In this respect, those
regulations that purport to treat the 501(0)(4) blanket exemption as periodic and subject to semi-
annual determinations by the Commission, yet bar independent review of the Commission's
determinations, are in conflict with state law and may be deemed unenforceable,
In addition, there is administrative precedent for disregarding the regulatory distinction
between appeals from applications made under Part 938.4(a) and 938.4(b). This issue arose in
2014 when the NYCLU appealed from the Commission's denial of its application for exemption
from disclosure. In entertaining the appeal, the Judicial Hearing Officer considered ~and rejected
~the distinction between an application made under Part 938.4(a) and one made under Part
938.4(b). In doing so, the Judicial Hearing Officer concluded that, even though the NYCLU
application appeared to have been made under Part 938.4(b), "the substance of the application, as
well as the Commission's denial of the exemption, covers issues presented by any application
under subsection (a) and this appeal will not be dismissed because of a technicality. It will be
considered and decided as if the Application had specified Part 938.4(a) instead of Part
938.4(b)."12
There, because the NYCLU application for an exemption could have been brought under
Pali 938.4(a), and because its substance relied.upon the test set forth in Part 938.4(a), the Judicial
Hearing Officer held that he retained jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, despite the
Commission's regulations to the contrary. Precisely the same reasoning applies here. Because
501(c)(4) organizations can apply under Part 938.4(a) as well as Part 938.4(b), and because the
substantive factors set forth in Part 938.4(a:) make up the entire substance of any application
under Part 938.4(b), appeals from the denial of an application for exemption can and should be
given the more favorable treatment accorded appeals from 938.4(a) denials.
***
The merits ofthe NYCLU's request for an exemption from disclosure are amply set forth
in the July 14, 2017 letter and application, including the past materials and exhibits appended.
The NYCLU relies upon that submission in support of this appeal, but supplements that
submission here to address briefly the reasoning employed by the Commission in its October 16
letter denying the NYCLU's application for an exemption.
The Commission's denial letter offers four reasons for its rejection of the NYCLU
application.P First, "in the Commission's view, the new material does not amount to specific and
direct threats, nor has NYCLU presented any evidence of incidents of actual harm to anyone
associated with NYCLU since its last submission." Second, as it has in the past, "the
Commission found that many of the incidents [of threat, reprisal and harassment] were remote in
time and geography." Third, as it has in the past, it concluded that "the majority of the
information contained in the NYCLU's application pertains to its staff members or pertains
12 Decision of Judicial Hearing Officer George C. Pratt (July 11, 2014), reversíng JCOPE's 2014 denial of the
NYCLD's previous applioation.for an exemption, at 2, attached herein. As noted above, attached documents
include the Commission's denial letter of October 16, 2017, and the July 14,2017 application ofthe NYCLD
requesting exemption, as well as the exhibits presented with that application, including the 2014 decision.
13 Joint Commission on Publio Ethics Denial Letter signed by Aoting Chair Michael Rozen (October 16, 2017), at 2-
3, attached herein.
4
generally to the ACLU." Finally, and again as it has in the past, it claimed that "some of the
incidents described by NYCLU rise to no more than constitutionally protected speech."
As we have in the past, and as we did in some detail in the July 14 application letter
itself, the NYCLD asserts that denial of our application on these grounds disregards both the
statute and the Commission's own regulatory test for exemption.
First, this reasoning fails to resolve itself with, or even acknowledge, the clear and
express intent ofthe statute to wholly exempt from disclosure, on FÏ1'stAmendment grounds, the
set of "civil rights and civil liberties" organizations and other non-profit groups historically
subject to hostility related to their controversial work. Once again, in deliberating upon
exemption from disclosure, the Commission relies openly on its statutory transparency mandate
by "seeking broad disclosure in promulgating its regulations governing the exemption process,"!"
and opts to disregard the statute's First Amendment mandate, which is given its effect in the
exemption process.P
The Commission's denial letter opens by asserting its own reading of its authority
regarding the statutory exemption at issue: "the statute provides ... that the decision whether 01'
not to grant an exemption is entirely within the discretion of the Commission, upon due.
doliberation.t'" However, regarding 501(c)(4) filers working on controversial matters, the statute
itself actually says that the disclosure requirement "shall not apply" to qualifying organizations
including those working in "the area of civil rights and civil liberties" - and the Commission's
charge is to set forth regulations that determine which "area[s] of public concern" should qualify
an organization for the exemption. Again, the Commission's statement ofits own authority is
considerably broader than the statute provides, and disregards its First Amendment mandate.
Second, the Commission's own regulations require it to consider broad factors such as
"past or present harm, threats, harassment or reprisals" to donors, filers, or associates;'? the
"severity, number ... and duration" of such harms;'! the "pattern of threats or manifestations of
public hostility" against donors, filers, or essociates;" and evidence of these harms against
"similar" organizations.ê? The Commission's stated ad-hoc evidentiary standard that "unless an
applicant makes a persuasive showing under multiple factors it is unlikely to prevail" vastly
exceeds the discretion prescribed by its own disjunctive and non-exclusive list of factors - and
regardless, we are certain that the record provided capably meets and exceeds the regulatory test
persuasively and across multiple factors.
In light of these overly strident readings of the statute and regulations, it is unsurprising
that the Commission finds itself perennially unable to make out grounds for an exemption in any
application that comes before it. This inability to uphold the statutory mandate jeopardizes the
expressive rights of controversial non-profits and their contributors - and it jeopardizes the
constitutionality of the Lobbying Act itself as a result.
14 Id. at 2.
15 N.Y. Leg. Law § l-a,
1G Denial Letter at 1.
11 Part 938.4(a)(1); Part 938.4(a)(2).
18 Part 938.4(a)(2).
19 Part 938.4(a)(3).
20 Part 938.4(a)(4).
5
***
For all of'these reasons, this appeal should be referred to an independent Judicial Hearing
Officer; or, if the Commission will not do so, in the alternative, we request a rehearing 'in light of
the statute's express exclusion of controversial "civil rights and civil liberties" organizations
such as the NYCLU from the reach of its own disclosure requirements.
We appreciate the time and consideration of the Commission and staff in attending to this
matter.
~.'.'
Sincerely,
,')
\.:
~ ..... ~
Donna Lieberman
Executive Director
6
MICHAEL K. ROZEN SETH H. AGATA
ACTING CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ROBERT COHEN
JAMES E, DERING
MARVIN E. JACOB
SEYMOUR KNOX, IV NEW YORK STATE
GARY J, LAVINE JOINT COMlYllSSION ON ¡:>UBLICETHICS
J, GERARD McAULIFFE, JR.
PHONE: (518) 408-3976
BARRY c. SAMPLE
DAWN L. SMALLS 540 BROADWAY FAX: (518) 408-3975
GEORGE H. WEISSMAN ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207
JAMES A. YATES www.jcope.ny.gov
MElvŒBRS
October 16,2017
Dalma Lieberman
Executive Director
New York Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 19th floor
New York, New York 10004
Dear Ms. Lieberman:
..On July 14, 2017, the New York Civil Liberties Union ("NYCLU") applied to the Joint Commission
on Public Ethics ("Commission") fol' an exemption from the Source of Funding Disclosure requirements in
Legislative Law Article I-A §§1-h(c)(4), l~j(c)(4) and 19 NYCRR Palt 938. The statute provides ih relevant
part that the decision whether or not to grant an exemption is entirely within the discretion of the Commission,
upon due deliberation, The Commission carefully considered NYCLU's application at its September 19,2017
meeting. The Commissioners reviewed the application and supporting evidence and discussed and evaluated
the merits of the application under the relevant legal standard during the public session of the meeting, creating
a full record of the basis for its decision. NYCLU's application for exemption failed to receive a vote of a
majority ofthe Commissioners, therefore its application is denied. Pursuant to Part 938.5(d), the Commission
hereby sets forth the reasons and basis for the denial.
By way of background, the source of funding disclosure provisions increase transparency by providing
the public with information about the individuals or entities attempting to influence government decision-
making by funding lobbying activities. Specifically, the source of funding disclosure provisions require
lobbyists who lobby on their own behalf, and clients oflobbyists, who devote substantial resources to lobbying
activity in New York State, to make publicly available each source of funding exceeding $2,500 for such
lobbying.'
I The source of funding disclosure requirements were first established by the Public Integrity Reform Act of 20 11 ("PIRA")
(Chapter 399, Laws of2011), and most recently amended by Part D of Chapter 286 of the Laws of 2016.
Ms. DOlma Lieberman
October 16, 2017
Page 2
. Under both the statute and the related regulations, entities are permitted to apply for exemptions from
disclosure. It should be noted that the Commission sought to effectuate the legislative intent seeking broad
disclosure inpromulgating its regulations governing the exemption process. (19 NYCRR 938.1.) NYCLU
applied for an exemption pursuant to Part 938.4(b), which applies to organizations that have exempt status
under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States. To qualify for an exemption,
NYCLU is required to show that its primary activities involve areas of'publíc concern that create a substantial
likelihood that disclosure of its sourcets) of funding will cause harm, threats, harassment 01' reprisals to the
source or individuals or property affiliated with the source. 19 NYC.RR Part 938.4; see also Legislative Law
§§1~h(c)(4), I-j(c)(4).
Part 938.4 sets out a list of five nonexclusive factors the Commission must consider when
determining whether an applicant has shown a substantial Iikelihood of harm, threats, harassment 01'
reprisals to the applicant's sourcejs) of funding if disclosure were required. It is the Commission's view
that unless an applicant makes a persuasive showing under multiple factors, it is unlikely to prevail.
The burden is on the applicant to establish a "substantial likelihood of harm." This high standard
for an exemption is in keeping with the purpose, " .... to better inform the public aboutefforts to influence
governmental decision making through increased transparency," (19 NYCRR Part 938.1 (4 J.) Thus, to be
eligible for the exemption, NYCLU's application must contain evidence, by way of specific
instances/examples, that disclosure of sOUl'Ce(8)of funding would create a substantial likelihood of harm,
.threats, harassment or reprisals to the source(s) of funding 01' individuals or property affiliated with such
source.
In support of its application, NYCLU relies in large part ori its January 2017 and July 2015
applications for exemption, both of which the Commission denied.' Accordingly, the Commission
incorporates herein its assessments ofNYCLU's January 2017 and July 2015 applications. In.addition,
to support its current application, NYCLU provides information of more recent origin in the forro of ten
holiday cards, three letters and14 assorted photos or postei's that were delivered to NYCLU.
The Commission consicÍered all of the alleged incidents of "harm, threats, .and harassment"
identified by NYCLU.in support ofits application, both old and new. For the reasons set forth below, the
Commission reaffirms its prior findings concerning the previously submitted evidence, and concludes that
the new evidence does not meet the burden required for the Commission to alter its previous assessments.
First, in the Commission's view, the new material does not amount to specific and direct threats,
nor has NYCLU presented any evidence of incidents of actual harm to anyone associated with NYCLU
since its last submission. Indeed, only some of the hew evidence appears to be directed at the American
Civil Liberties Union C'ACLU") and NYCLU, and even that evidence does not implicate their supporters
01' sources of funding,
Second, in considering the previous applications, the Commission considered the number,
recurrence and location of incidents identified in NYCLU's application. The Commission found that
2 The January 20 17 and July 2015 applications, along with NYCLU's December 2013 application, are all appended to
NYCLU's instant applloation.

Ms. Donna Lieberman
October 16,2017
Page 3
many of the incidents were remote in time and geography. Notably, because NYCLU's application is
primarily based on the information it proffered in its prior applications, there is limited evidence of
incidents occurring in recent years. Further, the Commission previously noted that at least three of the
ten incidents mentioned in the 2015 application occurred well outside the New York area.
Third, NYCLU's July 2017 application provides no new information related to supporters of
NYCLU, ACLU and similar organizations. Many supporters attend rallies or publicly identify themselves
through social media 01' other venues, and NYCLU has been unable to demonstrate sufficiently that these
supporters experience adverse effects from being associated either with NYCLU or with similar entities
or causes. The majority of the informatlori contained in NYCLU's application pertains to staff or to the
ACLU generally. NYCLU's application fails to establish a nexus between any information it has proffered
in support of its current or prior applications and the likelihood that disclosure of these supporters, donors,
or sources of funding wi1l1eacl to harm, threats, harassment, or reprisals,
Finally, in the opinion of this Commission, some of the incidents described by NYCLU rise to no
more than constitutionally-protected speech as opposed to evidence of a substantiallikelihoocl of ha1111,
threats, harassment or reprisal if disclosure were to be required.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Commission has concluded that NYCLU not only has failed
to establish a "substantial likelihood of harm" but also has failed to show ever).a "reasonable probability"
of such harm. Therefore, the Commission denies NYCLU's application for the exemption.
Sincerely,
~k~~'
Michael K. Rozen ~lf of himself
and the following Commissioners)
Marvin E. Jacob
Seymour Knox, IV
Gary J. Lavine
J. Gerard McAuliffe, Jr.
George H. Weissman
APPLIO\llON ÆQUæJ1NGAN EXB'vlPnON FROM N'r'S.bint CDmmiæon on AJblie B:hics
SJUREOF FUNDING DIOCLOOJÆ FmUIR3\A ENTS 540 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207
51&.408-3976/jcoQe@jcoQe.ny,gov
The regulations governing a Oient Rler'sobllgation to disclose sources of fundi ng are contained In 19 N~Part 938. These
regulations provide that a Oient Rier may æek an exemption from the.æurcs offunding disclosure requirements. Part 938.4
sets fort h the applicable standarçfsupon which an exemption shall be granted by the .bínt O:Jmmissionon RJbHcShies In
addit Ion to completing this form, please review the procedures to apply for an exemption In Part 938.5.
AU. OJ ENTRLERSEffi<INGAN EX8V1PnON TO THESJUR:EOFFUNDING

DISlOSJÆ OBUGAll ONSM usr FlU- OUTTI-lISFOA\A .
Name of Oient RIer ~uesting Exemption:
Name of Individual Authorized to RIe R,:)quest~
Title: E)CEC.l,j\\\I~ ..
t:>\~EC_To«_
Telephone Number: (2,,\2.) t.øø'Ï-"3 '3 00
,Address:
\ Z.S ~e..~#\'D S,,\, t\Q'1')-\FL. otJ«_
l\I~W ybfL'I'- t \'-\ ~ 100 04
E~MallMdress: I. f':::\
N¡Ço 12' \'-\'1 c.L.ù. O~G¡
1. alent RIeris an Iffi§501 (cX4) organization seeking an exemption from dis::losing all8:íurces pursuant to 19 N'l'tFRPart
938.4(b), which requires El showing t hat the aient Hler'a" primary act Îvíties involve areas of public œncern that create a
subsl:antial likelihood that diæloSJre of .. .lts8:íurces will œuseharm, threats. harassment or repriseJsto the $.)urcesor
Indivldualsor property affiliated with the 8:íurœs." X
or
2. OientRleris seeking an exemption for a 8:íuroo, 8:íurces,.or class of 8:íurces pursuant to 19 N~Part 938.4(a), which
requires a showing by "c1earandcanvincing evidence that dloclosure of the &lurœ [or &lurcesl will cause a rubstantial
likelihood of'harrn, threats, harassment or reprlælsto the8:íurce or individuals or property affiliated with the &lurœ [or
8:íurces]." __
AlIOient RIetsmust SJbmit, with this form, a letteraddreæed to the Cbmmlssion requesting an exemption and ætting forth
in detâHwhythe applicable regulatory standard (19 N~Part 938.4(a) ör (b)) has been met.
_Alllnforll1atlon in support oftheexemption request must be submitted togethen.vlth the letter,
lhe letter must airo conteln the following sgned declaration: "I declare that theinfofmaUon contained in this
application lstrue, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief."
An information rubmiUed in rupport of an exemption will be made publidy availableand discussed in
the Public E'ession of the Cornmissi on's meeting. The only exception to this rule islnformaUon for
which the O:lmmission has granted a Oient RIer's request for oonfidential treatment.
1
O:iober2013
....................
~--~m··~AFf[fCA1TONJ£QÜæhNGANl:x8V1PTIONmfRjrvr-~_m.~_m .....
m~N'YSJ)rnrljJmmiæ6ñ~orrF\Jl5lTëmI3Jliœ-mm_..~ .....
~
roURCEOFRJNOING
OISlOSJÆ F£QUIFSv18'JTS 540 Broadway,. Albany, NY12207
51a,.408~3976/icope@oope.ny.gov I
IMPORTANT INFQRvtA1IQNFORaJ 8'JT RLERSs:E<lNGCùNHOEN.llAL TÆATM 8'JT 11
.....gFINI:9~A1l0NSJeM ITIID I(\J~~~<?~~~ ..':P!1.9.·.N

.....•·.... ................. m m ..........••••••• mm .
FUrruant to 19 N"ttfflFBr't 938.8,.a request for confidential treatment ofInformation may only be granted by the
O:lmmlssionupon .aEhQWÎt1gof p$f'ttcul ar cfrcumstanœs, such as when. the Information waul d reveal an ongoi ng
InvestigatIon by a©Overnmentel body that hasnot bëen made publiê,or information that, If revealed, would constitute an
t.tnwarranted .¡nvason of per$::JnafpriVaçy.
Fieaseinçlicateif the OIent Filer is requésting, pursuant to 19 N'fCffiPart 938.8, that èpedficlnformation submitted in
support of the eXemptio!1 be treated as confidentiaL __ --
Procedure for.a dient Hier Requesting Q:mfidentiai Treatment of Certain Information.
1. In a separate[etter~ indicate¡ precisely wh¡;jt ri161terial lsthe rubject of the confidentiality request and æt forth •.in
datafl, Why S!Jch material is entItled to be treatéd aSCöhfldentlal purruant to Part 938.8.
2. Frovidetwo cópiesöf the mäterial for which confidenttalityisrequest.ed.
Ole copy of the material must be Inan un"redacted form.
The second copy of the) material must IndudeJmy proposed redactions, The red2Çted versIon of the material ls
the version that, should the O:¡fnmi ssion granttheconf!dentialltyreqllést,wîU bérnade publicly available
(together with the material for whichho confidentfal treatment hásbeen requeSlted).
Generally, propoæd redactlonsshöuld only Indude perrona Information whlch,becaU$ of anarne,nlJiTlber,
symbol, mark or otherldentlfier,can be used to identify ta perron, $Jch asana.ddress, telephone number,bírth
date, orsocialæa..iritynumber. if theŒentRler isunableto submifaredâcted \/ersion that ßdequately
preserves the requested confidentiality, prbvíde.a detalledexplç¡nafion settingforththéréaronswhy thé
mat€flal in ltsentirety :::hould remain confidential.
Impact of a Grant or!Jenlal by the Cbmmiæjon of a CbnfidentlalityPsouest.
- Ifthß COmrnlssiongrants theconfrdentiality request, the materlal that lsthe $Ubjeet orthe request will be
consdered by theCOmmi$$ionin an EXecutiv€I S3sslon that Is dosed to the pubñc, A.llothermaterial,snd the Œ~mt
RJer's eppliqqtJon for an exemption from the source of funding disclosure requirements as.swho[e, will be made
publicly åValiable ând Cönsdered by the COmmission ins A.lbllcS3ssion.
If the COmmission deniestheconfidentfallty request, theOient Fllerhastwooptions. Indicate bélowwhether the
Olen.tRlerelectsQ:ltlon Aor Q:ltlon l3 (chöóseonlyonè)~
(A} The m.aterial that l.sthe rubjectof the conftdentiality request t hat was rejected by the COrrirni æQn will
remain confidential and wHI1JQ!;beconsdered by theOJmmÎssion wn€in evaluating th€! applíèê!tioh for
exemption.
or
(S)The materlai that istheSlbject of the confidentlalityrequest that wåstèJectéd bythe.OJrnmiæon will be
made publtdyavailable, in an un-redacted and complete form (or with redactionsmade by the COmmission
In itsdiro'etion), and will be consdered bytheOJmmlssion In the FUbllc·Eession when evaluating the
application for an exemption.
2
()jober2013
Nye LU
•
1-----------
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street
NewYork,NY10004
212,607.3300
212.607.3318
www.nyclu.org
Sent by email
July 13, :2017
Mr. Seth Agata

Executive Director
New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics
540 Broadway
Re: Request for exemption from Source of Fund.ing disclosure requirements
Dear Mr. Agata:
Pursuant to Commission regulations at 19 N.Y.C.RR. 93 8A(b)~ the New York Civil Liberties Union
(NYCLU) requests an exemption from the Source ofFtmding diselosure requirements;'
The NYCLU ísa 501(0)(4) organization whose primary activities concern controversial and often
unpopular matters of civil rights and civil liberties; NYCLU employees and facilitÍ.es have faced
episodic bomb threats and death threats.nnd there is a long history of threats, harassment and attacks
against our members and supporters directly. These have been documented in our past exemption
requests, and many have taken place since the Public Integrity Reform Act of 20 11 (PlRA)2 was
enacted and-while we have been reporting to the Cammission.
We respectfully request that the Commission consider our application in light of the special solicitude
extended by the statute tocivîl rights and civil liberties organizations and because of the extensiveness
of the record of specific harms we have presented. If an organization such as the NYCLUoannot be
deemed exempt on even a periodic basis - despite the fact that our areas of primary activity are
expressly identified by statute as candidates forexemptionsand despite the fact that we have
demonstrated a serious and ongoing record of exposure to harm- then it is unclear whether and how
the statute's 501(0)(4) exclusion provision can ever be saâsfied,
1. Civil dghtsand civil liberties urganízatícns such as the NYCLUnre expressly identified by
statute as the sorts of orgauizationsthat are eligiblefor exclusion from the Commission's
Source of Funding díselosure requirements.
l While we wouldappreciate ceuslderatícn föt astil:nding ör long-termexemption based on the contröverslal public interest
character of our organization's activities, as is provided for by statute, we request, at rnínlmum, œnaideration for an
exemption to cover-the most recent reporting period, January l - July 31,2017. The Commissløn has, In the past,
deliberated upon requests for prospectlveand longer-term exemptions frem disclosure.
2 Ch. 399, L. 2011 (part S).
1
The Lobbying Act specifies that organizations working on controversial public interest matters such as
civil rights and civil liberties are entitled tospecial eonshíeraticn under the soutce-of':'funding
diselostue requirements,J It states that suèhdisclosures"sha11 not apply to~'any §501(c)(4) exempt
organization ~'whosepril11ary activities concern any area of public concern determined by the
commission to create a substantíallíkelihood that application of this disolesure requirement would lead
to harm, threats, harassment; ör reprisals toa source of'fundlng or to individuals Ol' property affiliated
with such source, including but not limIted to the area o¡civil rIghts and civilltbertiesandanyother
area or public concern determined pursuant to regulations promulgated by the eommísslon to fornt a
proper basis for exemptío.no.n this basis from this disclosure requírement'"
This appears In the law as the second of'three provisions that exclude a class from the Source (jf
Funding disclosure requirements: one for 501(0)(3) organizations, one för 501(0)(4) organizaHollsat
work on controversial1nåttersofpublic concemland one forgüvernmententities,S The statute provides
that the Commission should set forth regulations regarding; the "area[s] oflrublic conœrll~'that wí1l
forma proper basis for theexempti.on from disclosure, and provides that "civil rights and civil
liberties"al'e to be included among those areas. The intent to exclude or exempt organizations such as
the N'VCLU is clear in the text and structure of the Jaw}\ ..
Departing somewhat from the law, theCommissîøn' s regulations treat the 501 (c)(4) excl~lsion as a
periodic éxemptlon, ulllike$O 1(e)(3) and government entitles, whiCh are never mentioned in the
So-urce of FuncHng Regulations, presl.lmably because theyareex¢luded bystatute,1 Omitting the law~s
specific mention of civil rightsandcivi11ibertíes, Part 938(b)(4) provides that the Commission "sball
grant an exemption to disclose all Sources of Contributions to a CHentFiler, if (i) the Client Filer has
exempt status under LR.C. ,§501(c)(4); and (ii) the Client Enet shows that its primary activities involve
areas ofpublic concern thatçl'eate a substantíallikelihoodthat disclosureofits SOutce(S) will canse
harm, threats, harassment or reprisals to the SOl.lrce(s) or individuals or property affiliated with fue
Source(s), ,,8 .
él N.Y. Leg. Law 1~h@(4),

41d. (Emphasis supplied). Note that tbe Supreme Côult has long held that theapproprfate standard for ex~mpting
organizations from the requirement to ptlbliclydisclose information regardingtheir financial donors is Ii showing ofa
"reªsona1;>le probability" of harm, thre&ts, haras~mentor reprísal, (Buckley v, Valea, 424 U.s, 1, ßS (1976)). 'fhisstandard
was originally <îdopted by the CommissiOn in a.2013 regulation, but was later amended, Thecun'(¡lPt I'substímtial
lil<;elihood"st¡tndard has been much deQated bythl;l. Commission as to itsappJicabtem~anlngranc! is much more strident
than First Amenâmen; NrisprlldenCelillow¡¡, We ave)'~aswe bave ín the past, that ¡lpply1ng;thisstandani lsinerror, both ilS
Il mIttter of constitlltion.all1lw and public policy¡. and the NyeLU ft}serVíiS the right to appeal a fulIng byJCOPEthat is
made.pursuant to this standard.
5N,Y.Leg, Law 1-11(0)(4).
ti See also Sponsor Memo for Ch, 399., L 20 11 (Pl\l'tB)~"ln addition, l1Ot-ibt-protlt organizations qualified as exempt
organIzations undel' l.R.C. §50 ¡(c)(3) are exempted itúrJl thi$ disôlósure tequlrelhent. ·N()I:j'or:pro}ltorgtmlzèltian.~
qualified as Q;:<;efllpt under 1. fi, C, ff 501(0) (4) .;~hClllals()bø ex(unptedpursuant to regulatloflsprmtlulgated by the ..loint
CotnmJstiol1 tfthelpprlfj'lctry åctivltles concern any W'¢à ö!pubUc óoneer'fI that would oret/lIBa substänlkrl likèlihood thal
sucl1 di,s(Jlásw'e WOUld lead to harfIl, rh/oaats, ha'tClsSmè!1t, ()I' repl'lsals ..l1te btlløxpl'e.~sly ide!2titîei{.thøäí~l¿tr oJ "eMl rights
etnd eMt llbertiøslf {IS one Clrec! Inwnich O1~gctnÎzcl{/onsare e,):pectec/ toquCllifjl.tol' such ClnexeltJptiol~ ih th¢JQinl
Comm!ss!on"s regutations, Among other issll~s included ,ill fhisarea, organizations Whose primaryactivhies .focns on the
question ofabOl'tion rights, family plál111ing, Ûíscdl1limlíion 01"persecution based upOl1l'ace, ethlliclty gendet,seXtlal
1
orientation or religion, ¡rnmigrant rights, and the l'ights ofcertaill criminal deteu.dal1ts are expected to be covered by suchan
exemptiol1,"(emphagts added),
7. 19 NYCRR 93.8, Source aj'Funding RegulaN ons i
8 19NYORR 93.8A(b) (emphasis supplied).
2
II. The NYCLU, and our members and supporters, bave bistorically been subject to perledle
and unremitting barm, threats, harassment, and reprisals of precisely the sort anticipated
by statute and essential foran exemption under the regulations.
The NYCtU has provided lengthy and detailed documentation of relevant "harm, threats, harassment
01' reprisals" in OUt past requests, including:
• a bomb threat to our shared offices with the ACtU, of which we are a state affiliate;
• repeated bomb threats to aux upstate New York offieea;
• vandalism to the vehicle oran. upstate NYCLU member on account of NYCLU activities,
including the spray-painted taunts "Fuck u ACLU"and "Die Fag";
• a District Court ruling that NYCLU members have been subjected to such hostility that
their First Amendment rights. were impaired;
• protective anonymity measures taken by staff who answerNYCLU phones to avoid being
publicly identified, due to threats; and
• examples of extremely unpopular and controversial interests we have represented on
constitutional grounds, and the, extreme behavior which has res\llted, including targeting and
harassment of staff members,
All of'this.und more, has been presented to the Cormnisaíon.and is again appended to thísapplícation
fat the benefit oíany Commíssíoner who may wish to review it. We have submitted so much
documentation of so many serious inoídents that impacted our organization and members directly -all
discounte~ as inconsequential in past Oommiæion determlnatíons-. that lneludíng hate mail and other
disturbingccrrespondence in this application may be little. more than gilding the lily. Nonetheless, an
appendix to this letter includes a new sampling öf the hostile correspondence received at our New
York City ofñcesby ACLU &NYCLU over the past year.
III. The grounds for past deniabtbaf have ·beenstafed by the Commission often conflíct witb
the Commission's own regulatory scheme, and disregard the statutory mandate toprotect
donors ofnon-profitsfhat do controverstalwork in the public interest - a mandate that is
roofed in bedrock First Amendment law and principle.
Although regulatory treatment of 5 Ol (c)(4)s departs from the apparent construction of the Lobbying
Act as described above, the regulatory text adopts the statute's language emphasizing the character of a
501(0)(4) organization's actlvities as the basis for an exemption.end calls for a showing to the
Commission ofthat character and its relatíonship to specific harms in order to qualizy, The
Commission promulgated a test for both the periodic single-source exemption set forth In statute and
the 50 1(c)(4) exemption, under which it considers factors that include; but are not limited to:
(l) Specificevideneë of past or present harm, threats, harassment or reprisals to the 80urce(8) or
client filer or individuals or property affIliated with the source(s) or client filer.
(2) The severity; numberof incidents, and duration of past or present harm, threats, harassment
or reprisals of the. soul'eeCs) Ol' client filer or individuals or property affiliated wIth the source(s)
at client filer.
(3) A pattern of threats or manifestations of public hostility against the sOUl'ce(s) or client filer
or'indivíduals or property affiliated with the source(s) or client filer.
(4) Evidence of harm, threats, harassment or reprisals directed against organizations Or
individuals holding views similar to those ofthe sourceis) or client filer.
3
(5) The impact of disclosUl'e on theabiUty of'the source(s) or client filer to maintain ordinary
business operations and the extent ofresultil1g economic harm.?
However straightforward the list of factorS' for consideration may seem, the actual standard imposed hy
the Commission, for granting an exemption, has been so elevated as to nulIify the statutory mandate.
The. Commfssíon' s most reeent denialletterlO even states that \'[1JtIs the CöltífnissionJ s ViêW that
unless an applicant makes á persuasive showing under multiple factors it is unlikely to. prevaí]," This
standard for exemption is clearly much morestringent than the regulatory text itself. Even though the
NYCLU\s record objectively satisfied several ofthe factorsín the past, we have been repeatedly
denied exemption. Further, the stated gl'QundsfotderiiaI often seem tö conflict with the filetors
thèmselves.
For example, there is no requirement that specific harms arise during the semi-annneí period in
question, or that only severe harms would receive eensíderàtíon; yet C0l11l111ssionst£ltements have
indicated that only seríøus threats from the semî-annual period at hand would be conside.red,otthátthe
lengthy history presented included event¡ythat were tool'l'e111ote in timel'tobe·considel'ed. 'However,
neither the statute not the 'regulationSéalls for showing of an articulated immediate threat 01' prediction
of il1'íl11inent~ymanifesting harmin order to qualify foran exemption; in fäet, the regulatÎoris
repeated~y teqnire the CommissIon to consider I'past" hanns and the ~'patternofthreätsor
manifestations of pùblic hostilitY" against an örgatrizaríon, its work, and 'those w'hÓl11al<eits work
possible through fîaanoiaísupperr,
Specifically, in the NYCLU'·s January 2017 application, we documented one person's public ,appeals
for someone to kill us and all of our members and blow up ourbuildingas well as repeated hostile
conununicatfons from another individual receiyedat our office. In the Commission's deniallettêt,
these were dismissed ön thebasls that "only one was sênt during the relevant filing period" and it is
directed attheNYCLUands!mHar ()rganizations~notits supp01iers.;' This suggestsfhat the public
exhortatlon¡~ALL THE MEMBERS OaT TO [BEl KILLED TODAY'~ -targeth1g .our suppOJiers -
was dismissed simply because it was posted in 201 $ and not in 2016, which wotûd be in direct conflict
with the factors the Commission is required to consider under its own regulatory test.
This basis for denial also de111011stratesthe Cemmíssion's inclinatÍQnto dîsmissevídenœ.oí'berm to

the organization and its ernployeesasin·elevant.lnfact, theIette!' goes on to state that ¡'NYCLU's
applicatíon has limited information related to supportets"-again in direct conflict wíth the test set
forth in the regulatíon, which requires theCommission tooonsider harm to the organization (Client
Filer) as wellas hann to the supporters (sources). The NYCLU1spast filings have documented actual
harm to NYCLU menibers and their property becauae of their NYtLD .affiliation~ includîngstalking~
vandalisl'l1,and death threats ~but like the exampleof supportel'~dirElcted threats above, these didnot
transpire during the .semí-annuel reporting period and apparently did not merit consideration as such.
The Cemmlaelon's most recent denlal letter closes by stating that the "burden is onthe applicant to
establishasubstantiallikeHhood of harm,',Uciting its regulatory ndoptícm o!PIRA's general
legislative intent to facilitate disclosure. The NYCLU respectfully submits that> to whatever extent that
t¡ 19NYCRR 938.4.
to Dated May 12, 2017,am:! signed hy Aétihg ChaJrRozeh Cappertded).
ti Internal quotations omitted.
4
may be accurate, the burden has been well met in our repeated demonstration of a long history with
this kind of harmful retaliation against our work and supporters.
We further request the Commission's consideration of a different question: whether the statutory and
regulatory burden to be met is actually satisfied by a faotual.demonatratíon that the NYCLU is
precisely the kind of organization whose donors the legislature meant to shield with the provision then
known as the <NARAL exception' -a protection that leading reproductive rights advocates including
the NYCLU have consistently been denied.
The NYCLU recognizes the interests of transparency and disclosure. But, there is a countervaîling
interest raised by this application, And It is an Interest of constitutional import. The Supreme Court has
long recognized that the associatienal privacy rights of controversial, ideological organizations must be
protected; that such protection must extend to the security and secrecy of their membership lists and
the names of their donors; that without such.proteetlons those associating with such organizations are
vulnerable to threats and harassment and retaliation; and that without such protections vigorous
advocacy will be. diminished at a considerable sacrifice to robust ideological debate and association.
Accordingly, the Court has imposed a specific constitutional mandate holding that, under the First
Amendmentdiselosureprevisions cannot be imposed upon controversial, ideological associations
where there is a"reasonahlepl'Obability" that persons Identified with such associations will experience
"threats, harassment or reprisals." 12The Commissiorr's responses to the NYCLO's previous
applications failed utterly to respect this important concern.
We are the NYCLU, the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Unían. We are a civil rights and
civil liberties organization, workíng daily on controversial matters, From time to time, we provoke
hostile responses, both from the public and from the government officials whose actions, we must
frequently challenge. Many of our members and supporters are indeed open and public; but many of
our most vulnerable members and stafffînd themselves in situations and ertvíronments where they
cannot so openly affiliate themselves with the NYCLU or ACLU,
As an. organization, and as individualcivil liberties advocates, we have a long history of controversy.
That history will not end, Unfortunately, We expect that our controversial work will provoke
threatening responses in the future just as it has in the past. We seek SOUlerelief from our exposure to
such threats. Thank you fol' again considering our application, and please let us know if we can provide
anything further in support of it.
I declare that the information contained in this application is true) correct, and complete to the best of
my knowledge ånd belief.
Sincerely.
ß~~'<-<V
Donna Lieberman
Executive Director
12 Brawn v. Sooialist Workers, 459 u.s..87,101 (1982).

5
APPENDIX:
Hate Mail and Disturbing Mail
Irn)~;loa» herul], a: /li/h
to /a¿1j6tj¿Jre tAc '/llClil¡fle)( o!~ ,,----_...
CL ...
::::--. .~
fJ}J¡:;;~{13(5'tf/Wet¿nfls (VftRe S'ea$~ft,
fft(VfFf/oa/o liafFø t~!f~U/bS.
)h Li YVY tA .s '-rB ff ~ ,(l~) tV Li '

W~ €J-~c;f£DA NOV COm(Y1éAtU/..{r
ltV IvO o ¿;;£'ftJT 4¡?o/Z r-£ÇL/h141 c:
f~¡'/jUJæ! s
/VI
22Week
Abortion
..flave a wonderful Christmas and q.velJl happy new year.
-it
.~
-~
~
f ~
_.~.....
;¡::;
... _
y
K'\
_.
-;:¡ --0-
ro ro
o-
~,it\Ú lHwœQ& O~O\\tmj\¡tt
~&~
t¡ÖWl, \tWI1tf\Xilllt'(J)1H~~IJ,Ilo~~
J~l /'.... .. -v ~, •.....•••......
'
~ .; ~ jVf__ .<, ./i~t -

Ij/v~ ~/7&-.r1 ~~
~ ;Jeæ;.. ~~ :::t
¡t/p 7JrT'"q¡{?ti \.
~ntt ~JÎr.7JJ;fr /
elebratmgthe htunblebirth
of our glorious Saviour
and wishing you a season
full of over:flowingjqy and peace .
For u:nto us a Child is born, unto us-a.Son âs

and His name shall be called. Wonderful, Counsello:
The M.ightyGod, The Eve:tlasHngFather. The Prince of
XSAlA.H 9,6 KJV
---_._---------~-----------~--_;__------------------_ _- ..._--_. __ _-
.. ..
I·
I
.1 I
" "
1
,
"
I I
!YOU CAN SHOVE
ALL OF YOUR ANTI-AMERICA.N
BELIEFS UP YOORASS!
·ct..··~ ~
.[\.'0/ . ?
e.·.~
~ ?
.·n."..•.. -~.... "j .~
..:J
-r., i. G ?
JI~?Q
not\íl
16~-9[6t:l¡í
'P;;¡\r.î~"'<'tlôl~_IIV·i_j.QS) NW fÁlÖ 7~~1 ~~t.lIM_m'~_

1()_Ás~!Jn_oj!1J~ÙV 'lU~111.!J!!S~q~~loIÓl'$1lwa!J4).:l(JQ'"'lHt fH~~
C J ¡f'ist,)¡tlsBcJls
l·, lit,' ¡"JI III i I,:l-¡ '.1 PI ~,X:')'¡i'"U!;I,!.ü_~ "Ii -i'",~t~I:\'HI:
'11~. Ii (.j,iI1LH!,q ,_,l, i! rl.[ Il'J t'uilli¡j¡ l~i,¡j'Li, t\".\ ¡h\ll,\' '\t!ir{~1
)Ü~lj ",i,! .1 ,.¡ , •..t'i \".1'.,.', ,i., ',011.<1

¡'" ", ¡ l'l'" l h\ ,,_n'· ¡J .
t \:::.1"\ »Ó; ~. th, "'}
~ H ¡,;,,:.1\ \; . 'il "'·;t-rn •. ('l.t,t .-,Ih ii,,¡,'i"'U~ lltt''''_-~l~ IH1"dJ.,'!¡ -:.'tll·d 11rl11lh\1/
l~h'~Lj'- t,,i.l 'l j; ti:;· \nd u "h, l '.'11 I ¡''''-'',_[ L.l ...tl
I¡(l~' I l:~!' f~ ~td\)l; ~~lTi\, r: 1'" rit ¡ ¡11,".h L .[.!: '~.i-U .. 1,.".1.
··I"l'tul.·¡·-n"tc.: .
tl'- ·"lniHl¡} .•,,11 oj;1
.\rh!.fLI!Jl. L .. rlH., ",¡,ti.><~
n'rlt ,,¡_,d.\ lU It) n¡,\,-¡t~ l:J.t Ih'\'¡;:~·'¡¡¡_\c:~iJd¡. -,<"¡l)I,1 ·,.111h1 IL\~~"j"~
I'L"'!t¡; j", ,it

.• H) ti '.J',; ,J t'-~I._.l~ 1111II,"b.I;~t ,If¡.l
i;ll,dd h ..i ,'h,q it, .tt, 1'1..~Lt¡,{, I lot.H HI ti, vtl/til II," "'!t"'-I'¡:!
,Jhi._.l
n" \\ .r'n,' ,I>.IH ful
IL,' R!..'Ll
·'tl \-',u!J¡ .. It "I -.rH h' lUr __
H
I
uI l t'l Il Q..) .."l bl ~1t' {Jf

fl Cl tI I.l lCe.
-
~ ...
5
"Terrorists Will Nuke New York City!"
Terrified at har tormènt, they wUI ständ far öff· d cry:'Wae! Waeta you,greatcity, mighty of
Babylon! In one hour your doom h.ascomel.'" Then aml.ghtyángel pioked upa boulcterthe size ofa
largemlllstonè and threw It into thes.ea,andsalcf: "With such violence the great. city o.fBabylon will be
thrown down, never to befoundagaÎll." Holy B.îble, Revelation 18.:10,21
FREE EBOOKDOWNLOAD
https:llwww.mediafire.coml?vm8m4y.5tvpvp4yy
PU
efhlgh
élnd ofher'
..........whorefus
nishéq
treatment and favo n inrefus
and tageandfutyagainstthosewhó .... ,....'.to prosecute the elite criminals because
high status. All WhogOlU1noticedwili bepunished ..byMe,.saystheLORD,theGºcJ.of ..,Ju....ce
and Vengeance againslßl1 ofwjçked.humanity. I AMnol partial inJv1yjudQmemls-Jgive,lo
'allwhattheyd~serve .. Vengeancei§ Mine I. and the blood of thélittlechildrencriesoutto
,Me!th~önessavageIYJapèd hy theSatanistsandpedophiles.· AllisnotlJfHlotic~dbyMe,
and theAll-Knowing Godseesa.U,alid wiilpunishallfortheirrefusalto ob~yandrepent~lnd
serve Me. All win göto H.ell, unless they repent The Living God has spdken, amen!"
: do justice to the afflictecl and l1eedv. Psalm82:3

more aèceptableto the LORD than $aèrifice.Proverns21:3
N ! Thèyare
abandonédsubway tunnels. underground,
Use radiation detectors to pínpoint the
sources of neutrinos-gamma rays~G()mlng
.fromündergrouncLAlso, taiel the Israeli
Oonsulate,whichhas a stookpile of
nuclear bombs there.
go. They're an n mysig beraljudges are
a blight in the land. I make it SQ, They must be removed, My son. I'll cause many
to fall, to meet their end in eternal damnation, to be removed from their wrong
rulings, the twisting of the law, to please those above them. J make it so, My son.
I'll remove them from the bench, so their wrong rulings Will no longer be a blight
In the land and the nation be . The LORD has s Amen." I
Because it Is a and what if the sword contemn even the roel? shall be no more, saith the Thou therefore, son of man,
prophesy, ahcfsmlte thine hands together. andlet the sword becjoubled the third Hme,.the sword .of thllslain:.itls the sword of the
great men that are slalo, whlchenteteth inlo their privy chambers. Ihavé set the pOint of the sword againstall their gates, that their
heart m¡ty faint, and their ruins bemultlplled: ah! it is made bright, IUs wrapped up.lor the slaughter. Ezekiel.21 :13-15
The earth is gÎ\lénlnto the hand of the wicked: he cövereth the faces of the jud.ges thereof; if not, where, and who is he? He leadeth
counsellors aw'Ø,yspoiled, and makeththë JudgeS fools, Job9:24,12:17
Daniel answered and said, Biessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he ehangeth the times
and the seasonss he. removethkings,and setteth UP kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wiså,andktlowiedge to .them that know
understanding: He<revealllth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is In the darknes.s, and the light dwelleth with him. Daniel
2:20-22
That brlnqeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the JUdges of the earth as vanity. Isaiah 40:23
By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the Judges of tne earth.Ptoverbs8:15
Her princes within her are roaring Hons; her Judges are evening wolvesj· they gnaw not tl'JeponeS tlU the morrow. Zephaniah 3:3
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not,andyeshall not bé condemned: forgive, andyesháll be forgiven: And he spake
a parable unto them to thÏ!¡ end, that men ol,lghtalways to pray, and not.to falntj Saying, There was in Il city a Judg&, which feared not
GOd,neither .regarded man: And there was a widow ¡nthat city; and she came unto hlm,saying, Avenge meof mine adversary ". And
he would not for a while: b¡Jtafterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard.inan¡Yet because this widow troubl~th
me, I will avenge her, lest by her .contll1ual comlngsne weélry me. And the Lord saId, Hear what thøunjustjudge saith. And sh¡:lll not
God his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, he bear long with them? I tell yoo that he will avenge them
peed when the Son of mån shall he Luke6:37 '1,8
l
l
I
~ .~
q
l~~
th
·'1
=--
~
l ~._.. e. -~~" •....
rWiIIi\lrrlvlörde!ote . Apr2B
307TCmsS15f0i'lX 8xprèsswi1.Y
5.<;nuylervilll}ronXNY10465
718~892"2489 hYl ¡lOir
'Ø1\VNl$~1'ó!JWJlb Ø~f~bt'f¡~
.~~.~ $~k~4f)t $k;¡W~lerc~4\l<fa
CMwrn~cvk~tW~~ .óF ()~WVW6Gf~rrRlçtvtr fv~~lemv-e<~fk'll
\7ctt\JN~tt! (jj5l\d~,COIt¡ 'ff!r?Jllffo3 " ~~oa~Y¡Ch6V1~,$'l<Y{;¡Lï ~7 7€Wl ,eh{)~9~@rl1 tf'¡.e4~
.tJt~"t(B:l4V7 lrNtctr111 ~f1er . . '...
1f.fjy~r~ltwft~ctt~y~YotJ[(1'~fr<,1~Q~drtat1L1~
9t~W.·~~~v
~h liYCtlOV1. f
êur6v~hr~bu.w\~~t;~~...
~~bVl~
to
·.·~.~.tf
... !;IwM>~.~~'"
t¡ö~'!tlt\ ¡:,(¡-;¡::'1 ~L,¡,!a;Wl'l¡I, VLIJCl.ffOl1l 'E,KttftM LV'YcLtlf4fVltkl er4re;I' ('co,,!rOY1! ,',I
•~Qtre ~e\[er:~ft¿rfl~t.~C)Ct("()~e4te¡yo/.~vhtf
O~reí>t,effulYJ••~~>i·O'k~r5dY~1
V\IV'{~.Ot~Y5dvvs t~:~vlçtte5sW{ctrS~ Weafe,fMr~tor~or~~
(l;l(vV\~5tA(¡~5.rröV11~'
~V~7$ .PD~.7&~~vt,ae?tröylH;9~~r~
~y:l~,.~~c>.vrrmørhe( ectrffr\~~eccesctr¡ .
'If€z ç~Nf\l~JY17~ClIA,n::e$.e\'\\Áro!1tv1.e\ltlr; P~tL&tyw.yNon.s¡:t~wGt1'ev;; ~cèmoa5 dt.$.,
u..••
·•~.·.w• ~~ !tl.~¡¡.cI.m.•.·b.•~~c re¡j".CL\(.,¡...••usr;nr:ry.•.~rtt..í1f\·•. fift.•••.
\-p.tq{ JffkS
.••• nl.cd..!\Æt~f&r
·•·•..•••..
tCft1bte tyr&tY}.ftlCaJVtCt~7tvc1ñ(,J~tla¡.TrnvnPI4f.·b74$LCAUy +&te5~MeCtI1
~A~s~oll~\Htrohtro H!Jltr(J¡~ Vtowtv~dflclCr¡w}l~laJ~Cllvvto~'l
OP?thVlt:t .YtûW lr&~MrtraLtYI') bTy,. :N.Q'tV .lNeA'I1,[,{ç;h~Llhe eo ChrVllv~ct~;.~11,:r(l læ i
W~~-Wp. ~C>~Îlvtn;c,,~~ ....,.... )~s1;ct,!l~lM'5~~~#tt"''7~Í(;
'.';..'. . .¡\1e$t-kttYV1a;·h~r~v~r~n~~ nofAlvt~ .. f~Lt~~~S'J
k0HåeF~t4Vi~
"il i. '.•
O~WIL brct.(¡e5IW{;h.rtr~5/;5~t$!,(JtÇ~bv-ct\l~$fWßOC~~\5~re~&[fiMetfL~Üfh
vte.lu.s 10Vb5U27h!1,~~lM ~i:li\ft17!PH§WC:-( $'!'H:$iI'l'Jfi neil t 1~'tr6tct4llce.,
Ct~e.tl~ NoW, Jt'
.~~-:..__-~~----_.
Army SLAVES Worldwide

We realize more only whf)n our world peoplesbrainsarealotmoreintellig.ent
~--_ .. -··-1flssö·simple,soeas~Tf(YfeäTIze-know 0hY-sfavesare slaves. You reallzèd-og-s-~~--"" .
areslaves ta ught to Obey their owners trainers teachings. The owner ot.a dog
tralns teaens thelr dög to dO,'whatevertnelr superior trainer wants hts dog todo.
He teaches hJsdog .töslt down, get up, bark, don't bark, be quIet When hts dog
learns what todo and does it, then the tralherglveshisdofla giTt, et reward;
a little pat on the dogs baCk,andsornething to eat that his dÖ,gloves to eat.
It tsthe same,training åhoFse,'Yc)ü ride ön töP of his bacK 'l'Otl puHthe strIng tö
the left or rightandyourhorsegoestothe left or right, whatever way you want your
horse to go. It is easyto make them run very fast or ll1akethem walk sloW, so very
nice and easy.You teach your norsetodo whateveryou wanthim to do. Wecoabh
teach drHldiscipline control enslave all our horses. They neverreaHzè they are
enslaved. It lsalso very easy to teaohttaincoachaIlothéranimalsina olrcustó
perform, Allahimals In a circus always do what they are trained ordered controlled
to do, Even Wild tigers can be trained taught to srt down, or stand up by their
l
superIors, theirtrainers leaders. Ahimalsneverever·can understandreéfli.ze

comprehend leam know why they are doing\Nhattheyare trained fado. Animals
are obedlent trained slaves. Nothey neVerever can realize they are slaves,
Itis the same for us humanimals. Ourlrainédhurnanlmalarmyslavesdo what ever
they are trained, told to'do, Thélrsuperiors, leaders! trainers tellthem what to do
and theydoit.Theyaretrain~d Ukedags, like horses, Ilkeanlmalslnöircuses.
Yessilly pöllceare wörldSlavês also. EnslaVernênt öf sillysrmyfoois and silly
obedient pol Icels always done.Armyperformanöesare.done înthat GIrcus öf
insane world criminal war crimes. World Army Slaves are ordered to kill murder
slaughter execute bomb massacre, :g.ointo warsenslaved1uhctef orders oftllelr
insane loony waror¡mi,nalleaders.Thelr insane .IUl1sticcriminaJ Jea.denssreln
those world war circuses called titled; your Imperial pentagon; your endless wars
are Torwhite bcuse profits, yourhorrible criminal Geo Gorparatèheadsísre makers
sellers ofmofèterroristWar weapohs, yoUrwarmonopoltes, yourwar olIgarchIes,
ArmIes do Whatever their tnsane world tyranny Usa tefroristleaderstèlJthen1.to do.
There are always a small percentof,humanSWhoWmnevef.everbeenslavedto
go lnto wars. Never ever do what thè¡r Insane Ioony world criminal leaders tell them
to do, want them to do. These brilliant intellIgent humans always realizethey will
always have freedoms liberties rights choices commons pe.aceprotests questions
etc. WewHl trIal In Qurinternational world crIminal courts any~all of our loony world
warcrimînalleaders ..WhenJudged exposed asguflty, theywíll be Imprisoned
like they were In our world Nurernburg trials.
Loony wars are merely only one of so many hundreds of ways we humans are very
enslaved. Our enemy is us ourselves. W'ehumans right now are racIng our Insane
self EXTINCTION.Weare toots controlled subjugated murdered tyrannized by our
own FEARSIn so many ways. EveryUsa taxpayer tsa world war criminal. Yes all of
us taxpayers give our taxdolJars to warcrimlnals inthePentagon.60¢ 60% of all
ourtax dollars were~are used to murdermUnonsof people in Iraq Afgandastand,
many other nations. NO world criminal Usa taxpayers are ever put on trial for our
tax payments to warcrimlnäls. UN Ban·keyMoon Is new a slave. We had and still
have, many world criminal Usa presidents. Clinton's world crimes are exposed on
our Green parties webslte.Go to TomLeighton's history data exposé facts pages.
Our radio tv programs are fuH at very dumb stupid Idiotic hosts givfnginfo that Is
absolutely 1mbeolJicloonyxidioulouscommerolal.crapihfo, Most humans beJi.eveall
of the liars lies nonsense they're given on radio tv websltes, Corporate Geo criminal
heads ar.eoausing mastaT our world enviro disasters, Yes we will absOlutely trial
them in International world courts. our human Hveshave DNA-RNA codes insIde LIS
thåt make us Jiveour Jives in waysthat we believe In. Most humans are enslaveâ
by our beliefs, Believing In phony races rîatfonalitles gOds rellgîohSf8lths, believing
politioJansalways lying Tnspeeches. Worldfasolsm EGO-manJao'Fraudsmadness
dece¡tsswindlessGa.ms controlel1slave people, No one ,inGCN~AGtUreanzegthls
Insanity.Lawsareoreated for fre,edoms-oNiilavery,intelligenoe-or~i¡gnorance,
env¡rosafety-'or~djsa$ters,wars~or-peace,unitedtogether~or~separatedapa.rt.We
have thoUS9hdsofhew dèadly ehemlcais Invented that areslokening murdering
people on our earth, We haVe NO songs sung about ways tos.top jaIl our world war
oriminalleaders. NOreporters ön radio tv websltesare stopping ou r worldorimlnal
leaders wars. NO eduoatÎonal teachers are stopping ourWorldenviro oriminals, NO
world Worl<ingpeoples unions are stoppIng lunatic loon)/leaders.We have insane
criminal heads in 0\.11"; Cia Fda Epa Usda fbi Nea Odc IrsWtolmf etc. EPAhead
Ms McCarthy fsdoing nothing to really protect our üves, MoCarthy'sCrazyl NOone
really reSlizesObamais .l1ewNDAA law lsjust Hkethose [oonyNazi laws. NOone In
FDA is stopping Insane deaClJyGMOfoodsfromsiokening oancerlngus. NOone Tn
radio tv world websitesare preventing tótàlextinotionof elius humans, Insane
NRCnuolear regulatoryagenoy lunatics won't close our Usa Fukushimafs, Dr'lminal
heads.of insane deac1lyfrackinggangs are pOisonIng our drinking waters. World
evHcriminal Obama authortzedseoretJve torturing his own Usa peoplèsfamJlles.
Everyoneslive$ Info is nowln computer reoordsdata fi!essowemaybeenslaved,
Veteransgo]ng to VAhospitals now receive the worse most terrible services ever,
Usa low Income poorfol'ksare now put Tntoprisons beoausetheycan't pay$ fines.
Most world people.·ärefoofedcontroUedenslaved by meglamaniaoworld gre.edy
criminals like; Rockefellers, Roth schllds, Vanderbilts, Cl.inton, Bush, Obarna, Kerry,
Netanyahu, Rurnsfielcl, Chaney, Sanders, etc. Prior,Criminal pres>idents;Adams,
Jackson, Johnscm,Wilson, Truman, LBJohnson,.Nixon, Reagan "Hes ...Crimlnarsl
··We madeamtstalæ ....
~~~~~--~~~-~~-~~'I~~
.says JnsaneWorldCrlmina/Obama.
Tortu ring our world p eople<i.~·1
nsa fl(3Wörl dCrimJna lity.
Torturing Is ·nevereveraMistake.Obarna ha~rcornrnittedWor[d
Crtmesof torturing ourworlci families. Obamamustbe ·ang
Obamawillbe putan trial inöur [nternationalWorlô Criminal
Court. Torturing is donebyArrnySlaveswhö ObeyObam'a's
orders, Insane World Army War Idiotsclq anythJngthey.are tolp
to do.ldioticcrazystüpldUsa.lawyersare doing Zero to tríal our
World Cr¡.minal abama.Absolute histöricfacts; Bush Clinton are
Wo..·.rld. Crimina"ls too . .ACLUCCRfooIs Idiots do Zer.ota trial USA.
. .. ' . ." o', , .• _,_""" ,_', -. - c, '," ,'-- ,_ " -',' _' .... - --,: ...
Crlmln·aIPresidents. InsanenëWUSA>laWs now tocontrol enslave

jaHUS/Usa people. We are insane loony hum,animals now facing
selfExtincti.on ..Cra.zy National LqwyersGuild folk$ have no idea
,ofhow many ways we humans are nlanipulatëdconed by insane
world Crimin.alleaders lunatics/like RoçkefellersRothschild's
Walherg'setc.Thev say to usall: We Want you all tobe absOlutely
obedient-On ourTvscreens are very loony corporate dominated
idlots.Yeswe humans are so VIolent,soSeIf~suicidaII so dumb,
so very losane.Everywhere,allaround our planet we are Nuts.
Ge to manywebsites;.Amerlcan Exceptionallsm.,cem.,.·(5ÇityNuJI,cem, Truthâtg.Gom¡ i
HoJocaustHevisiôns..netor¡conl •.G.o goegleltYP~ InCriminalClintotl on 'Z~mqga?ine
websi.te.You wil!gethlstorlc records oflnsaue clinten'sworld crimes, We have had I
,
and stili do haveso many Criminal presidents. Not one of themlseveri.mprisoned.

That is how veryidioticignorantloeny most world peqplehulilanimalsare.
"r;. e} f<"" •• I~¡ - H,"e_ t~(lhk'('( ,9~~ 'u~.P'f',I.l;+J ¡C? (dh( '<"Fo LL~.'{
II ~),,::..f!' "'~ '.(),,¡ 'F'r'M,~t~'l?,.f.)(f\"'li ;ld(l,p;;
I
YES ALL USA TAXPAYERS
AREALlliNSANEENSLAVED
World Criminals
Yesall of usUsa taxpayersareloonywar,Crimimtls. Yes 69çoutofall óf'our
taxdoüars we pay goes to our very Insane penta:gon World War Criminals.
Our Usa taxpayers dollars are being used to murder warkíllslaughterbomb
mJIIlonsof ordinztryinnoCentpeaceful world people ..Yes we LJsataxpayers
keep payIng our taxes tolnsztne politicians; OurWarCrimlnals paJspartnëts.
They love more horrible end less violent terrorist wars ,'We. continually keep on
increasing more Wars tomu relermUHqns;imen womenchild ren bahles families
ini raq. \Ne kUl rt1urder mUlions more .In Afgandastand. We assassinate more
pe.ople in 7 moreothernatfons. WelJsataxpayers brainscannottlnderstand
or¡weJust da .notgivea dam about aH people we are absalutelyrespansible
for murdering. Weare,soidJoticcrazy. Hey if we do not wantourtaxdoUars tö
be. usedbycur world War Criminalohama, then we will nowsurelYJoina very
brilliant tnt~lJigent..peaceful '.groupca¡led theWa.r~tax~Reslstersorgar'fization•.
With less ofour taxdollars gaingto 'vV0rldWarCrim ¡nal obama, now he can'!
use our raxdollars forrncre for his loony endless horrencloLJsabdmJnable War
"Crimes. yes we·wHlnowtrIalJaN ourinsaneWarCrimIna! ..politicians .•Yes we
wU! put thislnförmationonou r worldWeb~ites. ?Why? WeHour radIo and tv
news guys are too stupid too imbecille to reaUzeinteUigentlywhat the hell is
happening. TheIr brains never beçame more logicaladval1ced in our hu rna..n
evolutionary time,Ournews netvVorks arecontrolledownedpy insane loony
zany Ceo heads of corporations. All tv radio web sites do not have Freedoms!
We must change .öUrhorrible rnsÇlnecorporate domlnatedltarsalrvvays now.
Beltefs.are .mostly liars fraudsdeceptionsabsolutes""indles deceltscHsasters.
Obama .Bush Clinton are allvery Insane world Criminal liars. They are
lool1yWar Crimlnåls, Environment Crimlnals To.rt:ure..Crimlnals,.much more.
J
We havefactsproofhisto ríe docu.mentsofsomany world crimestheyare

guilty of committing. Go Google1.type Încrim.inal Clinton, You wUlreallze so
w
many world crlme.s.CHnton is guilty of committing. Alsø~pe~in crlmi-naJBush

and crIminal Obama, World peoptewillabsolutelybe educatedactlvatédto
neveraUowany presidents to commit more of their insane world crimes,
,~~,,_~-~,-~"'~-~--1
I
i
l
us more new solutions to our world problems. Never ever go to war anymore.
No matter how many times we.see war films of usillogically kliUnginsanely
murdering eachothër ... Wë still keep ohlllClgically gÓingintoenôles,s wars I
in sane Iym urclëringeach other.eu rselves.Wenever Ieamtc stop. We. ~evet I
!
stop-ôQeY1f'-g.ourworra<wa(êrnTnnal¡leçfâeFs-Çle~Tres·orôers~lnsfruétionstô-·
murdermör,e world peoples families.. Yeswehumêlns areveryinsane very I
!
selfsUiddal.loonyenvironmenteriminals,.waíttriminals, tQrt:ùre.crJminafs.
MostènsJªvedpeople luñatic$ uprernecourtJ ydg~sto make JaW$aboutwhat
¡'words" We 'can notsaykills everyonesfreedorns ofsp.eech. Peoplebecóme
wörldslavesWith;nObrain realization oftneirobedience tölunatic laws.
Everything thatishappehing,WestuPid humans ajlowit all tohappert,<
OurtaxesQo to Insane lovers Öfmörewa.r~. CorporateCeo.headsare makers
of warweapOt1 s.Theyâlways love.··makinglotsofcashse IIing thëlr War
weaponsworldwide~oget higherthaninsane drug addi<rtsgetting high,
Their getting highf3.ddiction is for more war cash profiteering. Sö.Verycrazy.
Everyyearapptox 6 to16newchemicalsarè:inventédsold worldWide.
These chernlcals aré never'tested för howsafeordeadly theyreaJlyare right
nÇ>wtöday¡lOyears;from hoW, SOyears from nöW.Thîsis worldCrimihal
chemicalexperimehtal insahitY.We'absolutèlydo knbwthát hundreds of
çhernicals navebèenproveh tobé?itkening harmfuldeaoly endlessly
tançering murdEtring our world families. Thls Information was given to world
peöp!einabook titled Silent Sptihgb'I.·RacheICarson.Rachel ,Carson made
one little slllylunnycra4Y'rnistake.Rachel ,çIidhor~ell~nyot1eth~per$oJial
namesoftheCrimlnal Ceo heads ofchemíçal mQt1opolle$.WhotheYÆlfe,
a,!lwor¡d,p~oplemqstknow, Stop those who keep on murdering our world
people, ,No Ceoheadsofchëmlca.lcOltlpanles are €NèrtrailecJimpfisonedfQr
murdering our world peoples farnIlI~sand peQPleinth~irverY own familieS
too. NoCriminaICeoheac:!softobacGOÇi.gé;3.rettëcompàniésWereever trailed
neverimprisonedfor rnurderfngöúrworld people. Thisísabsolütely Vast
CrimínallnsanitythatmostwotldpeoPJEjsbrainsjust cannot reallze, Their
çrimihalFaces rnustbeputon worldwebsitesrightnow. $omepersohal
names of our Criminal Ceo heads today are; Andrew tiveris of Dowchemlclld l
Ellen Kullma.h of DuPont, HughGrant ofMohsahto, PatriciaWoertzofADM

cornpany,Lisa Barday isour insanehead of FPÀfQQQ 0& Drug Administratlón.
To say our problemisWlth,rDow'nevergiYè$ people the realp¢rsonall1alrlës.
of Ceo Criminal heaåsofcompanie5.
Mostworfd people are notabletorealize howhörr¡bled~adlyirisahèarlof
ourwörld FukushIma factories åre.Worid pëople mustgotowonderfUI wise
website of Dr. Helen 'Gald ¡cott Shé âlso!has 3 boöksâböutour worldnuc!eår
madness, Shetalked tohLlttydaffy delirious zany barmyirratioha)lllogkal
ridiculous Reagan.Sheexplaihèd how deadly fascist fanatical.all brout world
Fuck
Insane
Criminal Cuomo
FuckHislnsaneFracking
FuckHis Demonic Insane
Lunatic ManiacCrimil)alBrain
Cuomo Is Fracking Destroying
Polluting Murdering Familles
'Stop Insane Fascist Cuomo
Cñminal CUOInO
Fuck
Cuomo's
Insane Brain HisiDeadly
Indian·PfChernobylFukushima
World Horrors Demonic Disasters
PollutingCancering ·Murdering
Destroying ..Everyones Lives
On Our Mother Ea.rth
On Our Planet
Yes
Insane
Criminal Cuomo
Wlil Be Put On Trial Now For
Murdering HlsOwn Families
Murdering His Own People
Yes Imprison Crazy
Criminal Cuomo
Now!!!
.APPENDIX:
May .20 17Denial Letter
From the J oint Commission on Public Ethics
MICHAEL K. ROZEN SETH H. AOAIÅ
ACTING CHAIR . I2XÈCU1Wt¡ DHU!C'l'OR
ROBERT COl-lEN
MARVIN E_JACOß.
SEYMOUR KNOX, N
HON. EILEEN KORETZ; "NEW YORK STATE
GARY J. LAVINE lOlNTCOMNIXSSIONnNPUBLIC ETHICS
J. OER¡\RD McAULIFFE, JR.
DA VID A. RENZt . J?cHÖNE: (51!l:J 408·3916
HON.RENEE R. ROTH 540 BROADWAY FAX: {$18î 40l'l.,B915
DAWN L, SMALLS ALBANY¡ NEW YORK 12207
GEORGE H. WEISSMAN www.juope.ny,gnv
HON. PENNY M. WOLFGAN6
M¡¡Mî~ERS .
May 12,2017
PQnna Liebennan
Executive Direçtor
New York crvil Libçniies.Uruon
125 Broad Street,. 19\h floot
New YÖl:k, New York loóo4
Deat Ms. Liebèmiàn:
On January 1:3, New York Civil Liberties Uhion rNYCLU") sübmitted an application
10 the J()înt CommissIon on PllblicEthios ("CommIssion';) for an exemption from theSöurce .
Funding Disclosure requireme.nts coutai11éd10 Legislative Law Article l~A ~§1~h(ç)(4), 1-1(c)(4) and
19 NYCRR Part 93$. The statute provides that whethèr to grant an exemption is li dlsceetion(\ry
determinátion of the Commission. The Commissiön cönslderèd NYCLUis application at its
meetings on February 2017and April 25; 2017, The Commissionersrevlewed the application
,aud supporting 'evidence prior each :rn:eetingandcliscussed and evaluated tne merits the
application under the relevant legalstalldard dUr11+gthe public s.e¡:¡slonsof eaChnleetingi creating a
fun l:ecord of the basis fot its decision. NYCLU's applicÇltion for exemptiQn faih;d to receive a vote
of the majority the èomn1issioners, therefore, the application was denIed. Pursuant Part
938,5(d), the,Cómmissi<:mhéreby sets forthtne:teasoUsalld fOl'the denia1.
By wayofbac~gtöund, thesöutc.e Qf funding disclQsureprovisiöus increase transparenoy by

providing the public with inf01111ationabout the lndivfdualsorentitiesthatattempt· W ·influence
gdvernment4ecisioll-lUaJqng~y .;funding lobbying .llöHvities.. Specifically, thesOUfceof funding
disclQsnrepr¢vhdöns t~qnîre lobbyists who lobby on their own behalf and clients of lObbyists) who
devote ;1;ubstantiill resQurgesto JobbyíngacHvit,~inNew York State, fnake pubIicI1avai1ablee~eh
sm~rc¢,offtmdlngexceedhtg$2ISQQ!Qrlluch ldb.hyíng.t
Undcr :hoththestatute.andth'P,.te!atedxegulatløns, entities .~têpermitted. to. apply ·.:fÖt'

exen1ptions .troln :dísQlo§ure. .. shouJdbenoted. thªtÍ11~m~cting. ·the x<\}gtdatQl;J'.proviSÍQllS
governing. theexernptionprøcessJt~e COITU11íssi()nSbll~httóconfol'm .to legislative lntent
seeking the broadest lntèrpl'etatíotl in favot of disci csme. (Ht NYQRR 9~8.1).NYCLU appI1ed
fOl'anexernptionpursuant to. Part 938,,4fb)¡ which aval1able forot;ganizatiôns ~hat haveeXètnpt
l ThesOUfceof funding oÎSc.1oSttl'e r~quîrem()nts werefIrstest!thlishèd ~yenel>li!bliç ÁnfegrityReforllí .À,ctöf:201 t

('~prRA").CChaptét' :B99,Law!> onOI rkfJllcl most rècentlyaîtlen~led by l'arl. D ofCh'1pter2.86or.the,Lawsgf20 IQ.
Ms--:-Doñnatiebelmart
May-12,2017
Page2
status under Section 501 Cc)(4) of the Intemal Revenue Coge of the United Statës. Toquälifyfor an
exemption, NYCLU was required to show that its primary activities involve areas of public concern
_ ..1hªtçr§al~_a_§..ul>stantiâLliks:lihoÓd th~gisclill!lJI§.Qfits_~()J!.tClt(§)of fu!lg~!1_gJ-Yillcay§ehª"-rID,tl1I:.e_at8L._~.
_~.c ___
harassment or reprisals to the source or individuals or property affiliated with the Source. 19
NYCRR Part 938.4; see also Legislative Law §§ loChe 6)(4), I-j(c)( 4).
Part 938 A s~ts o~tt a list øf five nonexelusive factors the' Commission must consider wJi~m
determining whether 'an applicant has made a clear and convincing showing of substantial
Iikelihood of hann, threats, harassmentor reprisals to the applicant's sourceïs) of funding If
disclosl.lre were required. It is the Commission's view that unless ID1 applicant makes a
pel'suasive showing under multiple factors it is unlikely. to prevail.
After reviewing NYCLU's application, the Commission finds that NYCLU has failed to
make the requisite showing in support of its exemption request, As an ílJjt~al matter, in support
of its.application, NYCLU primarily relies on its 2015 application for exemption, which was
denied, (The 2015 application, which is. appended to NYCLUls 2017application, in turn relied
heavily on its 2013 application.) Accordingly, the Commission is relying in large part on, and
incorporating herein, its assessment ofNYCLU's. 2015 application. '.
TheCotntIlission has considered theincidentsof';harm, threats, and harassment"

identified byNYCLU in support of its application and -; as noted above - concluded that for the
most palt,NYCLU is relying on the same information it previously submitted to the
Commission, The only additional informationarè; Cl) two .fhreateningFaeebook postings in
November 2015 from the same individua] who also itriedunsuGcessfully to· post athreaterïlng
message directlyon the NYCLU'sFaceboök page;ahd(2) two threatening letters from 2QlS and
20}6 sent to the NYGLUwhich, in its own opinion, were likely submitted by one individual.
Moreover, of those letters, only one WaSMnt during-the relevant filing period, arid it is directed
at the NYCLUandsimilar organizations, not its supporters. Accordingly,the Commisslen
reaffírms its previous findings conceming the .sameevidence, and concludes that the new
evidence does not alter its assessment.
First, the CommissÍonconsiderecl the number, recurrence and location of incidents

identified in NYCLU',sapplication, The.Commission found that many of the incidents were
remote in time and geography. .Notablybecausé NYCLtJ's application is ptlmarily based on the
information it proffered in its pria!' applications, there is limited evidence of incidents in recent
years.Ptuiher, at least three of the ten incidents mentioned ih the 2Ô15 application occurred well
outside of the New Yorkarea,
Second, NYCLU'sapplicatlon has limited InformAtion related to sUppOl'terSorNYCLU~

the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"), and similar organizations,. Many supportel:£>
attend rallies or publicly identify themselves through sodal média or other VeriueS,and NYeLU
has been unable to demonstrate sufficiently that these supporters experienceadveræ ef'feptsû:om
being-associated with entities or causes similar to that of the NYelV. The mêJ..Jor1f)rofthe
informatloncöntëlnëd in NYCLU's application pet1ail1s toits staff or pertains generally to the
ACLtJ. Thus NYeurs application fails to establish á nexus between the information it bffered
in support of its application and the likelihood that supporters, donors, 01' sources of ftmding wlll
experience hanl1, threats, hal'assment, or reprisals.
Ms, Donna Liebel'man
May12, ZOI7
Page3
Third, in the QPùûonof this COllunlssion,s0111e of the incidents, described by NYCLU

rise to no more than co.nstitntionally protected speech as opposed toevídenee öf a substantial
Iikelihood,öfhanl1, threats, hatassxnèl1t or reprisal ifdis,closure is required.
Finally, NyCLIJ ,,cites as .support a decision of Heating Officer thèHonorableGeötge

Pratt relating to NYCLU's 2013 application, In our view, that decision is Inappositeas,amol1g
otheriliings it was predicated on udifierent record,
j
The b\lrden i.s 01]. the applicant to establIsh 'a "substantLal1ikelihooclofharm,\' This high
st:mdard foran exemption is in keeping with the purpöse,"", ..to bêtter ít1fotrn the pubHcaböut
efforts to inf1uencegovewl11enta[dectsionmaking through increased transparency:" (19
NYORRPal't938,1(4)) '. To beeUgiblefor the cxemptiQn"NYCLU's application IDustcontaiô
evidehce,by way of specific instancestexal11,ples,thatdisclosul'e ofsource(s) of funding would
create, a substantial likelihood of ha1'll1¡thl'eat$,reprisalQr har!issment to the soul'ce(s)offunding
Ol' individuals QI' property affiliated with such source. The :ComrnisSÍOllhas concluded that
NYCLU failed to meet that but;denbyclearandèQnvhlcingevidenc~or Dyany otherevidenfrary
standard applicable to civill11atters. l1'herefote~NYCLU;sapplicät1on fQr 'the ex.emption is
denied. .
Sincerely~
~k~
Michael 1<. Roze
and the followl'n.g Co
MaÍ'vin E. Jacob
Seymour Knox, IV
Gary J. Lavine
J. Ge~:ardMcAuliffe, ,Jr.
David A. Itenii
George H. Weissman
~ .
APPENDIX:
January2017 Request for Exemption
Including Attachments
APPLICATION REQUESTING AN EXEMPTION FROM NYSJoint CommlssÎon on Public Ethics
SOURCE OF FUNDING DISClOSUREREQUIRËMENTS 540 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207
518~408~39761icope@lcope.ny.gov
The regulations governing a Client Filer's obligation to dlsclosesourcës of funding are cöntalned In19 NYCRR.Part 938. These
regulations provide that a CllehtFilermay seek an exeniption from the sourceöffunding disclosure requirements. Part 938.4
sets forth the applicable standards upon which an èxemption shall be granted by the Joint Commission on Publlc Ethics, In
addition tocompletlng this Torm, please revlewtheproce.dures to apply for an exemption In Part938,S,
ALL CLiENTFlLER5 SEEKING AN EXEMPT/ON TO THE SOURCE OF FUNDING

DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS MUST FILL OUT THIS FORM.
Name of Client Filer Requesting Exemption:
NE\N,/()~\l._C.A\J \L L\ß.612.- 'T 1ESD~ tON

Name ef Individual Authorized to File Request:
Titie:E,)(:{5C0\\\lE, OlÇ2..e: G-To~

Telephone Number:
~l '2-)(001....'33 Da
Address:
\L.f ST'- \~1\'if L,Otl(2.
N~ .".~ (L. \c.. , N'-( l.c(:)p '4
E-Mail Address:
INÇ-O@ N'ICL..\) ..• a~
.1. ClientFUerlsah IRC§S01(c)(4)orgànizatioh seeking an exemptIon from tlisclosingaU Sources pursuant to 19 NYCRRPart
938.4{b), which re.qulresa shöwlngthat the CPient Fller'sRprimary actlvltles Involve areas ofpubllc concern that create a
$ubstàntiallikellhood that disclosure. of ",Its Sources will cause harm, threats, harassment er reprisals to the Sources or
indlviduals
- - - or property - affiliated
- - - with the
_- Sources.I'X
-;¡r
or
2. Cli.ent Flier Is s€H~kîngan exemption for aSourçe, $ourCßs,or class of$oul'ces pursuant to 19 NYCRRPart 9:)8.4(a), which
requires. a showing by "clear 'and .convlnclngevldence thatdlsclosure of the Source forSourcesj will causeasubstantial
likelíhöod ofharm, threats, harassment or rêprisalsto the 5öurçe ör iJ1dI\fldl,H;¡ls at ptöpertyaffiliated wîththe$ourCe [or
Sourcesl." .
All Client Fliers must submit, with this form, a letter addressed to the Commission rl'\questlng an exemption and setting forth
in detail whY theappncable regu1atotysíándard(19 NYCRR Part Sl38.4(a} or (b)) has been met.
• All Information In .support of theeXèmption requèstmllst besubmittéd together With the letter,
II The letter must also contain the following signed declaration: "I dedarethattne iriTormationcohta!necl In this
applJcation Is true, cbrn~çt,and cornpleteto the bestofmyknowJedge and belief,"
All information submitted in support .of an ex:emption will be made publlclyovailable and discussed In
the Public Session a/the Commission's meeting. The only exception to this rule is In/armationJor
which the Commissiorrhasgl'anted ci Client Flier'srequest for cOhfidential treatment.
1
October 2013
~ APPLICATION-REo.~SIlI'lGJ\ßLfKEMeIIQN FROu:M._._-
~ __ ~_ NYS Jöint CQmIDis_sÍQu_ºriJ~Jj~bJj_Q_Elbl~s~--
SOURCE .OFFUNDING .DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 540 BröadwaylAlhal1Y, NY 12207
518"408~3976licope@lçope.ny~göv
IMPORTANT INfORM!\.TIONfOR CLIENT FILERS SEEKING CONFIDENTIAl.. TIlEATMENT

OFINFORMA'tION SUBMITTED IN SUPPORTOF AN I;X~MPTlON
c ~_~_
Pursuánt to 19 NYClŒ Part 938,8,arequestfofconfldential treatrl)ènt of ihformationmayonly bégranted bYthe

CommIssion upon à$howing ofparticulç¡r circumstançeS, such as when thetnforrnatlóf vvould reveal an ongoing
investigation bya goverr\il1entaJboçly that has not bèen made public, or itiformationthat,if revealed,would constituté an
uhwarranted invàsion of per scrtal privacy, -
Pleélse lndicate ifthe Çliènt¡:iler is requesting,putsl,fant talS! NYCRR Part 938.8, thatsp~eificinf9rmatîonsubmittéd ih
support of the exemption betr~ated as confidential. _
Proceclurefor él Client Filei'Reguesting Confidential Treatment of CertaÎnlnformation.
-L Ina separare letter/indicate. precisely what material.is the .subJectof thecQnfiqentLalityre.ç¡uestand setforth¡.in
det'll I, why such materi,lI is entitled tö be treated as confidential pursLiantto Part9~8:8.
f1rovidetWo cöpiesöfthe material forWhlch conflclentiç¡lIty Isr¡;¡gLløsted.
" One copy ofthama~eríar must bain ån un"fedactedform.
" Thesècontf copy onhe tnat$l'Îal mustindl,ide anyproPQsed réd~ct¡C!n$, Tre n~c!actèd VerSion pfthémåtétiaI 1$
the version that,shQulcl the Commission grant theconfidentiål!ty request,WIJI be made publicly available
(togetrer with the material for whien no cQhfidentiàl treatmelJt has beën reqUested).
Generally/proposed redactions should only include perscmaIíríformatíon which, because Qfa name number, l
symbol, rt1¡}rk or other identifier', çgn be usedtoidëntifYa person, such as an ilddress, telephone number, birth
date, .or social security number. If the Client Fil.eris únable to submit a redacted versi.on that adequately
preserves the requestedconfidentiali.W, provlde a detailed explanation setting forth the reasons why the
material in itsentiretyshQuld remainçonfidentiaL
Irnpàttof il Gran.t or Déniai bVthé Commission. öra Confidèl1tialityReguèst.
• fUheComrnissioh grants the'confidehtiality request, the materialthatisthe subject()ftherèquèst wilIbe

cgt1sidered py the Commissiol1inan EXëclItive Se£siQnfhgt¡s dosed to-the public .. AH other material, and the client
Filer's application for an exemptign from the ~ourceQtfunding dlsc!osurerequirernentsps a whole,will bernacle
publicly available and consideredbyt.he Commission lliáPublic Session.
• If thèCömmÎ.ssioh cleni~.$theconfidentialitvrequest,thè Client Fil.erhä5tWö optIdns,lhdicate belöwwhethetthe

ClienHi.ler elects Option A or OptIon EI (èhoose only one): .
(A) The material thatls the subjectofthe conftdentialîty request that wasréJectl~g by the Commission wUI
remain confidential and wUIlli2.t be considered by the Commission when evafuating,the applicßfionfor
eXèmption,
or
{B) The rnateriaithat is the subjeêt oftheconftdentlaHtv requeslihat was te]ected by the CoMh1Î$sLón wîll bé
made publicly available, in an un·reäacted and çomplete form(or with fIEderet/ansmodeby the Cammlssioh
in its discrétion}, il.lidWiU beeon:¡ídei'ecl by the Commission in the pl.lbncS~~slonwhet'l evalU¡_ltingthé
¡;rPplicationforiln exemption.
October 2013
NYCLU
125 Btoad Street
New York, NY 10004
212.607.3300
212.607.3.318
NEW¥OBKèIVILLI8ERTIES UNION www.nyc1u.org
Sent by ·emalJ
J â111.lary20 17
Ml'. Seth Agata
Executive Direotor
New York State Joint Commission 0l1Public Ethica
540 Broadway
Dear Mr. Agata:
Pursuant to the C0111missJou'sre,glJlatiönsa.t 19 N.Y.C,.R..R.938A(b)1 weWrlte onpehalfofthe

NYCLU to request an e;x:emptionfrom the sø1;I1'ce~of-fundingdisclosure requirements. While We
remain inclined to seek a longer exemptio.n based on the controversialpublicînterestchatacter of
ourorganizâtion~s activities, we tequest,at Inihinlum,consideration fol' an exemption tocöver
the most recenttepottingpedod, July 1 - December 31,2016,1
The Lobbying Act provides thalorganizations worldngoncontroversial public Interest matters

such civil xightsandcivilliberties should hecategorÎçallyexempt from itssotltçe~of-ftlL1diü.g
disclosure requIrements.:! It stat.es that sucñ.disclosures '~s11al1not apply tol'any §501(e)(4)
exempt organization "whose ,pdrnatyactiviti~scOnèe1.1ial1yatea pfpublicconcem, detennlnêd by
the commission to create a substantial likelihood fl:latâp.ptication ofthisdiscIostlre requfrement
wo\,üc!lead t9 hann, threats,harassment,.9r.repdsals ....a sourçe of umding ortoindividuals. or
property affiliated with suchsoure«, .including but nat Umiled to tke area of civiL rights emddvtt
liDe:tiies ,...,;3
I TheC01Umi$~iónhas, iu lhepflst, Ç!Ç1HbetatedÜPQÙre'Itlests forprosp"E:ètive, lQnger~tetn1 eXeul,pti.ol1Sfrom

disclosure, HÓW(¡lVét,.it is nötcleal' Wllether 01'911what hasis the Cömmiss~Otí ruaYC()ul;inueto consider sucb
regueSts, and it is ilPtclear whethêrStléh feqlJésts1t+ayhave impeded exempt1o.n föi'thó !'elev¡itltll:etíli~al1fiual
repÇlttiùJil; pedod only.
fprexäm.pll? in A)jg1,l.st:2015,.thèCönuriissioh vote.d (ll1:a NYCLUe;XémptiOn re~ltlest .Â. Cortin1is¡;iQner
mov~d.tora 2-yeare!(Cu1ptfou for the NYCLl),in lieu oftheJ-yeur exemption we sought1nourapp!ication,
Fqllowíngdebatéovermany aspects of our application. including the extenciedpedod of exemption, t~atll1otion
failed by a vote of 7~7. HOWevér~nø motion was·ofÎered fotconside:ration of a sîmple 6~nlOnth !.lxemption loeover
just the telévant:reportingpêJt(od,
2jN.Y,.Leg, Law 1-11(c}(4).
:lId. (Emphaslssupptied).
WithoutenumeratmgcívU rights and civillibcrtiesspecitlcally, Part ~938(b)(4)simllarlyprovides
that the ConunissÎou {'shall grant an exemption to disclose all S01,lfCeS of Contributions toa
CHeüt' Filer, if (i) theCHenf Filer hasexernpt status underI.R.C §5(Jl (0)(4); and (ii) the GUent
Filer shows thilt its primary tætivitles involve areas afpLiblic concern thá,t create a substantial
. - -c - -lilÇelîllooâlhärtllsclos'-lre-oflts-"Source(S) "\vtll-causë-hann, tmeat~laräSsmeÎl1 or repnsals-tQttre
Source(s)orindiVîdualsol' property affiliated with the$ource(s).,,4 .
This exemptionrequestisour organization's fifth before the Commission. Again, weem:teaVOtto

make the required showing that our "primary activities"do Íllfact"involvearea8of public
concero[,r .and that this work does in faet expose our members,donol's,employ~es and affin~tes
to a heightenedprobabllity ofexperiençing "harm, threats, harassment or reprisals,"Despitethe
ackiwwledgement-setfolih in the lawabove-Jhat groups such as the ACLU havelongb~en
understood to perennially face such hostilities~weh~ve yet tøl'eceiveadetenninatiQtlofthe
Commission that We are qualified fortne exemptíon set forthin Part 938(b)(4J. 1111$wasso even
after.an independentjucHcial hearing officer found that the NYCLU had satisÏactorllymade tl1e
reqi.iisite showing (lÎa pattenl ofhostilitiês~ánd grantedan exemption .011 th.atS!
In sûínmary,êvídencë öf iñi1hediatë'~harm) threats,harassmertt 01' reptisals"whichwehave

,provided in ollr,pastr~questsjncludes;. a,bomb threatto our shared offices with the ACLU;
repeated bomb threats to-ourupstate New York offices; vandalism to the vehicle of a NYCLU
tuember önaccouñt of NYCLU acti vitiés, inchlding tlle~pray-painted taunts "FuqkuACLUi,
and "Die Fag"; a Dístrtct Court rulingthat NYCLU l~etnbershave been subjected to such
hostility that tlleirFirstAmendmYnt. tight~ wereimpaired;rneasqres. taken by staff whoaoswe.r
NYCLUphones to avoid being pubIiclyidentified, dueto threats; and examples ofextremely
unpopular interests we.have represented on constitutional grounds •and the extreme behavior
which has resulted, includingtargetingof staffmembers.Allofthis evidence and more is
included in ourJ qly 2015fiUng, which .contains the entire record of our requests and appeals,
and is appended. :rhatrequest,.like the others, was denied.6 .
FollowÎngthatdeniali we siibmittédan åppeal to the Conl111issíol1.which Was denied. W.è then

requested a hearing. On No.Yeluber 1312015, the NYCkU teceiveda notice fromCo111111issioll
counsel:. olJl'fínàlreqnest, fora hearing ön the denial pfout åppeal to tbe Conirn1ssion,had itself
been denied. Thesa)llè week, a person posted Oll Faceboo.k: "THE ACLU AND. TRE NAACP .
ARE TAKING BRIBERY MONEY FROM TBE KU KLUX KLAN ... ALL THE MEMBERS
GOT TO [BE] KILLEDTODAYFOR ABE1TERAMERICA[·r Ihe week after, heposíed
Ç¡THENEW YORK CIVIL LTBERTYUNION IS RUN.B¥THEKU KLUX. KLAN AND
UNCLE>AUNT TOMS .. , ALL OF THEM GOT TOJ3Er KILLED TODAY[.]"
419 meRR 938.4(b) (emphasis supplied),

5pecisionof GeorgeC .Prau,JudicialHr'·g otticer, tevérsiilg clenialo.~èxemPt¡on (My 11,201 4).OnJanó28.
2014: JCOPEdeuied theNYCLU's applicat\onfor an ex.emption lfonl the disclQ~urv requirements in the Sôurèe,(lf
Funding Regulations. The ]'{YCLU's)etter appe¡¡ling that determination, dated Apri124, 20 14,provides baçkgrouüd
regarding action taken by JCQPE onthe NYCLU'sexemption request; the letter alsn¡malyzestheunderlyin~
stat1.lte,the state's Lobbying Act, pursUantto which JCOPE has promulgated the Source öfFundingRegulatiol)s.
The NYCLU's letterofApri124, ..2014 is illch¡ded herewith (witlWl.ltattàchl11ents) ils Exhibit B.
1SlIpra,
The same índividualhadprevÍö:l1s1y atteütpted to post the following exhortation directly upon the
NYC-Ltl Facebook page: "BLOW UP THE NYCLtl WITH ABIO BOMB ..• TODAY 10.:19·
2015, .. FORA BETTER AMERICA .... BECOME A HERO AND DO IT[.]"
Thatindividwal didl10t feel that the NYCUtJ WÇl$do.ingeùo~Tgh to protect mlnoritíes; many of
ourt1etractors feel that the NYCLUoi1lycaré8 :fQrthe intetests .ofminörlties ..$ucn is the case
with another person who mailed å letterto NYCLU in.July 2015~ '~YouBASTARDS are
ALWAYS PROTECTING MINORITIES/GAYS, ATHEISTS, MUSLIMS AND DPCOtJR,SE
JEWs! ¡l¥OU[Executive Director Donna Lieberman, addresaed] AND NORMAN [Siegel,.
NYeLU's fonner Executive Director, âlsoaddl'ßSsêd] ARE JEWISH! HOW MANY OF YOtJJ1
Hl<IND" WORK. THBR..E? I bet the place was STARTED .BY A JEW!" ThIs continues for two
pages, until the authot signs off: ('YOU ALL DESERVE TO BURN IN HELL FOREVER! IH
More than a year latet, in September 20 16~ånotheI' letter, veriñably from the Same h1dividuál,
followed, In this more recent letter, the author again takes issue with fhose Wllosé interests the
NYCLU pUl'Port¢dly represents: <'MUSLIM TERROIUSTS, COP KILLERS, PEDOPHILES,
RAPISTS,. CHILD KILLERS, DRUG DEALERS,PERVERTED RABBIS, SEX
TRAFFICKERS, COMPUTER HACKERS AND CON ARTISTS DON'T DESERVE TO
HAVE ANY RIGHTS WHA T8ö EVER!" The writer suggests:~ "THEY DES.ÊRVE TO BE
"TAKEN OUT," ONE BY ONE ... NO JUDGE, NO JURY, JUST AN EXECUTIONER!" 'This
time~ in conclusion: ~'YOURORGANIZATION NEeDS TO BE WIPED OUT!'~
Copies of theseComml1nicationsare appended for theCotumisslon'g ins;pecüol1. They represent

attitrtdes expressed daily, throughout NeW York 'and nationwide, toward the ACtU, its affiliates,
its 111él1íbersand'SIlPportel's~ clients, and ltsstances,Sucih coml111Jnicationsalf.e~\1lltbrtunately,
relativélycömmon. SOlnetímes they rise to theieveI ofthreat;S0111eHmes they are trret'ely
distJxrbing '.B~lt sometimes, on thaùkfnl1y occasions, those who express such deep hatred-
for fercur ideals, and for the peO}Jle anèlinstitutions who mÇlkeit possible 'ror 1[$ todo OttI'
work ....have grown frustrated of simply speaking their mllldsal1daPted out their hatred instead.
In lOl7, the eluergl.l1gp.olitiealclimate does not encourage faithîn theeivilityofpttblic

discourse. If the Commission requiresful'th¡;¡revictehee exp.lanation in support of its
deliberations, please allow the NY CLUanoppö.rtunlty to ptovide Asan ol'gattizatíoü Whose
entiremisSl0n is the furtl1erance of civi1dghts~ntl·d.vn libertics, we seelçan exemption ror the
foregolug reasons and believe we haveprovîdedample support fat the request.
r declare that the information contàÍned this application

best of my knowledge and belief.
Executive Director
3
THE ACW ANDTHENMCP THENEWYORKCI\llL LIBERTY QNIONIS RUN B¥
+++t+:bt+H+++++++:++1 1.11.1.111. ¡.¡I:H+ARE THEKUKLUXKLAN AND UNCLE-AUNT TOMS
TAKING BRfBERYMONEYFROM THE ++++++:++++++++++++-H ..+.++++++++ALL OF THEM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I ! * .¡+++ KU
GOTTO BE K+LLED TODAYll-3-20JS
KLUX KLAN H+++++++++++:+++++++-H-NOTTO +++++++++:++++++++++ FOR A BETTERAMERICA
++++t+++t-h:I-+++++++++JNCARCERATION?
FiGHTHAClA.L PROFILEAND SLAVERVIN U.SA
RAClST.SIVlOTHERF'PKERS.¡,t++++:+SLAVERY·WITH
++++++I! l j! 11++:++++++++ I t Il HI++++++++++:++
90% OF PLANTATION-PRISON POPULATION
+++++++++++++++ ALL THEMEMBERSGOTTO
FROM+±++++±+++++:++++++++++++tl Ilt.1 ti II ¡·11
K+LlED TODAY +I-:+++++++++++H-++++++++++++++++++ SLAVES-
+++++++++++++ III till uu++++±++++++++PORA
MINORITIES +++:+++++++++++++++4,DO YOUR
BmER AMERICA THINGOBAMA
++++++IJ.H t I 111+#+++111.11111+++++:1++++:+++ ++:++++++++:++++11 ¡Il 11+++ r II! I I l..U! 1'-111
llih
+11.11111+ ++ ISNOW OR NEVER
.~-rt1;;_JJm¿U11~/JIa~dJ.~.· ~~~~
----+1---, -+~~ts_ófii ••
~ ...
'~
~---,,¡+!jJ;.rrJ_~~~1izkJ,B~~
~-----+¡~fJ&drf_ At/!lAJs f&11licT~~
~~~I;~{j51iM5j¡y;;¿j¡¿d!Jtiisii.¡}1jj;JsJl! YaL
lJiIIIJ1IiiEf;;t¡g
'-=-~'lI''''''Jr-ÏJ}12NtJlI¡jIULIiR1I tJl3/JJiSlfl f/oIAJ
,. " .;. ..!
~~,¡-.....;'~KI/J12~~f,t'kl~~fI4~~ , .
~.~~+~~()(4r:JhJ¡¡. " ,"' '?·g:~1i

·'/ßEIl.(I¿5t;¡j¡_7JVLFWVfII/JIl)t!!!!1
·~_~AIf
"~~~~f7-~'
-'~'~-'--I+.....-~~-~-------~~~~-~~~--~
.~~--------------~~~~~~~:'"~ .. ~~----
~_._'-+¥r--,""",.~·.:,i·i' ·..l.···.:¿1Jiff1:~~
.~~lm_.· ii. .··•·.···.. ,··Wtlr:,:¡ll1£fd/~g
~~!!r±r:s'tÓtti?\'/?tl2l!iljl!(j}llr)¡j;?ilk .,,'
~~-L~.~Ql&'----!EDI1-
;'""
••...• .,~~i;ti~·U~'
•..·.-.1J¡{15·~:[I4-"";-/':!Jt~
~'l)............--.~ • .•.• th~'Ifi~-
..~ ...~.·..tt¿~L/J!i~.·..l)_'-'::'--_-t2...............
~E----·•·~~ ••••
·•••..
~&l1lC~IYAd.~ ..~ ....
~'~8~~/(~· .'
DErzlf:VliD lAI12ljll/)/l!ll:5JAli1J) .~. ..,vtJ1/fi/Æ
lld)!&tfi!2' .,'
>~
,'cø ··G ?jff¡}/j/l

), , ~
~Y~$~F_-Y¡& 'VJJpJ'[
Æii·.ll€¿PINs:
. ' .. .
A/Lr¡;aS& 1;/1LGitlt_ !ii~~ 6?/I!L
...' . . .. . I '
..
~CâÏfNf2:~êjUti$/~~~~2fß~
I1TWfSJJ?_GffOUw Be 7JI!(oú)!i()!dJL ...,'_ .. ¡j",
, I
9fjo12ITttE)¡1Æ& /lIfllØl!1J!i;$JiTivtJi!-l3i3¿tG(;; " '.,,I

1j;}MIF!{ÎlißLl&æ)¡19§l!:6:t1l~ '. "o • ",' . Ji
~eIi!J/l:l-IEJiœiiffæBtß_E.rØ!iŒ_al .~
fi4iWs.!l 1!/JEt_11!ilKlilY/E Slck! .fOiLlla .'. .'<:i5)Æ
. -
To tJUKN :f::Nfff$a-FOÆt;It6f!,¡:'~~~~~
¡,
1
===tt;.~lég~;r¡;~-;_==~~=~~~=-~~.==_====._-=
¡
, . 'jI, .
t: r 71s
• _~.;. ..~. __ . ._~ .:.c ._ ~ c~_:. .. _:¡~~.-~-:.,--,--~"-,----:-~,.-~~----~.-
...,---•. .;:.--.-~. :~ .._~;~:-,~~~~~~-.~-. _ ._ ....: ~~;,:
Cl j:. !¡j,¿. a Vfl J. /1/ i.t· u-

rO~v-:~u..
'---- ..--...:..-,....,-.:-.-¡II ïa ¡:-'lz'~a-{~
-.L:¡(1) J;.
lÅ'
;~~'i1···J
)/(¿j /,
..Vv·..Ll2r~~f.Y-~tt~~&~V.Vk
..cl:Q_----.¡~~.~¡_ ,'··~-I1~?tP:~~~,,:~-~a
V!A} I~
,-,_.{L.
·~~~~--~-~I,--~2;;;~lfie:;~~i1ie_iiß;Z~Jj~~~~;;Æ
.;..-fi-·~tk~6fu¡R_¡¿k¡d[d~¡~!l~J,lMiLas-l!4'ig77~1JtJ_~t:L
.l..,'.'.'.:' ,.,'.....
. ,~,;
.'ê " . . ."c", .... " :< ., '.;'
"; ~ .._" :.., , " _.c .
~--'---_:__·--·--~ï,n
-~ -- .._. ~~LUL¡¿_,úl..~jl4J~
j ~ -:ri:~c:·-li~T-nrDf¡ G-~11/1-;¡;¡z;:yr;¡rF¿¡ -~¡¡O
-;¿¿,.L-----i/~-~J:f-.l¡:
-:-ll.L~__JL6At:lt -I,'L.~~-j{w-
11 / /1;
:;Il!7~1~-r-?
--- - -.-~}[V; fl
------lrJ.AJL-~U4!L~,L
~Q7jiiji;T~-A fr-/i-/,~ ---¡;VI. . »)l" î~f~.-IJ";å
-4
!-."'--:--!UU¡j[¡¡,J.'--í"lL~.v/1't;__../;-L)-JL.tJ-< __atL
".: -trMf-Œiiltl¿liiM:t..!IJlJff7ll£tlii£IS.7JiA
-. +--_.~.
---"---'---"'~'--'-~'--:-JJULL
---)1¡Jíl1:~-il{;:¡;'l-:¡¿y::¡¡JjiT? ~7l!
fi -;ç;-PCiFlia-;¡';;;¿ç 11--;;:;: IIJ£
..,-r-" ..J-I-L!/"4..I.L.~£L.._.(
..'[J~~{LL..t...~WLä.Ll.)."'r'_""·~"':V'i·P;·l.~ f..LL?f;y¿/,"IJ~.f:'- ..~f-V..út!;£¿'
s: '"_o
-- -·_--·---Jlro-
Fc+. ....,...
-':"~é-'-"-------"-"-'-~
iiL'~i:Cr-;'(i)~T:'TjJ¡-~;r¡::PJlI~('-rOR.c-17;
-0/jJv!G¥-~-"f-.. V.J:.-L-~cfLG: f.~~. t 1.2~..-v..L:d6;i.2&J¡.L_\d- __t..~
...,~.,u..(_L..-r:J..,4,,-¡.-..~...-
~I -
. . f..c:;.--.'-~..,-,-~~._-,.:....::.,...;~;~.,"_
..."..._..._......,~.---_.._---.--', ;_'~-~..:.. .._··_,·_·-·_·--..7-..':··,_·,·
..~....__~·"_··~·_·~-~-"---_.'''-.;...-~
..~--~,_-,
,-_._.
...._-._~, ...£a;e_;1;Ll~~. ~'1011.%
.."_.--~.l})Q(jJA/-,!2¡JlC£_tl~!JJ12 . £ Â_ ..,YEMli,
~~-_·~=--·=f~l7tJ]JrJJ§iXr/if5ffY7:¡iff;TiJiElf.j!~1J_Jijii
. I .. .," .
.-----.,---.......
--._. ....---ti--_._-
...
__.......
_,-_._-
..
,~._---
---
._
...
_-_
...
_,-
......
-..
~---..-..
_ ..
..,._.-.
...
_....
-_
.........
-_..
--,'
'''-''''''
-~. __..
__.,,"---.--
...
-...
-...
'...;.
...
-_....
__..
_----
-~'--~--
",..,...-,.- ,._. -I¡,V?flElS7S¡CiJ/L12 -tí/lL£RS¡.1J/{(j6j)&J_!M$f~~

f . /'
f
Ii
I,
l'
.- ---ft
"""_",,~.-'''_WN,_'~'"'"''''"'_'''_~'V_"'_''''''''''''"_,,,.,, _u~"",._.~, " ".,, ,_"" _" _,"_ ",_~~~"" " ""m._ '",_ __, _-... ".~ __ r" "._"""".,,_",, ~~_. --------+'-n~ ~ J
..
"._·
..
._·~·,.""
..
"_·~··
..
_"·* ..'"····"···r.."..·~·""
i'.7Æ~.P.
. ~...13-. '. /. l.
..-c¿..
r-
' ··.····r\..ï'
..0.. 1-..)·./..
.L
.....
.. -
F¡ I
{:,-7,f
j
...
7
APPENDIX~
July 2015Request for Exemption
Including All Exhibits and Attachments
APPLICATION REQUESTING AN EXEMP'nON FROM NYSJoint Comm¡Îssion on Public Ethics
SOURCE OF FUNDING DISCLOSURE Rl::QUIREMENTS 540 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207
518~408-3976/íeope@icop.e.ny.gov
The regqlationsgoyetninga Client Filer!s (jbligatiónto dlscidsesourcèsoUundingårecontainEld in:t9 NYCRRPart93~3. These

regulatlönsprövlde that él Clieht FlIét f11ilYsegk ah el<èmpflpnfrom the sQurceof runding disclo$.ure rÇJqulretnents, PartgSS.4
sets forththeapplicablestMdards upçm which an exerriptlonsnaJ1 be grar'\tl'ld py the ..JolntCommfsslôn olt Pl,Jbllc.~thlcs.ln
.1ldditionto cornpietTngÜris fo rm I. please review the proëedures töapply.for(jI\f:;l<emptJontn l'art9.3ß.S,
ALlCUENTF1LERS SEEKING ANEXEMPTIONrOTHE SOURCE OF FUNDING

DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS MUST FILL OUr THISFÇJRN7.
Name of Client Filer Requesting Exemption:
Name of Individual Authorized to FILe Request:
Titlf?;~j(t:c.. \} "\1 '.J Gt 'O

Telephone Nurnber: (Z-\"'l-) (ao1- 'j,DO
,Address: \ (~5 \2.. DA'\) -~ \ C\T~\ If \-Q 02-

I"\~ 'r OP-¥'r N "flOÓ Qt.\
E..Maii Address:
çlientFUer .is.an l RC§501(çl{4)órgäni;?atron sèekLngan exemption from disclosing allSourcespursuanttö j.9 NYCRR.Pact
938.4(b}, which requlresasho~vingthat th~ClieÍ1tFi!er's i'pr1maryattjvities involvaareas of pub!iccotlcetn thåtcreate a
substantia! likelihOod tha1;disclo$urepf .., its5C1urCeS will cau~é harm, threatS, harassme.nt orrelJrlsals tötheSol,JfceS or
individqals or property.affiHated w!thtne(lQ·qrces/' . .¥
or
2. èlient Filer is seeking anexemptlonfora· Source¡.5qui'@s,or.dass of Sour<:espursuå,nt to.19 NYCRRPati; 938.4(ah which
requires ashoWlnghy fl¢learand cOIWindhg evldencë thatdisclosureoftheSoùrcé]or $ourcf:lslwill9<lUsea s~bstantläl
Jiket1hood ofharm, threat!!'1 harassment or reprisals to theSourceorl ndlvîduaÎs.or propertyafflll¡¡tf,lô. with the SourcéIór
.sourcesl·"~
AIlClieht Fi!ersm Listsubmit, with thf$formr1J letteraddre,ssedJo the Commissiön reqqestinganexernptlon and setting forth
in detaHwhv the.appliéable regulatory standard(19 NYC:RRPart 938.4(a)ór (b)}has been met. -
.AII informâtion ÎJI sl)pport.öf~he~)(emptron requestmustbesubmitt.ed together with thelêtter,
• The letter rnustáJsoconta¡bthefollowingslgne~declaratian: "Idedarethat the.lnformation contafned In thfs
applicCítion is true,correct, and tom piete to 'the best or my knowledge and pelief.."
All information .su,hmÎtted ;n$upport of an exemption will bernade. publiclyavail(Jble.anddiscusseil in

thepublic Sesslonqf the Commisslpn's meeting. The only except/onto this ruÍf~Is infotmation/or
whiCh the Commission hasgtdhted a Cliel1tFilel"s reqUest forc:ol1fidentíal tredttl1¡;mt,
1
October2013
__ ...~_~_~.~PLlÇ~ T!~N REQU ESTII~JG~ANg~EMPTIº.~.!J10J'!L__._~~._~_MYS JQ101Ç0Q1rn¡s~19nQ!l Publíç-ªbjcs :,
SOURCEOF FUNDING DISCLOSURERE.QUIREMENTS 540 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207 "
518-408-$976!jcope@Îcope.nv.gov
IMPORTANT INFORMATrON FOR.CLIENT FILERSSEEKING CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

OF INFORMATION SUBMIITEDIN SUPPORT O~ANEXEMPTION
-- .. ... - .... ..
PursUant to. 19 NYCRRPart938.8,a requestfor confidential treatmentof Information may only be granted by the
Commission upon. a shoWing of parttcular circumstances, such aswhen the information wouldreveal an ongoing
Investigation by agôvernrnental body that has netbeen made pUblic, or information that,rf revealed/Would constItute an
unwartantEld invasion of personal privacy.
Please indicate if the Client Hier Is requesting, pursuant to 19 NYCRR Part 938.8, thät.sPEldflcinformationsuOmittedin
sU.pport of the exemption be treated as èOl1fidentliill. _~ __
Procedure for a Client Filer Reg uestlngConfidentlal Treatment of Certain Information.
l. In a separate letter, Indicate precisely what material is thesubleèt of the confidentiality request .and set forth,in
detaJl, whY$uch mç¡tertal is entitled to be trea.ted as c0l1f1dentíal pursuant to Part 938.8.
2. Provide two copies of the material for whlchconfidentlaJity Is requested.
li One copy óhh¡;materiaI must be Ih¡;¡1'\ul1-redgded form.
11 The se¿øndcopyorthem~ter¡al must Includéany proposed red¡l(.:tions. The. redacted Version a.f the materIal is
the version that/. should the CommissIOn grant the confidentfafity request, Wirr be made.publlcIy available
(together with the material for which n9 confldential treatment has been requested}.
Gé.rieráUy,. proposed redactions should only lncludepersonallnformatlorl which/becaUse of.a narne,nUmbet",
¡¡ymbol/. merkor qtherJdentifier,i;anbe used toldentffya Pers9n¡such an address,telephone number/birth
date ..or socIal securIty numher. IftheCl1ent FUer Is unable to submit a redacted version that adequately
pr.esèrvesthe requestecl tOI1f1dentlartty, proVide a detailed explanatIon setting forth the reasons why the
materÎa[in Its entiretyshøuld remaTnconfidentîaL
Impactara Grant or Oel11albv theCommlsslQIl ofaconfidentlaHt.y Reguest.
li Ifthe CommIssion grants the confidentiality request, the material thatJsthesubjectofthe rec¡uestwiItbe
considered by the Cömmf$slqt1 In artExecutîVe $t;sskm that Is close.d tóthepubIic. All other materíal/and the Cli€lnt
FUer/s application fQraheXempUon fro.m the source öffundlng disclosure.r.equlrements as awnole,will be made
pubUcly.~va.lfableand co.nsidered by the Co.mmlsstönln a PubUCSèsslon,
• If the Commission denleS'the .confldentialIty reque:st,~he Cirent FIler has two options. IndlcaíebfilIow whethe-rthe
Client Filet elects Option ÄotÖptlo.n!B (choose onlyrme):
!Al The m¡rterlal that .Isthe subject of theconffdehtiallW request thatwås rejected bythè CommIssIon wUI
remain confidentîaI and wUI.fl.Q.1 be considered bytheCommlsslor\. When evaluêltirig.tlieappllcaffón. for
exemptlöl1,
or
(aj The rnaterialthat Is the sUbjectofthe confidentlaJItyrequest that was rejected hy-the (;)ommIs:sion wHI bé
made pabliclyclvClHabh~, In an 1)f1-redacted and complete form lorwlth redactions made byth e Commission
În rts dÎscre.tioft), andwlIl be considered hy the Commission lnthe pubUc Session when evaluating the
appfication rar an exemption.
October talS
NYClU
NEWVÓ"t<.ClVIl VBERTíESUNION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY: 10004
212.607.3300
2t2.607.331S
wwW.nyëlti,Qrj .
.
Sêl1tbyeD1ail
JulYlS,
Ms. Letizia Tagliafiefro

Executive Director .
N: ~wYork State Joint OOn:1inÎsslon ön Public Èthics
540 BJú~dWÇly
AlbanYl New York 12207
Re: Rèquest fOl' exemption frQm the disclo$U1'erequb'emcntsill the Soûrce of

FundingRegUIati<lns adQpted by the JQint Conrmisslott oh PubUc Ethiès1
I)~al;.Ms,TagliafietrQ:,
ht ?ötoberof2013,the.'lroint GÖl1111lÎs~lo11
on Public, Etbic$ (JC\) PE) adoptedtegulªti(jhsthat
r~quire ºygânitmtio11sengagedin lobbying activitiestQproVide}CcrrE informatton.regàtdifig.
donors= inch1ê!.ingnatnesladgtesses, .ewplQyers,and&U1QllutS.é.Olltributed~who have donated
nrore tltan.$\QOÖtosllchorgallizatíQ11s?These~QW'ce orFundiílgR,egnlatiolJsptovjdethat
JCOrE\vQu1dtr).ªk~.ª\lc1:l.ififoU11a,tîQnp'ub1íºlya,vailable. .
Thet¢gula,tiø~slªsr~qtiitødhythestate'stobbyîng·käw,prôVídeorganizat1oùs{lne?t~mplion
fr()tti the source-Qf~fun~il;ig disclosure provÎsiöUS,>ul1detcertain·CircuIDstances.
011Jl,11yllj 20 14,·tMNYCLUw~sgra1,1tedlPUrSl.lant toapPèal; 'at¡exemptiolltrQmtlri3

disclosllreprovisións.intheSoutce.ofIF1,luding Regulations, The tl,lling tSralltingtM NYGLp'än
exempti()ll :!TQtn the regulation isa.ttachêd asEXh:ib.it A. a .
Wetvri.t~,pn behalfoftlteß¡yClJU ~seekinganexe1nption[roll1 these.rl:lpqrtmgreqtlire11lenfSÎor

the Cllrt!i;mt reporting period" .
-_ .. _- ---
\.19 'NYÇRR938).43N.Y!Reg.18~19(Oèt ..23,20Jj) (J.PE-43.~13~Oóa21-EP)

¢M6ptëQasainên.dédIMaY21,2014).
ild.
~D¢c¡sio!) ofGeorgeC.Pratt, JudtêjalHr'g()ffi.èer~ feversiIlgdenial ofeJÇelllptidl1(July 11..20 14J.Öt1Ja~,28¡
2Ó14, JÇOfE denied theN¥CLŒ¡¡ app1içiltioIlforan è:.;emptionfrom the disclosure' requirentenisi11thedôQutçe.of
Funding Regulªtíons.Th~NYCLt1's letter appealing. that determination,datedApril. 24~20 14,ptovia¢s'b~ckgm1}ltd
teg~rdÏt1ga¿tklU taketl byJCOPEon th~NYCLT.J's exemption request; the letteralsö!ina~~estheundedyi~g
statut~,the .state's tóbpyingA~t,¡putstiaIlttowhich reors haspcom~lgatedthe SouréeoffWlding Regulati01i$,
The NVCLU's letter of Apri124, 2014 is.included tletewith (witholIt attacbrn.enJs) as ~:mibit B. .
The NYCLU'.$ claim fQrall exemptíon from the dis clo Sitre proVisions in the Source of
Funding Regulañons
We bring this request foran exemption from the disclosure teguirements in the Soul"ceo1f
Funding·RegulaHot1s.uí~del"Fal't93·~·;4 'or]:f'tCIUttritle 19~·which··.'S.t~testñattheeolnmissfórrë==·~
Hshallgtanta;n exe.mptiontodisø1ose aSoulioeofáContribttñOn~ iftheCHent Filer shows by
clear and convincing evidence that disçlas¡;íre.orthe Sourcewillcauseafmbstantiallilçelihoödof
harm? tru'eats,.harassment or reprisals. to fheSource otindivid11als orptopertyaffiliated with the
Source.,,4
This acotlonor the regulation alsQstates fhat the Commission J'shallgrantån ex.emptionto
düselose all Sources of ContributionS to a QUent Filer; ff (iJ the Client Filer has exerr.tptsfatLla
ttnder lR.C.§501(c)(4); and (ii) the Clü~htFíler shows that its prirnaryactivities ínvolveaœas öf
publicco11í,1erntnatèreatea. imbsttutHalIikeIiho.od that disclosure of its Source(s) will cause
barm, threats, harass.mentorrepdsalsto thé}$ourçe(s) or individuals pr pto.pe1iyaffiliated with
the SOl;lrce(s),~,5 .
The NYCLtJ's mission is to defend and prOl11otethe fundamental. pcinciplesand values

embodied in the BUlofRtghts, the U,.ELCoustitutiou,'and thé}:NewYork Constítutlol1,incl11diug
freegotnof speech .and re1igi.on~.the right privacy, and equaljtyattdtlue.procéssof law ror all
New Yorkers. The .N'VeLU is arganÍzed lluderthe I.R,C,.asa~501 (c) (4).organizatiol1; Members
ofth~ ilNCLUstarfare re~stere~ lobbf!stspt1rsu~nt t? New Yor1('S tobbying Act,6and the
N'VCLU reportsasalobbymg'''chent,'1 . The organlzation has approx1mately $a~aOOl11embers
and Stlpportets statewide,with offices 111 Buffalo} Rochester,. Syracuse, Albany, ZVVhitePlaÎ11s,
:r-1ernpstêad(Nassau COllutyJ,audCentral I,sHp (Sl,.lffolkCounty)~as:wollas NowYotk City,
In requestîng thisexernptionftom the Source ofFtl'ndiug Regulations, weresfate OUt IJbjegtiou to

fhe standard by which ~1êGoml11issiônwi1lmâke determinationsregardlngsuchanexefuption. Tt
well established by theSuprel11ß Cnurtthat the ..approprlate standard fat exempting
Ö't;gallizatiOlls:fi:Öl11
the requirement to publie;lydiscl0.seinfofmatiO;i1:regal'ding their finánëial
dOllars .. the showing aia ¡'reasonableproóahilitt'suohdfsclosure weuldcause hann, threats or
reprisal to those dOltots or to their property. 8 However, the .t:egutatian adopts a heightened
:standard-"supstantia1likelihöod1!of hann or harassment __,.as the basis for gl'al1tingsuchan
exem.ptiol1. We helieve ettorbQthas a matter of constitutional1awand pUblic policy;
f).nn the NYCLUl'eserves the tight to~pp¢gtl,a x\111t1.g by J COPE that madeputsuant tö this.
standard.
419'NYCRR938.4(a).
NYCRR 938.4(bj.
!>N.Y. Leg. Law I-a, et seq.
7 See Leg. Law § H(4).
a Buckley 'Il. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, S8 (1976).
2
Having stated this abje?~Orh we,seL out herÇ}inth~ íecqtdandl'eäSQningtnatdel'nOtlstrate,the
NYCLU should he granted an exemption fromthe.:reporling requirern¡;,nfsinthe: 'SOUl'C~ö/f
Funding Regulations, .' ,
There basubstantiallikêlihpod thatpubllê.(jIsÇÎo!illl"(}· o(p ers Qual infotl1l~tîQtlaljQut tÍté

NYC.LtP.sfI11~nci.al (lº~QrS wîUres Iilt· iJífhreats?hâtassníènfíl.utIpds$iblt vl9'leIlêé
Tbe~Yidei1Ces;ubmitte~b1 the:NYCLtJius~PJlort.öftWs èkern,.ptíon'appHcationd,smonMt(itès

that when the nämes and addresses of tl)_eNYCLLJ',sDJer11ber~are l11äclepublic,theyhave
:episodicªlly become the targets pfha.rassmerltfindthr.eats .ofviolen9¢.·rrhlsfecord further
demonsträtesthat.thereísaÇ'$ubstantiaLlîkeliho()ª",th~t.ifthe.idel1tiliesofthosewhoJiuancîatfy
support the NYCLU's work were 'disèiösed! tlJ.~ywötildfac~slnûlar tff~atI11ènt
:Follpwi11gªdoptionQfth¢SQtlrceo£FttÏldÍ1tgRegtlläHQi1s~Îl109tOQ~1'of2öJ3~theNYCLUfi1ed
with JCOPEallappHcatiön forrul{;}xenlPtionft0m.th{;}do!lùr-.disdosuteprovisionsmthe
regulation. That filingiucludedëxtensive.dQcuITlentatiollöfhatassmentdirectedafNYOLU
emploYees,membets çmdvQlunt~ers,asac(}nseq~enê{;}Qftheirassociatiónwiththe NYOLU,
lndiyiduals as~ociating with theNYCL1J h.~vepeell stalJ(edat th~irhorneSflndtbreatenedyvitl~
physi¢al h~;. tlWÎ!proVerty has been Yah~~izëq.{Seë lJecember3,2013 Exemption Request,.
attaöhëclasEXhibit C.) ThishElS .occurrednotonly tôihoseassQçülted with the NYCLU, lmt 'IDSQ
t.o AQLU mem.bers and etrlployees~hiougho'Utthe country. .
That rec()td.cov~redafm.lrteei1~rë~;peno~,£röríl1999 thlotîgh 2013, ItwasQl1 thë'ba$isnfthis

factualrecótd tl~at the ~CLU was granlec1 an eKemptip:r1fromthe.$9Urce öf:Ei'rfrrding
Regulatiöûsin 2014~ .
Hó~eve;t,thatreçord· müstbe llnderstood .11Lcont¢x.1,· TbreMsá.hdaétsofreprisal ar.ejnh~rent to

the. NYQLt]'.s .advQcao~'·O!l·lJe,halfqf 9îVil rightsái.14Civillibërties. 'I>ersQusassod~t~d wíth th~
NYÇLUhave1Jeent~rget~ Qftrus.1}'Pe ofreptiMl.8incetheorgarriz~tiöIl\Vas"est(ib1ishédiIlI951
_,tliemosttecehtexample. heing a ·pcwib tl1reMQire¢fyda{the'N~w YorK Cityøf.ficein.t\prilol
.2015.
Jjxcerpts'lröm theiac~Ial t~çørdinoll.ía(!clmtheNYOLU's2öl3.reC]_ueStförartexemptíol1.fr0n1

the dÓ)1or~discl()surerequirenWi1t~ay'pearb~low) 'i)1äbbr~vî~ted form ..(Fot th,e ()ornplete:fili)1g~
see Exhibit .c,'attached',) , .,'
• Ah NYÇLUstafflne~ber involved lhlitigatiOtttegårdingthefree-spee9hrightsofl(\1

Klux Klan members Was the target .Qfª¢ampaigno£ reprisålorganized byÚJ.dividuáls
.()ppo~ing the NXCLU's in vol Vèuwnt Ùltha! case.Thes~ indiyidu~lSIí:ladethteâtenin~
phone calls .to the staffme11lberändher fa,1rüly; ra,l1ghetaparlrnentdoorbell at all hours
of the night; entered her apartnwntbuilding\Vithoutauthorizatiol1;artd eVen iltternpted to
break into theapartrnerit. Tl1ernana$erùfthe apartment building and the1)J.an(iger.onhe
NYCLlJ' s offices weré t¢quited to proyidetwéllty-fOut~hour security at eäch site. .
"·ACross wasset.afitean thelàwn. Qutside thehbm~ofatlNYCLtrclhmt.ln C(lütralN~w

¥o'rkwho ,had spóke1i publicLy about hp~tió.~atHwent fClrLtiBT teena-gers.·· .
• An NYCLU member in New YOl'k',s.Southern Tier who publicly-opposed ~propo$ed
town ordi11.ånCefhat would ban all lawn signs had the tires of his car deflated; .the phrases
~'F-~-u ACLUí'and t'die. fag' were painted on.thecal' while it was parked in the driveway
at hi'S home. C8ÇleExhibltD, attttcIled) .1?he,:NYCtiUnrember'also reeei>teda ransom.i· ~,~.=.,.....,,=,...
style letter wHIle. death threat.
• An NYCLU staffmernber who responds to telephone cålls at the offIce has received a
fltUfiberofdeath threats and threats of'phystcal asSa.ult wmleatwork. Qnsevêral
eeeesions.eallers threatened that they would œme to the.NYCLUoffiêes and attack the
staffmembetWhen he left the office building.
ÍlA tñândre.$sed. inablaök robe would l'egulady appearatthe offices. of the NYCLU :and
ACLU in lower Manhattan. The man would march outside the building-waving signs that
dtmou.ncedfhe organizations' sta.ffmembers as "clogs" and ~¡JE:WSPH<;?alsomaintairted a
web .sitethat charged the organizations we~eparties. toa Jewish conspiracy,
At least five memb~rsofthe :NYOLU 'becamesubjectto.com:t111mityltostilityaftcr theit

li
names and a.ddresses wercml1de ptlblicpursttantto'a statutoryrt'epqrtingsoheme,

accorditl.g to federal court ruling, whiçh foundthatasaconseqttence theseindivfduals
weteê1eterted û'öm associating with the NYCLU ,9 .
The NYCLU lsthestateaffiHate ofthe ACLU~ a natiöll:ål.organizatiQn. The factual tecord

presented jlltIte NYCLU'sexemptionrequestfiled in Deceinber 2013a.lso included incidents
invqlving other state affiHatesof fhe ACLU, which aU sltare.acOllll11dJl institutio.nal m:Î.ss'1on_
upholding civil tights andcivilliberties.lD IIIthis sense all affiliates of the ACLUare I!limilarly
situated; anel indeed these affiliates report similatlnèidents of harassment related to their
advocacY·
The Supreme Court has recognized in ßuclçfey v. Vetleo, 424 . 74 (l947)tha:tcoñtr6verslttl

organizations seeki:n.gex.emptionsITom disolos'Ureo bligationsare pel1nitted to rely 111'011
incidents involving cOînpaxableorganizati011.s.1 t Following are examples of haras8Î1.1êùtdirected
at ACLUaffiliates in répt1sal for theiradv9caoy.
"ACLU staff members have been listed fu tl;le t¡Nu:t;el'ub1l1:gFiles" 'webstt~J wbich vilifies
reproductive advocates and healthc&reprotêssionaiL Dr. Barnett Slepia:l1}!it Bnffalo
'physicial'l" Mentifiedon thí:1websIte; he wasmurderedbyanal1ti~åbQrtiönzealot.
9 mCL Ov. Aatto,4S9F .supp:7 5 (lSi/ha).

JOThe Supreule Cqurt llé!stecQ~lrlzedin 13w::ktey v,Vcdeo¡4~4 ty,S.J,74 (1947J that Gpntfoversral ofgaruzatlollS
seekîllgexemptiQt:).s Xt·Qrol;liSc!;osure.o6ligati;Q.tl,sárepem:dtted to rely tIlJen incidents lnvQlvingcompàrable
'prganizatio1'\s.
II Court rulIngs that have develQped. the legal standards in JJuckle;yhave affirmed ¡his prÎttelple. See,
Spèialist Workers '14 Campäign Committee (Ohio), 459 U.S. 98:,99-102 (1982).
4
• Ahigh-tilnkitLg official withllieAGLtJ's åffili~t@in' tOWÇl{ec{Hv¢datbreat~nitlglett¢r
~ftercQmmentitLg in anewspap~r onan. ACLU report that addre$sed facial' displlr±ties'in
marijuána arrests, The letterst~te4~ "Get yournastyassoutQf Iowa hy Jul.yl&tórend tlp
likethaJP-arkîelrtSanfQr9~F1dcida).t:hát is déàdas last we~ksfo.tk and roll hit.l!
.~Intésponsetóa.dvocacy fot'LG13T Ú$n{s,the Actu ofOklåhoma. wasséntahosfile

rnusic\'Ídeo that inter cut pictures bfactivists with images offire, Theyid~QWa$
delivered wi~haméssagethatfead inpartt 'tA, prayerhas.gonë .out againstyou.·: .•'.. When
you play with fire YOlJ"WilIgetrQurfied... nSopeprèP~red todèfejid 'yourselves fox thé'
,actions you t!Ík;e.YOu yan nevètêély yQl.i Were n~vt:lrw~tnéd.."
•'In July2Ql O,l3yrÔ1l_ VV1l1iamsloadedhis. öarwithgunsandhQèly äl1llöt ,.Hel1eaÇledfQt

SílUFranciscö Wíth.th¢inte1)tiQl1.QfkJ11Î11g~mplQyeesat thç offic~s9fth.ecAÇLUof
·Nortl1çl11CaUforpia,.Poliçeappreh¢ndedWilliaffisbeföre lw rëàöh~d San FrancÎscQ,
Ingtm+tin$.th~ NYCÜJ .•ª11exempliOlifróïnthe •.repotfingrequiJ:ementsin·the·.$ÓllfCëöf.FJ111dmg

Regulatiolls~JudgeGe()rge G. Pratt ç~té.dth~ eYid.(l.t)cethat) CQPEcol1siders illevaluatihg Buen.
anexç11lpfiónrequest,. mcluding:(i) .Specifi9 evidenc~ofpastqr.prësertthanb.! .(ifJrfhesevedty y
1.1u¡nberof ÏAcideIits1ÇiflÇl
d\lfatiou öfpastprpresent harm., and (iii) Apattetnoftl1feats or
.mabifestát1oriSöfpublich(jstility, 12:çIea.ªªed that~ .
AlFtÎ1teeof these,however~mcll1de evidençe öfhánnfiöt only to.otagainstthe'S{)uroel;
i.e.~thedohÓX, btltalso,·wo1:epr9~41y. to. or ¡l.gaiñst tlle'ÇJiël1t Filer,' Le.,;lhe App~l1ªnt
Moreover; ÍIlthe thirdcategory~pattern of.tltteats. pr ffianifestationof public hostility; Is
furtherbroadenedto inêlud~ as the targets .'individuals Óf propetty affiliated with the
Soutce(s)otC1i~nt Filet. '(Emphasisinthe øriginall~ . .
.Âfterapplyingthis ¢vidØntiàtystamlardtöan excetptfromthefapwal recördinchl?e~ Ù1We

NYÇ:LU' sapplicat~ötl.foràn e:¡(empti911,JudgePrattconcluqed,
[pJvenin thêapbtevt~tedfónn it iadear thåt AppëUaptptQvîc1ed'specific"evidencè'pf
l11àr1Yalld.$~Vételücident$ eXtel1dingóvera periodø[yearsthat. show a~:pattetíl of
threats' .anq <manifestMiollSofpnblic hostilitY' to App'ellantart4 itsaffiliatesbecm,lsëÖ f
their ad VOçaCY for constitution.al rights. Theul1controverted and unchallenged evidence
fully isatisfies the[ evidentiary]. req~irements orthe DOintnÎssio?'.s tegulatianSá.nd, when
evalp.ate,drealistically, theevidënce.in tnerecacrdshoWstherewas lasubstantial
Hk.eUhaQd·örhahn, threats .•hatÇtssU1ènt[án\l,JrepPsalstQthe ¡C~Uent:Filér'.[AppêUantJ
and to ~indiyiduals [and] property àffiliatedWiththe" .,CHenLflJér)14 .
Judge Pratt's rUling,hå$èd upontherecore sU@natizèd'abdv~, WaslSSUE:dj~st9ñeY~àr ago, Oíl

.July 11,·2Q14,'That record, .c{)Yeringá.fÖUlteel1-xearpëriadl~çU1ai?stilt1yly~th~fact~remahl
PFJrtinenttot11ißèXèmpHon teqtlest~. ánd no less perS;Uásive.i1120 t5tha,n i112ô14, This isbeçause
IipecisîtlnQrOet;li'g(j.Cj}r\ltt,~~td ·no'te3iilld..Ê*~l;JitC.í¡t$(qitJ,ng '19mCRRQ.~.S ;4(Í!)!iri.d(Q)) i

'131d ..åt8-9.,
14 .....'." . .
lei.aï 8-9.
it Is in the very nature of the NYCLU's mission - to uphold the civil líberties of an individual or
mineritygroup in the face of a hostile maj ority - that strong feelings are aroused,and that these '
feelings. are sometímeseápressed ina threatening or violent manner,
This phenomeuou'oanbeobservedtlrroughm:itthe histöryoftheorganizatiDn: Areeent.example,

from April ofthis year, involved a bomb threat directed at the meLD offices in New York
City, which required a police investigatIon. The message that açcompaniedfhi¡) threat referred to
the 9/11 attacks. Following 9/11, the NYCLU was vilified insome quarters for its advocacy on
behàlf ofci:villibérties in the face ofgovemmentalltHerrodsm Initíatlves -and~ hi particular,
for obJectiug to discriminatory conduct directed at Muslims and Sikhs.
The fOl'egoing analysis demonstrates that ñnaneíal contributors tofueNYGLU face a substantial
likelihood orhann if J COPE were to malœ public their personal information. And far this
reasan, the NYCLüshQuld be granted ail exemption £1'01)4 the Source a.f Fl~ndtng Regulations.
The NYCLU requests an exeruptlollOf three years from the disclosure requjrementsin the
Source ·ofFUnding Regulations
In måIdng fhiäapplicatiörl fo:ranexemptionfrotnfhe rep<>.ttingp¡ovls1ons.lu theSoutceof

Funding Regulations, we also request that members of the Jofnt Commission 011 Public futegtity
reconsider the reqtti1;ement thatorganlzatiollsgranted, anexemp.tion m.t;l.stresubmit an exemptiol1
application on an annual basis.
The NYCLU has provid.ed an extenSlverecord of harassment,. iucludíng threats and acts of
violence~ directeclat NYCLlJ staff and mem.bers ina ñfteeïl-year period. The record
demonstrates that the NYGLlJ :meets the standard feren exemption from the reporting p.rovisions
in the Source of Fuudíng Regulations. 'the record also dem011strates that the evidence on whíeh
theapplièàtion is based is not urtiqûe, unusual or situational; threatorreprisalagainst the
NYeUJ, and against its clients,. members and pröpetty~ ís a routine and recurring lihenomenon,
For this reason, we request. that the Co111tIlfssiongrant tofhe NYCLU,and to organízetlons
similarly situated, an exemp.tion. for three years from. theprovisio.t1s in the Source ofFurtding
Regulatío.ns.
r declare that the inform.ation cOlltç¡ineq.inthis npplicíttion is troe,ootrect, and complete t.D the
nest of m.y knowledge and beUef,
DOMa Lieberman
Executive Director
Robert Pen'y
Legislative Director
ExhibitA:
July 11~2014DecisionofJlldiçjallI~aring()fficerGeoxgeC.Pratt
Granting the New YørkCivil Liberti~sUnlon.an Exemption front
Source of Funding Dísclosure Requirements
NEW YORK STATE
JOINT COMMISSION ON PUBLIC ETHICS
In the M~~E!L~HbE!,£\ppealof
NEW YORK CIVIL UBERTIES UNION
Before:
George C.Pratt
Judicial Hearing Officer
DECISION
The New York Oivil Liberties Union ("ApPel1~nf')aPPealedonApriJ 24J 2014,
from the April4,2014,deoislon PYthe Joint Oommisslonon Public EthIcs ("the

Commission") that denied the Appellant's Applicatiol1.for an exemption from thé
CommIssIon's Source 'of Funding Reporting RequIrements. The appeal was taken
under Part 9SS.6 of the Comrni$sroh's Bourceaf F,ufîding Regu!atlons and Was
assigned by the Commisstanto the undersigned as a JudiciaJ Hearing Officer.
BACKGROUND
Appellant Îsthe New York Stateafflnateofthe American CivIl UbertíesUnlon.
Its mIssion 1$ to defend and promQtethe fundamental pti neipies and varues embodied In
the SlU ofRlgbt$¡ the U.S.Constitution.and the New York Constitution, Including
freedom of speech and reliigloM,1he tlghtto privicyand ~.quaUty,.anddueprooessôf laW
for all NewYorkers.àecau$e members of Âppellant's staff are registered lobbyIsts,
Appell.ant reports to the ·Commissionasalobbying¡lcIIent'l. ·SYfldyocating qflbehalfof
índivid uals' rigbt$.andlibertíes Appellant Is·oftenengaged tn highly pUblic controversies
that arouse strong opInions and feelings.
1
Uflçerthe @'m;¡nded reJ1ulatior'lSAppøJlant,Eisal1organrz¡¡ttiol1 that engagés in
lobbying aptiVitJes,. 'is reqUired t" qisól.6sethe namesiélddrelssas,.employets,and

pon~ributIQn' infQrmaliof"l regardingsiny(;cmtribut9F Who proyige~tq it,arleast$5¡OOQ,
Howøver,th.ereg'ulstlolls.provldefÇlt pqs$ibleexemptions,Wni¢h pre~eÍ1tsthe problem
now.uf14år ÓOfl$ld~rªllon.
ïheApfllio~tidn.
Ap~enantappHE;ldtó Ib~ C6rnrnlssiononDe.cel11ber31. 2013,'forane.~él11pt¡ón
from itssoljrçe-of-fund\ng dlècHosurerefJulçitiopsasamendedpnOot ..23,2013.lts
Appndâfioncbhsisted of asêVeh ..pågé, :slhglé.spacedléttef,a. three-pagë¡ishigle ..
spaced Supplemental.statème.nt ofFäcts¡andâ tb re'$,"päg.eapplicatiori form. 'The

Appliqa~¡ot:1apPears lo bemaCÎellOgerRârt93åA(b},'blJt n9àppetd Is pertnitted.frQrrt
the dênl~1of~n .ªppnêâtiofl undér i!1a.tsUQsèêtión r , (9S8.å(ª»).However¡ ;thesubst~n;èé
oJ the~p.pIlGatJ(Jn(ª$we[l as theCommJsS ic)[}'sdén¡atofthe,exemptiQhtéöV~r$ JS$U~$
pres¢nted,byanappHcatiQo undef§ubseptton(a)"gng thIs appeal WUInqtbedismI$sêd
b$caüseôfth~teçh rHççtHtyt Jt will becQhskfeted Çlf1dçeçid~çfasinheAtfpUcatioq had
sp~cmedpprt è3ß.4(a) losterad·ófP¡;¡rt938.4(b).
TObeentitlE3qtqanexeJt\ptlpI1 ÅppeUant
I Was teql.liredtoshowto the,
Oommisslol1by"clearand corWincing ~VidéJ1Célhaldisclôsuréöf thé $óurCewillcause
'à· sUbstantial,1ikelihoøg of'hårn1,thr§ats.harªsSmentorrøprisalsto the$ourceior
indlvldu~lsorprope,rtyaffiliªtedwilhtl1ª$o.uróe,!!($38A(a}), App~llant êlaimed

entifl.emehtto .the 'éXempfi on bëca Usé disôlosute·öfthenames of .sourcésôf
conttibPtionsoverJ5,OOQ would"ca.use asubstàntlal likêUhoôQ Qf hªrm,threats J
harassment¡orteprísals .tc the 'Souree örÎndividúal$orpróp~rtYäffiliatedwith the

Source." (938.4(a)). Appellantalsoobjectea to the CommIssion's regulations having
changed the standardet proof required from"reasonable probability" to I'substantial

e
likelíhoddu,claiming tfíâf ffié' l1elgnfe nedstândârdTsJ'IfCertOf botrtas.à màftèroÎ

7
cOnstitutional law and public policyll (App. at2), and Appellant reserved Its rlghUo
chaHengethe rev!sedstandardon appeal, but that issue need not be.addressed In this
deelslon, which addresses only whether the GommJssion1sder'llalöftheexemption was
"clear[yerroneou$ in view 'of the evidence In the record (938.7{c)) .

,II
Appellantcontende:dthatltsactMtiesi ncontrover$k~$ andconfHcts that are
related to the exerclse.ór suppression! of cIvnUbertiessubjéct the organization, its staff,
and its memberslo harassmenfand InlÎmldalion,snd that disclosing personal
informatfonabout Its donors and supportersWöuldsübject those Individuals to risks of
harl11,fhreats, harassment, and reprisal tha.tàreboth unwarranted and unnecessary.
The EVidence ..
In support ApPellant's Application included the roUowlngevidence .Isummarlzed],
which AppeUantárgued showed overa periodfrorn 1999 through201.3 a"phenomenon
of retaliatory animus: toward the NYCLU [that] Is Inherent to the advocacy the
organization pursues. {App.at
II
6)
• After suing on be·halfof ç¡ groupç¡ffiHated with "the KuKluxKlahand
challengIng an ordInance that banned wearing masks In public, Appellant
receIved threats f,lnd harassment, and a st€lff member received

threatening phone oaUsat horns and was SubJected t.oanattempted home
InVasion that was stopped by poHce,
3
t Al1oppôalnggr6Uppùpllcry. annoí.lIîced~ffortsto target:a hig'h"ëlevel·official
.öf App~llélntl Wnooontfn Vällyre.ceives emaUsor letterstMataiethreatenln~

inoatufé.
• The sárôeqtflçia'¡,:lnq otherstaft members receivøChrlstmasgreetings
reViUrigAppe!'ªntand/insomeCas9$r.offering prayers for ffs demise.
• Ha.rassrñê.rit·Eilndthreat$ ·lo. App~írant'sqireçtots,slafffand· regi()nal
offlo.~s,incIL,ld¡ng..~.;cross~burnln~ threätsofdeathandphysicª(
I' assault;
picket¡ng~f o.ffi¢esan(jhömes~()n~ picket waived a signdenouooJng "thé
NYCLU,ahd )\CLUas "do,9s" änd Jews"

• Adèëlsion by the U,S,Oistrict .Cbu-lifortMe Southern Distridtof NeWYork
that leästfiveofthe NYQlU's~ppr{)xirtlalely40!OOO T)1ernbershå.ve
b$eM~upjeåtedte communltyhOstllítyåftår .fhetrt.issoCfaticm With [the

,NYCLUlhad become known.
I nás upplememta1 statèméntof 'faofstfne ApplfoëlfioOalsQ$et rorth)~ètåilsøf
eÍ/enlsWher~ AppeUant'saf'fíliçHee .around thec9untry ha.ci~een the victÎrnsOfthr(;)ats;
• rhr$â,tsbyEintí4~bbf.tióö åëtÏ\/ists,sqoha$beingUsted lhlheuNurernburg
.Rilè$uweb$ite; whiohvUifies reprodudive-tlghísadvooatês·asweHas
'health .carePtofês$íonål$ invorved In reprod trctlveservlces ra neofyrhom
W~~mUrderedih198S,
• A ·threáttoa .•high ranking:offidialof the !oWaaffHi;¡tte that.haclçqmmented
Oh, fªoial dJ~paritie~ in :mprlll,l.a.m~a.rrestsUjlê3et,yournastya$aout .oflowa
byJlJly:jst otendu pUke that ,parkIèl·inêanfórq Flodc;i a,that lsdead~ts

t
last Weaks rÔ.okand. roll· hill!
4
• A judge's200B ruHng In Oolcrado basedon threatening and harassIng
comrramlcatlene following the affiliate's chaUenge to police actio.hselzing
"rêc6fds Br sl fáx:plepaf8tiÓí1fWrñfö 1aèntTfYIrnaoéllmeFïJéa~Jrñmig-ràhtS

using fraudulent social security numbers, The ruling Was that the risk of
retaliation and harassment directed at fhe clients ofthe tax preparer Was
sogrest that they could proceed In the Il.tlgati.onas'anonymOLlS "John Doe"

plaintiffs,
• In response to advocacy promotIng LGBT rights theOklåhoma affiliate
receIved a hostlle rnuslc vídeo thatintercut pictures of activists with
Images of afire. With the video was a message that saId Inpart," .. I
Whenyou play wlfh firelyoll Will get burnecL~ '.. So be prepared to ds.fend
yourselves .for the actions you take. You can neve.rsay that you were
never wamed. lI
• In July2010a ByronWilHarns loaded hIs car with guns. and pody.armor
and hèadedforSan Franelsco with the Intention ofkHlingemployaes attne

offloes of Appellant's Northern California affiliate. He was apprehended by
police on the way there.
The Commission's Decision.
The Commissi.on denledthe Application by vote e·f¡five to three. The Majority's

fQur~paragraph decision states In Its first paragraph that Jt fs"set[tlngl forth raascns and
båses for the denIal of the appUcation'\ butafter two paragraphs describIng the statutory
and regulatory backgroundtheMa]ority merely concluded in its fourth paragraph that

.•
thE;}NYCLU sappJióatiøl1dld net présénlsUfficlentevidenee

í
demonstrating, that, the NYCLU'sconípliançè with the

di,sclosure reqUirements wouldcreÇltea 'substantial
Ilkelihqod' o·t harmto ¡teso urC€3S:ÔffUndIng (including
individUals and propertya$sooIatedwíththosesources),
Rather. theevidcence pr~~f?nteciwastoo remötearid
speculative to èstablish~l$ubstantiaî likelihood ,o,f harm.
In,d.issenf.the<MînoritypfôtésteçJthe JlÀajÖritY'$I'lç¡rrowinterpretation of thé
governing statytelatgufng thatthedt:1niorísfrªtiol1of'~~LlPsbil1tialnkenhood ôf,nam:C',as

requiredbytheMªIotity ,was Ilal'1impossible standard for ,anyapplicantto rn$é.t,íl
Th Q, A.p.peal..
ApPE3I1ant'aappealfrqrn. the CQmmi~slol'l'sdenlal 1§,df:ltedApril 24,2014._ The
rß.gulatröns pfovfdèth~ttliêreçord onåpPêa.I"shallcöosistoUheorig,inalapplication fQX
E?xernptiohtogetherwilh atiysupportingrnatetialsth;atwèresubmitted purs.uanl to Part
S3a,5,amltheCommission'sWritlen .penlr;¡I.,¡'(938.:7{b)). Tho$érrU:üerialsWèrê
receIved from the GommissÎollonJuné 30,2014.Ulldl?r the.teguJatlonslhisdègJsIQn
thay'\affirrn¡Î'Ewér§é or rérnandthªdeêÎslon .öf theComrnissiôn"·(93ª.i,(d),"'PlJtmà:y
reversé"onlyiT$uch ·Ôenial Is pleadyerrö.ned.us,ln view of theevldenoei,l'l the recqrd."
DISCLJSSI.QN
AäJhdi,catêa.bY,<lh$,foregaÎ,09¡·.thetaskofthê.JUd¡clª¡HeçlrrI1S'Öfficer,QnthJ~
a·ppe:alls,fo dªterrnine whether JhéComti1ÎssIön'sdéh ¡til ofanex,empliörttoApp~llat1t

wa$'Iç¡tearlyerrol'1eöus in vieW of Jhe~vldencè 'ihfhetécord." 'liA fioc;iingls, Icle,arl.y
erroneous' when altHöl.Jgh lhere is ~VÎgø.nëetö $J.lppörtit,thª revfêWiri9[bodYlonihe

,_ . . - 'c . -, ;- 0-",_
6.
entire evidence is left with the definite and ñrm conviction that a mistake has been
committed." Uniled States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U,S.364! 395 (1948),
Sincetnerewås no' ê'ildêfitIarytl"êârH1g'öéfôre tñeCo~mmiså¡6ii'a¡fa"srnêè' hÔ
opposing papera were sUbmltled, theörlly "evidence in the record" is what WSslncluded
in Appellantls wfittenApplic.ation to theCornmIssion. NoneöUhatevidence was
presented underoath t butas required by the Commission's applicatic;mforlTl,
Appellant's letter Application Included a declaratipn"íhat theiorormation oontained in
thJs appUcationis true1correct ßndcomplete fa the best of our knowledge antibalier, ti
(App.at. 7). Of course!sU of the Appellant's evidence Was hearsay, but the rules of
evidence do not .apply in thIs type ·of proceeding! ånd there has been nochaHenge to
any of the statementeand reports included In the application nor dôe$anythln-g-in-th-ose~

I
statements and reports Inherently suggest any question as to their reliabIlIty.
If the Application showed hy uclåarandcönvincing.evldencethat disclosure of the
Source will oauseâst1pstanfialprobabllity .ofharm¡ lhreats,hara$sment or reprisals!!!
the Commission was bound to .gr.à.nlthe exemption C'TheComrniasiotishaUgrant the
exemption" [938.4{a) emphasis addad]).The issue onappeat thus becomes:
Assuming that theevenlsandcircumstances described to Appellant's. Application
occurred as described, wasfhe Commission'sclenlalof the exemptionolearly
erroneous? Bècause disc:losurèöfdonors had not prevlduslybeenrequlred,it was

apparent,.to the Leglsléture in enacting thestafute,and tö the Commission In
prornuigating the, regulations, tha:t ßn.appllcantwould most likely be um~ble to present
evidence of actual harm, etc. to Us dOr\ors, Beoause donors'ldentJties had not been
prevlouslydlsclosed, such harmslm.ply would nol have occurred.
7
T¡'~regulations'ihôWèveri,prøvldøguidanceforpr]d9Jng thisapparenlgap., jhey
list five types of .evidence fnat. the COmmT§$lon Isjo~onsi~E!rwh§lfldetermihinQWnethfit
therequlredshqWingbfhêrmrß~ç~.liadbeª1í mJ:l¿I~,The:flrstthréeªJe;
'(i) Speöific.evkJen¢ê()fp$storptesen~ harm.

(il) Ths$6yerity.numberpf ifl.cid~ntsiaha duralionofpåst or present harmt
ang
(lIl) ·A pªtt~rnof threatspr'rnanlfeètatiol')s·pfp.\Jblichostllity,
,AlIthreeófthe~eJ hówevet,incllldeevicJehce of harm not only töar against the
uSollrcállli ..e,the,dqrrotlbutªlsö,rnoteQroadly, toprª,gainsllhe"QlTent. Fller'\.j,e .the
AppeUant.MoreO\lE!r,.the~h¡rdçate.gory.pªtternQfthteªtsormánifestaliot'1$ôfPUbHc
" . _."_. o"· -_. , •
ho~t¡lityrÎsfurtherbroêd~l1~dtoinorude ~~s,the'targets "índividualsorprópertyaffiUated
with theSqurce(s,) pröHent .Filer." ,(etnphªsisßdcjeq).

A Ternure to oo,nsider ªt1d 'follow these tegulafioP§Wöuldrnt=lkatbe Qómrnissloñ's
denJplucl~ªrly~rróneQlJs"tpartiçulªrlyitiligbtofthe Í"í3gulatiohs'. 'mandatory regl1lrem.ènt
thatthê eX~h1l'tioh "sfiall"be,graùted uponJhedescrlbË;lgshowing ..

.AnalyzecllniliShtQf tneab9ve co nsiºêratl()ns,thed.~cjs ionoftbe,CÇ>mmissiol'l' ts,
inçi.eecLcleéuly êrrÖneOU$~ "The evidence ¡nthe r~cordis describêdab.ove.in
.a)bbreviated fontI.The. AppUcatiqn Itself provicjessi~nifjcßntlymoted et~mandadditional
e~é1mples.8uteVenÎn the 8l:>preyltil,tedform' itlsc;learthatAppeltänt ptov¡~ed"$pecific
evidêncel'. 'of mah.ya.hä.severeinctdents extendlngqverßPeriodof years thatshpwa
"pªUernofthreats'[,âhtf'iman.if~$tªtionsóf ,pl.JbHcnp~t!liW"tof\pp~Jlant ~ndit$ affiliates
'becalJseofthelt?d.voClaçYfÇlr c()nstitll~i()nal tIghts, ThJs I.1l1contrOvertedand
unchâllenged evidehc.efüllysatisfi.es therequirerT1.ent~.ºTPartsCl)!(Jl)! .(iil),filnd(iV]Qf

,,'
Part <938.4ofthe Commission's regulation$and, when evaluated realistically. the
evidence In the record shows thai there was lIasubstantiallikelihoodof harm, threats,
harässménlJähdI reprisâls'tlo the "OllentFtler" TAp'p'elláñt]ånd tdUindTviâüaTàTåhdl"'=~'c= .
propertyaffilîafed wlth the, . ,OlientFllef". The Commission's frndingsthat the
Application ttdid not present sufficient evldënœ" and that lithe evIdence presented was
too remoteàndspeculative" were clearly erroneous. The exemption must begranteé],
An exemption forqualifled donors to the AppeHantls conelstent with the Intent of

the LegfsJatureIn enacti'ng the Lobbying Act which proclaimed.:
t
This dlsclesureshall not require d.ísclosureofthe

sourcesoffundingwhose disclosuretlnthedeterrnination of
the commissIon based upon a review of the relevant facts
presented by the repórtingJobbylst¡ mayoausEl harm,lhreats¡
baraærræntor reprisals to thesouroeortolndlVIdualsor
prope.rtyaffillaled withthe source. ~lobbyíng Acl§ 1~h(o)).
As poInted out In theAppellant'sappHcation j the sponsors of the legIslation stated that
civil rights and clvH libertIes organizationstamon~¡others¡'lareexpeeted to quaUfy for
:s.uchan exemptlen In the Jolnt .commIssIon's regulaUons".,and ¡¡organizatIons whose
primary activities focus on the question of abortion rights, family planning,dIsorirninatlón
orperseoutlonbased upon race.¡ethnicity, gender, sexual oNentation,or religion,
immigrant rIghtsland the ri.ghtso.f eertaincrirnlnal defendants are expected to be
covered by suchan ex.ªrnption/' '(Appat 2).
Moreever, an exemption to Appellant gives proper defereneefo thé constitutional
requirement to protect the First Amendment rightsofciUzens to express their views on
conírcverslal Issues by providlngfinahclalsupport toorgahlzalions that further their

favered causes.
CO NCl.USI0N
Thedecisionappéafed frémis cleârl~{.~rronèousand thèreför~ reversed,
;: t~··.'fL
.lYLx:..
¿''yJzL,>( .)",( ti· .
20.14 /(jeørg\'(G..pratt
JI.JCJicia·' HéariKg.Off.ider
10
ExhibitB:
April24, 2014 Letter from the New York Civil Liberties Union
NeW ,(ÖRKPIVIl.lla sHTI£SUf'HO N
AP1'U241
RobCoheJi
Special COUrl,sel8cDirectöto£EthiqsflnclLobbying COlnpnal1,ó~
New Y:orlc$ta-te ¡alpt CQtPl'llission ou Pllb1îç E.thiós
540·Broaclway .
Albmly) N.Y.12201
:tvir,GQlwn:
TheNew YÇ>rkGivl1 ÎAbediestJniQ~l X"NYCLU")writëstÓàppeal thedecisiQubytheJoÎl);t
00m111i3Sion Ol1P\ibUcEthics(HJ COPElIor '¡theCOlUl111Ssi011h) to deny theNYCUJ's.appliqá\tíQp
fOí'áuëxe~1tPtiQl1 frolllJCQPE's Soutée Qf Fl1lldil1gRepQrtio.gRequire~lents~ Föl111dëd in 1951}
the}JYCLUis ~ not ..fo~"pr()ñt, nonpartis~notganrzatiol1 with eight chaptersaudappro:úll1~üely
50.,000 l1wmbers .acrQss N eW¥Qrk Stat~. 'l'he NY CLU'smissiofl is todefeild arrdpt2mQte the
fundamental principles and values eluÙodiëdlnthe.Bflr of Rights, the US.COl1stitutiOl1,ålld.the
New York Constifutioil,ino1uÔingfreego1l1of spèechal1d l'ellgiort~the rightto pdvaèy, and
equali tyand due proO.ess of1aw fora!! New ¥orlcers ..Members of the' NYCLtJ~taffare tegistét'ed
löbbyistspurS\lant to NewYork' sLo11byAdalldthè mOLD reports to rCaPE ...uJobbyh¡.g
l'c1lent;l,2 ThëN¥OLUis teqüired tosubtUitB.e1l1hal1l1uallobbyingrep0l1s to .JCOPE .twlce
álliluallY,ollJal1\,l.a(y 15allc1 July 15 eaCh.yeár.p TheNYCLD also filesbi~niOl1thly lobbying
l'ePQ.rtsto JCOPEcsiKtiuwsª, year, .
h12ö13;JÇOPE prömu1gatedaregt11,attól} teql.1iring. organizations 'töreportinfofmattol1fegarcting
their frnauëial·donol's, ·ill0hldulgpersonal iUlopnatiol1 abgut mdividual· donors. The NYCLU
submitted .sevél'alapplièatiolls f()rru1ex.~1TIptiOilfrol11rOOPE's •.SourceofFundingdisplosure
tetj.tütements,4 TheNYCLUwa~notifieG1 i11writingoll Apri14,. .2014,that its aJ,1plicaflQnfQ~'al1
eo:el'nptipg had been. rej Gctedbyth~0ó1U1JJ.t8~kt),,~
.TheN¥CLUappeàls the determînàtÎöl'l Ulat it didrtotSllQcesswlly de1l1Qnstratethatdisclos11reo£

personal informatiollabout itsdonots w()1l1d'Ptysen.t'â'.~sl1.bstal1tiallikelihooæ'that thosedQ1101~
WQutd ,beS1.1bjeot töh~rasS1Uent tlw ~CLtr? ~ten pageapp1ication to theCol1unissiOll inclucloft
In\,t1tiplespeèific~ rëcente;ütrnples ofl'rYCLUstaffaüd:111êmhersbeing targeted fo~' thl'e~ts and
viQlel1ce -irlCludmg.attempted home invasio11S, slashed tires~.·.crossesbul11ed üll.ftoût.1aWll,s,'t11e
words'~F"-: uAQLUH and "die fag'lpainted Q11(larS,altdr~peateddeathtbreats. The.factUtllrecord
S$t Ol1tirtthe NYCLU'sa¡;n;ilicåtion delnonstratesthatthfjpatterrt ofthrea.tsand haraSSnlyl1t
,t H.1ît, Leg, LaW l-á¡ et.seq,

2 ¡S'?e
' N.,Leg.aw~ -J<'
'y··.~" ·L· ··;1 '(4)
s SeeN.Y, Leg¡ Láw~H(4),;N,1;~~g .•:La;wª§ !-j(al,\bj.
4 See 19 N'y.C,R.R.S 938 '4(b),. . . .
1
reflects ovett hostititytoward the meLD's advooacyoll.1SS11eS ,of civfl rights and civil liberties,
These faots~hlÖ Íl,1âke ôleà¡' that haràss111en,t aüd violem.øed.il'ecteèlat fl1estàÎfál1dll1èltfb~rs orthe
NYCLU wQ1.l1dalsohe directed at the organization IS f1l1ànc1aldonol'si£the State .reguin~s
p1.fbHoation of their personal infopl1aUo11,
Môreovel');there arereaæns to believe that the CÖlntl'irssion"srejection oftlteNYCLU's tèq1.1.est

for à11 exempti.ol1 didnotrest 1¡pOnail1èàlûngft¡1 diSOUéJsfoll0"rthe luetits brthe NYCCLPs
appt{oa,t1ot)..or thèpotentiat threat l'Clsec1to the NY0LD'sdOll01'S. TIllscop.ç¡lusion is SlJI).potted
both bY~\11eX-atnil1át1011 orthe t'ecol'dsofth~[COPE m.eetfngs.ilnd 'bythestatemel1tsof nløll1bef's
whodisse11ted frott), the denialorthe NYCttr il applioation, 'In short,l'COPE's
of~1.e COl,l1.l11ilils:ion
.denial o.f anexemptiol1 was clearly en'011eou3,.and shou1dhe.reversed ól'l.appeal in the 1tlterest ¡yf
)?11lfectlng thepersóllálsafety a~1.d.coltstltutionaldghts of theNYCLXJls :fiúallêlal suppöttets,mic1
In thé interest oftttdi111el1taryeonsic1eratiœ1 of fair precesses,
A. Background
New York's Lehby Abt reqüil'es otganizatiot1S sl~bJeétto tt1gtllatrO~lby reOPE to report
h1.fo¡l1JÆLtiol'). Oll who 0ontr.ibute1:1.1Öl'e.than $5,000 to snch'orgal1izatiQl1:s (regardle.ss of
whøUler the fuuds aotually'qsed fôrlobbYlng) ifthe o1'ganlzatfon has made lobbying
expenditures that exceed a cextELlntbreshold an101,1i1t.5 JCOPEhas promulgated asedesof"Source
ofF'U11ding" regulations, ptu·sua.nt to this statutory reqUtl'emellt.6 While the Lobby Act requites
oi'gålùzatiOllS to report the llames of Single S.outcedoi1ol's (organizations or individuals who have
contributed 111öte than $S,000 tö the· órgå.i!.ita1:Lö~1),7 JCOPW s regulations requite filing è11tities 'to
sl,lpply additional petsönallnfor.i11atloll about supporters - includ1tlgbusil1ess addresses
and dates. of oontrIbutions, 8
On January 9~2013" JCQPE issued a Notice of Emergeilcy Adoption and Revised Rl.ùe Malting
regarding the new Source or Ftmding reporting req1.l1:rements. The propoßed regulations went into
effect immediately issued,six days before the J aitnaty 1:5fi1ingdeadliue. Consistent with the
stahtte, the tèglilatiollS pe1'l11.itteda 501(0)(4) orgamzation to
1,.U1de1'lyi~1g an exe111ptiollTI:01U
reportil1g donors' personal information if tlle organization showed that Hs "primaryaotivities
involve areas ofpub1iè COl1çer~l that éteate.e. ~r,tb.stäntiállike#hóod" that complying with the
reportlng requirements (wi11 cause harm) tl11'eats,harassment or reprisals tö theSirtgle Source(s) ot
Ç
individuals 01' propetiy affiliated with the Single SOlll'Oe(s):,,9 mOLU submitted COl1:uneints
that raised Et fitl1nbet of cOllstitt~t!ol1al 00110e1'.:18 with the Sing1e Sautere bisclosute re:gulatiOl1s Q11
February 8)2.013. The NYCLUis comments are included as Exhibit o.
Oli.Apdl.30, 2013" the JCOPE Commissioners mèt and subsequentlyannouncedt'evisiol1S

(effective immediately) to the substantive standard used to grant exe111ptiol1s the Source of
SN.Y. Legis, Låw § 1~J(4),

ú 1.9 N.¥ •.c.R.JR.;.9:Ü~et seq.
7 N.Y,.L<Ygis. LåWi§.X~(4J.
819 N.Y,C.R.R. 938.3(e).
919N.Y.C.R.R. 938.4(0) (Jatt. 9~2;013.),
Funding disclosure l'equirën1ênts.19 Speqiñè~lly) the new regühttioll peri11ittede)(el'Hptlolls to be,
granted if oxganízations demoÏ1stratedaHrêCl$QtmbleproDaóility'! that sharing personal
info:t111:atión abOlltdonors would cCíuse'¡ha1111,Um~'ats,
haraSSlUentOJ:reprisals" to the dönors, 11
The NYCLU $tlbi'ülttécÎan application for èj(ell.1,ptionn'ol11 the Source of F-u.ndingreporthl,g-

requirements ort July lQ, 2013, Tl1e five-pageappItcatiol1C(,Httained t1;li.lltlpJeexSlr.tplesofaêtsôf
haràss1Uel~tanclpr()pertyda1nageat the hOl11éSándQfficesof NYCLUstaffand NYCLUmemb etS
across the state. 011Nly24, 2013, the NYCLU suppleü1èutéq itsapplic:ationwithadditional
evid~nçe ofthreatsagåinst othei'NYCLU sta,ffamlagainsfstaf{ at ACLU affiliates acrQsß the
CO~lt1tr,y.Thel'egulatiolls¡àS. they existed at the tune of theNYCLU's iuitialfiling, teqllii.'ed th£tt
anymate1'Îals submitted i118ulJ1jortof anëx.eroptionJrom the SourceofFundjP,'g r¢gllÎ.l'emellt~
c'shall'\QekeptcOltfidentia.lbY JeQPE.n
. - -".
. . .
On October 23 ~20B~ JCÖPE issuedal)otherJ{ot1ceofEl11ergency AÔQptiol1 andPropösed R1.lle

Regll1ations.13• The tegulation,agail1,' changed the ~taüclar.d by
Maldngfo:¡; th~ Source oe. F1,i.l1Ç!jl1g
which JCQJ?J3 would dete11uinewhethëtto gtâllt exëfi1ptiöns~l'evetting back to thel;~qliirenlent
thatorgà111zatiöllsdem.Oltstrate ~ <'sztbstantiallilœliho()çf' th~tdisclosure would resul] in threat.s to
ô011ors.14 .The l1ewtegulanonsalsöeHminated the provision that required JCOPE to maintain the
confidYl1tiá1ity of the colif@lltsof applications fOJ;~](e11j.pfions.15The regulations Were,011öe ~gaÍll~
effectiVe l11l1uec1iátely. T!teNYCLU waslnfQT111edofthe in111,unè¡ltcharrge on Octobel'ft,2Ö13t
ånd Wåsl'equÎ1'ed.tO re~SUP1l1itîtsàpplicaHOJl"'àlong with ally proposed redactions tQPr:otectthe
cOltfid¢utiaHtyöfpepple tnent1öned· in theapplicatlol1,wft1ùn sixtlays. fu light orthefa9t th~ltthe
NYCtUhâcl to folloW 'L~pwith ACLUaffiliates atö1111dtl1.eç;Qlmtl'y In Qrcleito oPtaiu'åpptoVaJ, fOl;
making public the.pèl·s6nal stories ofharassment,theNYCLU was giyep, á1.1extensiön toÎik an'
amenQedapPlioatíol1. TlwNyctU subnúttecUts revisedapplicaHon on October 29,201,3.1'h0'
tevÍsed applicatiönl11.cllldeda requesftOredadcêrtal11l:lß,flleSand other perllollal information
apo:ut the iTYOLUandAGtUstaffprofUed in the application., .
Thy NYCLUwas next QQl'ltacted by JCOPE 0l1'NQVel\lhet:27,2013 anç1 info:tlltëd thatits reqilèS;t
to redact names alld petsol1ál infommtionsubmitted 111support onts èxemptiQllappllcation had
byen reJected by theCÖlninission.The NYCLUWas required tore-SJJb11lJt itsäpp1icatioüwithiti
rOllf business days, Íllèludi11g the Thün1csgi vUig l1Qlidªy~this thp.è,Witlla llGlWcov~rsheet creàteçt
by JCOPE,and with the ul1derstalld:tng thata11:Y111fitedals sübmittec1 in, support of !h~NYCLU,' s
appllcatlönwould be li1ade publicly available, The NYCLU submitted itsrevisedapplicafion on
10 Se~Joint C011ii1ïi&SÎon' ilRévisions to the SQurc¢ ofEJlP,di~lg R\'lgul~tions and Rl')port\lbl~ Busi11ess
R\lhtti011ship D~sclosül'e GuideliIiès (M,ay2013), aw.t¡Z4bl~Ltt ' . '. .. ..
wwwijçöpe,ny,göv/pJ.lbsfèblas~'May%2020130/020RB.R%20%40S0F%2ÖEBLAST%2ÖBtNAL.péÍf.
II 19M. ViC.RiR. 938A(b) (Apl'il30íZÚ 13), With this apWIlôlTIènt tgthe staúdard for gr<\l1tmgtU\exèlTIption
l'rQ1llthe l'equir(jlhènt to disclose donor informa,tioll, the Cöúlmissióü adopted the stal1dátdprescrlbedby t1\étJ.S.
SllpreJùeCom"t. Bee e.g.,ctttzens Un-iteçl v.F(:{J..ElecllónCornm'n, 558 U.S.310,3ó7 (2010) (<ias-applied¿hal1enges
l.
[ate] available if a group coùld'show a, reasol1able p¡'Q&åbility that disclosure of its cöutribUtOl'S' ¡laineS wi11su¡'ject
them tothreats¡harassm.eh\, orrePtisals fron:~ either Goveuul1ellt officiaIs pl: prlVí:tte partie.s"; (iuter11al quóíad1,lh
mades otnitted)
12 '.'
(qllotlngBl,lCkley
.'
v. .'.Và1e.o,
.. .
424. U.S.l,
. .'.
74 (1976)).
.
19 N.Y,C.R.R.938,4(b) (Apd130,20 13).
!~l'ropósedAtne.ndedSoutce of FUllçling R~gulationsNow inEffect (Qct.20 13e~blÇlst), ctyallqblé at
www.jcop4e.~y,gOY/pubHc/2013/eblastSOFreVis~d.pdf. . .
19 NX.C,R.R. 938.4(b) (Oct. 23, 2Q1'3),
15
19 N.Y.C.R.R. 9~.ß.8(Oct. 23,2013).
.3
December 3.>2013 CQPy of this verslo:11of the NYCLU's application, whIch is th¡;}version
c011sidered by JGOPE, is attached as Exhibit. A.
On Jà11uary .Z8J 2014, theCOlnrnissioll voted tö deny the NYCLI}ls aJ?plicatiol1 Îoran exel11ptiøll
from tlw Source oí Funôillgdisólosure requ.irements. Oli April 4,. 2Q14}tlle NYCLU têcelvëd :a
written denial oftts!îPpUcatiolt.. ACQPy ofthë denial isa:ttáche(lasE~hibií B.
Pu.l'St~antto 19 N.Y.C.R,.:R,. 938.6, theNYCLU hi;}rewithappeals rCOPE;s· denial orits eXëiTIption

fro111 the SOtll'çe ofFtU1ding repottingre:qüiremellts. The standardföneview 011 appealls whether
the Commission'8 del1ÎaIwas ncleadyei1'01~eoüs In view of the evidence Ul the xecQrd,lll(Í
B. The NYCLU demonstrated a substal1H~lllikelihood that public disclosure.of peJ:<souill

information about ihc'NYCLU's filtancialsl,tppOl:t(;}ts will J'esult In thl'eats,.
harassment und po.sslbly vföÏence. .
The evidence submitted by the in süp:port of itsexemptloll application demoL1strates that

whel1 the names and addl'ess.es.ofthe NYCLU's memOers· are milde public they have episodically
becol11e the tm'gets ofharassl'l1el1t aml threats of ViQleí1ce.17 Inclividuals associating with the
NYCLU have been stalked at thelr homes and threatened with. physical hal'i11; thèit' property has
been vandalized.IS: ocotu'ted not only to those åSsdclated with the NYCLI), but also tö
ACLU members and employees tlu'o\~ghout the country. These disturbing
as warralit protection against their teobcuttel1.ce.
This record further del1l011strates there a "s:Llbstantiat lücelihood,j that if the identities of those
who final1cialIy support theNYCLUls work were disclosed, they would face similar treatment
The Comniisslon's rejection of the NYCLU's appliCàtion àn ex.ènlptiol1 frOlu the SÓtll'Ce of
Funding disclosurë l'uIes is based '!-1pOll a pël'functóry aud OOlldlusol'yassert10il that the evidence
pJ:esl?l1tedby the meLD h'l,support Qfits application was Htoo remote and speculative t9 establish
a sub$Juntiallikeli11oocl t:rfharl11.~~l9111
support pf its conclusion, COl1l1nÍssiol\ ofrered.llo
of the legal standard as applied to the facts. And for these reasons the C011l1'nission's
nùin,g l'egarding the NYCLU's app1iöatiöll is i:mdU11stlpportable,
The.. .. .. COt~rthås consistently l·ecogn:ized. thatcolnpèlled disclosure .of inforLltatiollabout

.tl?efinmtcial suppoxtel'sol'orga111zatlOl1í1¡'call seriously I11fri11geon privacy of association and
beliefgual'ànteedbytheFirstA:tlWl1dLl1ellt",29 TIle COLitt has aecol'ditlglylleld that the COl1stilt1:tioll
19 N.Y.C.R,I{,:938.7(c,1 (asofA,pd124, JCOPBhas .ßnb.s~qw;)nt1ypl'o11'lXtlgateda1.1othél'¢JUèrgeÚ¢y

.tegulatio'tl.,effectiveinunediatélYl that eHn'lÍ11I\testhe appear deltla1s .öf s.Q~h·óeö.f'FûnilillgeXet'rl.pHQns$o\ignt
by SOl (ê)(4J o~ganiz.at¡ol1s. See 43 il'! ,y, Reg. 8-9 (Jan.20 14) (JPE ..43.13~OOO~n..E}(addi~lg l'atC93 8,(5(fi) to Title
19 N,,¥,C.R,R.). CÖlnmissiouel'shavesfi;ited thaHney tio not hítel1d thé rell1ovalofthetlght .appeal toappl)i
HÅ·ett'oactiveit' tQ ötgat1izado!1l3 that Weïlil denledeKelhj;ltf011fiMameefhtg .of.TCOPE.\lO!l'l¡lûssicm.el'squ;:T~llma¡:yZaj
Z014. Set; VideooftheFeb.18.2014 COU1llûssionMeetirtg (availqole tIt . ..• . . . .. •
http://H1ww.fcope, ¡i¡J1,gov!j?Jlbltc!illeócClstI2tl1402[8. ,:tC.OJ?E.wmv). The, NYCLUS\lPmits thisappeaHnJ'6!i¡¡nce..pn that
assertion.
... 11.$ee mOLU Request ror eXel11ptionfl'om thecHs.oln$ure tec¡u.iten1ents.ln thel'evlseé1soltl'C.é-Df"funding
tegulat¡óns.adopted !:>ythß; JoInt GommiasiO.l,l on :publio Ethics, (Deo.3¡2Q 13) ("ExhibitA!») at S..10,
lliU .
nI JCOPEDenfalófNYCLU SöuvceofFmtcl.trtg Disclosure Requi~(}metJJsltApri14,M¡4) ('(Exhibit 13'1) lü 2,
20 J)t¡olcleY1A Vclleo¡ 424u.s., 1,64 (1975),
4
r¢q\llreS that orgatlizät1011Sll1J_î$tpe.grant~d exemptipus·frol11¢ompelleûdisclo$1.lresoftheir
membets iithe organizationean demonstrate a Hreasonablepl'obabHity"tliat thefQxéed disolosure
of theit ç1Qr¡ol'Sot11leP1bers wHl¡'subject them to tl1reats,lwrª¡;Slnel1t, pr reprisals from either
,Gqve1111nentofficials qrptivatepatties,,,2L Tlw CQUlt has l1oteclthatorgatliz~tions ll1kl$t ?~
affQrèle~~'sllffi9iel1tflexibí1fty'1 ill the evidence thattlwyarel1erl11itteclto §uhgiittQdel110rtstrate~
lilcelîhQQd ofil1jWy.22 Tl1e.ptil1.ciple lUl<ltJrlying fheseéasesisclea,r: t10PoÔys!lOllfdhe required tö
pT~bliçlydisclose their affiliation with!:l, CQuu:oyel'¡)Ïalorganization if it wlllres\.l1tÜi.physical or
1l1èl1taI hål1n. .
The Lopby Act,JQÖPE'·sel1abling $tàtut~i·stateslltatS.öùrcë ofFul1dil'i.g disc1östtresHshall~lot

apply tQÍlregÍstered50 1(c)(4) Qrgani:?iatións wh~re:
tThe (c)(4).otgamzatlon's] .l?l'hllaryactivltiès ·èonÔe¡n >ally area 'of

l1ub1io öouçerndetenniliedbythecom1111ssioiltocreateaSl,tbstulltíàl
likelihood tha,t 4Pp!ic~JiQtl of thisdisclQsuteJ¢quirem~l1t would lead ,to
hann, ..•threats! .hatass11.1ent;•.ol'xeprisals. to .asQUl·ce9f fl,PJ,ditrg,or ,to
b:ldividtHtlsotpropel~y .affiliated witltslJcl1&oul'ce,includil1gbJltnoi:
Ihrtiteçl tQ théa.œa of ciyil rights .ànd .dvilUlwrtie~alld,.anyoth.et
ar~ä .Qf.lrulJllcc()nc~mpeterntirled '. p ursuant .to. ;:egllhltlolls
promulgated by .the ..connni,ssioIl: to forma/proper .basis fo:l'
exemptiQnön.tltis basis from this disclosUl·e:tequJ.rement}3
thesta.tuh~'sl~gl$lativehi$tóry fqrther says that!

Tb,ebillexpre$slyidentifießtheareåof"civi1 rights alldcivi11iherties"
es ..Ol1eateainwlÜç;h örgallizatiq¡1saJ:e i~xl'eºtedto qualify f01"81101,1.a11
exetnpti(mintl.1~ Joint C()líU~is.siön'8 regulatiön.s. À,llJJ)llgofher issues
illsluded.bl.t!lisarªa;QJ~gft~l~ªtiôlMwh.ose.pl'lª~aty.·actiYitie.s foetts
.önthe qttestlotlOLaOottiPt1tjg!J,ts,famlly. plan.l1ingíc1i~.ël'iml~átiQn
orp~rJ¡.eêll.tiQn ...bJl.S.edllPoll ..l"ace,eOlllicity~ gend er~seXÍlal
orie11tàtIon. Qi'tleUgiou,illlJ;U1g1'Mltti.ghts) Rucl;therJghtsJ)fc edam
çdn1Îl1al.defen~lants ·are ·e~pegtedtob.e.cöyeredby sllch .an
.exeïv.pt~(ùl,!21·' .
Bvetyqay,theNY'CLUêltgägeS<Íil actívitiêà ÏôadVoQateöllbehalf olinaividuà1sand COll1P1t111iHes

;aorqssNew York State. In thedaJly pllrsuit oiHs mission,theN,YOLUs.eekstopl'Qhibit
discd1111natiQJlo11 t)1í;l.hasisof racetge~lder,se::umlorientatión! etl11ùcity~or gender e,xl1r~ssiofl;
il 13rôwnet4t.v,$oqiªlW91'Îçers'J J74CantpCiigtrCom1tlltte~) 459U.s. 87,9? (1982); seê,(!lsOj Çitit.ØI.1ß

,VnilecJv,F,KC." '13Q $,Ct,876, 9J4(2Q10), The NYCLtT maintains 1.tsQbjectio.i1,l1Qtedit1its eJCemptionapp1iqåtib~
·(o.theevldelltiary¡¡ täl1dªrd being emI?Ioy¡¡d by'the CoU¥Uissioners i114ete.rll~ining whether örgan.izatiol}s I1ß:V({
demonstëatecl thatQ.isclosl.ltes wiltresll1t in harw to theitdollbtl>. TheS\1pl'ellle. CoUrt.ha$YOllsistel,1tlystated th~ttlte
apP~QPxiªtes.téll1darclis Whêtherórgaruzati<)l}S C,all .d~t11onstratea "reasonábleptooabilityHthat disclosure Wil11'e~u.lt,i1l
hamJ.JCOPE's requir~l'nen~ that applicants Qtjll1,onstn\tea"ªí.lbstahtÍal HkeHlJ,Oocl"of harl11,sdeviateSÍmpermissibly
frmn tlleconstirotióllallyrectuired standard.
,22SQtialis(.Work(!i's,459 n,S.!\t9J.
'23N'y¡ Leg, La~,n-j(c)(4)(fi) (emphasis added),
'242011 NYS LegislativeBil1ând V~to Jaçket~,S:5679, L2Ó 11¡ch SW9,at 10~2QnJ.tën1p1tas¡sacI4~d)1
5
expallcl rights for noñ-cítízens; to reform the criminel [ustice systemand\whold theCOtlstitutional
protecti011s for those impacted bythec1'Î11linaljnstîce system; andte safeguard the free speech
rights of all New Yorkers, i,llCluding thøae whose message the l11aJority cloesllot agree w.i.th~and
tbose.perceivsd to have a dil1:i:Înished rigl1Ho speak. The contest :ove1'the exercise of civildghts
and ôiví11íbel'tiès'óft.eli pltsthéii1teré'8tånfciiil'ndiVidíiaf 01' ß,111i1ióiitygrOHpagailist 'âfctrnlöt'é
powetñl1 majority.
It IS tl1.erefol'e :l1Qt sttrprlsing thEl,tthe NYCLU's work f1:egttetttlybecoll1es a 1Uattel'ofcontl'oversy

thatal'Otlses strong feelhlgs tl.1110l1g111embel'sof tlle publiq1alld ocoasîollallYl'esults .t1treatsto
;peopleaffiliated with the organization. Inst~ppott of its appliôatiol'l, forän 'exßfltption fl'Onl the
JC01?E8out'ce of Funding discloS1,u:e&~theNYCLDsubmittecla teupagedOQt11nelltwhiolt
l11clWled extens ive. exall1ples: of sp.eoifio aots ofhar.aSSll'lentand violelloe dh'ectedat NYCLUstaff
111e111bers,.anc1at persollsassociated wît11.ACLUafft11ates..Çtl'otlml the country. The evidenee
submitted by the 'NYC:LU dß1ilon~tr.atedthat wnencexta111 indivi.dttals Id.10W where to find people
affiliat.ed with the NYCLU, those individuals narass&1ld t1treatel'),. peôl:)leaffi1iated \Viththe
NYCLU.
'YV11enaggressivear.e ;dixecteda.gainst.indívidtlals assooiated wltll theNYCtU S'Llcl1.aets OCC·LLr

because of thec.anfl'QvetsÎ.al íssues wlthwhich the NYCLU IS Î1wolved. ~Il.lggest.that those who
haveintellSeatlÎ111us against the'NYCLU willaeterr that.anlmustowttrds eluployeêSand.lUe11lb.ets
orthe NYCLU (lOOPE ûQesnot .. '.. .' .êhal1~11geth~ fLîct1.ml xecotd submiitecthy the
NYGt1]) but willnotact on that an'ùl1llS {;\gaillstt11eNYCLU'sfinartcialùQnors Is simply to
ig;ome the reality as Dût in the factual:recí:ml NYCLUsu,bmf:ttcd to tl)eCcll1u:nissioll. The
C01tllllisslon wouldseel'l1jo require.adem:oXls:ttatfonnfpast hån¡a 1e theNYCLUlsdQl10rS betoTe
grantirlg the orgatùzatioll all exemption frotll theSoul'ceof Fum:lillg disclosure nÜe. .the
NYCLU hasneverpub1ished the persönal information ·ofits dQnorsoutofthe '. . ê011èet11that
led the Legislattu'e tOl'equiret\l1 exe111ptionftom sClohadísclQStUtê teq'tlÎ1'ël1lêl:1t:to wotüd
place those1.ndiviclc¡alsø,t :ds1«:rfha;¡;l.n} ,a,1,1;d
tl;l,at tmeat ofharl'l1: wcrnldnot only
Jeopatdiz¢t11e sa:fetyo.fthese 1l1dividuals'b1.1t WOlltet
l;ights pfassociatfol1 and
Following ai'ëexatttpies Qf tl1l'eå.ts mIDhnrasS1nent dIrected.atlndividualsassodatec1 with the

NYCLU. Ù10idetlts .appear~ wifhftlrtl1érèolltext Md detaU, in the meLU's
appIicatiolltoXGOPE. se~kil1g Ætl'l, :t'l'Olnthetlisc1osure.,re.quil,'ements.
• AhNYCLUstÇtffl11emoer il1volved ..acase defeltding fije Khl~.Klai1>s .. .speech

l'ights :reQeived 111ultiple threatel1.11?cgoal1s a:t theirho11l¢,was 11,a1'assed withrhtgl11giloor-
beUsall hottts ..orthe .11ight,.and ultimately had fheir a)?mtm:el1tbt111&inghrokehlnto
attemptedhöme invasiol1. Theapart111ent huitdingand NYCLUoffice bt1i1dil:1gwe:te
.iSubsequcl1tlyreq,\.lir.edto båre 24-11otu'secmity tOlj'rotecethestaff~netl1,beran.cl othel'
inllåbitants'ùftbe b1.1ildi.ngs.
• Al'lNYCLUcUenthad a cl'Ossbürned 011 their ftol1tlawl1) .aft(¡);t' spealdngpubliclYå.bö1.1t
their llltél1ttö l10Stanevellt rör LGBTteenagets at their YO\lth cellter.
II Ah meLD member whollad been.å vocal Øl'JpOl1élWóf-an ötdina1tce to balt laW$lg¡rs had
thejrcal' tires deflated, and had the plu'ase$¡¡P~.,wu AClLU') ,allel Hdiefagl' painted on their
oar while it wasl'adced in their fl:orlt dtivewa.y.
6
i NYCLUÇhaptel' Offices ar01.!u<ithEl$tafe .ami theNYCLU tnainoffice ín Manllattail have
,recèivedhol'nb EUldc1eaththreats. .
,NMCLD. staf'ftnel'lib¢tshave beeil forced to remove thèir' names ftoln their tilailböxøSàl1d
reglJest.temovaL frômthephpue booktoávoid harassment at their homes, .
In adélitiçmt.o acts ôfharasS1Ue1'ltalld violèl1ceagatust NYÖLUstarf melnp(}rS,the NY Ct;gàls.ö

stibl11ittedspèdficil1cídel1ts ofthl'eátl'Jtö $tafffJ,t othei'AC:¡:.;Uaffiliàtes MtosS the êO\1p.try.The
evideucei11t~l11d:èdexamples öfhorrîb threatsalldactual bOl11bíng'attel:l1pts)l'egúlarhal'assYn,ent, ~Uicl
.eV(¡lnthè assertion that $ta£f would "ellcLüp like that badcie.iúSa11ford, .FlQrida,that is dead as last
weeks rock M:dl'öl1hlt.;¡25,
JOOPEi S.Source ófFv¡1ding regtllatiohsart:JnQvêta~d the meLU has ueverbefore be(311

téquired to ,publicly share êxtéllsiyè persol1al ùifo1111ationa.boutltsÎillalwiaISl,lpporters. It is
therefore itl1l'0sE)ible fot'the NYCLUiosl,Jonutevidènce that its ±1nanc1alsupportel'sha,)f¢beèU thÇ'i
targetor sifnilaJhatas~rrtènt, Wlte1J.theil'pët$Qilal Î1l'fotlJJ.ationan.dmeLD affiHationhave not
1Jeelimadepuolic,'FIowever) th~evicl~llçeSl,lbmitted by theNYQL1J deadY demons~ates thatif
~heï'eis publict1isc1osureofperSOl)S wl10;f1,mdthe NYeLD's wor1c,:1tis likely that haras~~nei1tQj!
thl'eats will bedireqted, atsQtl1~ point, tomièot more of the ftul,ders.
. ' . .
e,'TheComnûs$iön failed to ntèà~ûJJ,gfullycol1.sidet·.the NYCLtJ'sapplicatl.Oll fO),'an,

eXël'llptiQll {ramille Source of Fm1.din,g dlsclosureprovisiol1S.
It is difficult fot theNYCLUto respo\).dto t1:mCotn11lisslop'g denial ofits appllcationforan

eXëUlPtiQl1.fh:mith~Sourc~ofFunclhî.gte_pottlng requirel11¢nts when the l'NYCUJwasuQt
ptovidecl with anyspecific.reasohs fQrHs rejection. The dènÎalletter (il1èluded as Ex1tibit)3)
simply. states thattb.eNY OLU' sappH caHon'é did not ,present sufficient evidencel'that c01hplial1ce
wQulet cr.e~te á "Substalltia11ike1iliooc1~jof'han11 totheNYCL1.l' sdOnOrS,R¡lcltl1attheevîdel1ce
presehted Was. "too Tè111oteaticlspElqulatiye." Asd.iscu~sedabpv~,theNYCLDsubmittèd ten.:J?ages
Qfspecific,l'èCentëxamplesofNYCJLUstafIandlnempel'sbeil1gliaràsse4¡tIm~(lteh~diand . .
targetèclat theírhomesåhd bUSÎ1'1essèswhen those ?ddl'esses were pub1içlya:hlilable ..
his not surprising that JOQPEfailed toprôvlc1etheNYCLUwitb.~sPèèifictèáSonsfotthe dèhial; a

review, of the GornmissionlUct;tÎngsat wlùêl1 the NYQLU's exemptioi1applioatio11 waSCÖllsidered
reveals tl1att11e substance of thea)?pUcati6l1. Wßesl).ev¢r evel'1disQl-1SBed.bytheCö@tdSsion,el's;26
TheOommissioners ~levé}t'talked aOOllt th~ evidence 811bmtttetl by the NYOLD; they il1aâeM
findings and offerècll1o ana\y:ùs tegatdingtheIfillltipleeXªlupl¥s ofh,arassmentagaillstNYCLU
staff aJ,J,daWliates. III taétít11e eutirep\lblic review of the:N1'CLU',s~pplícatioí1was.¢ol1wrisetl of
'êomm~l1tsby a.slllg1eCommlSS1.Öllêrwh6statedthat, inthátGoll11i1issiol1eeSopifii(!lilthé
meLD h4dsuppIiedcompellingdrotm1stçti1iial evicl~nce that. compell eddíscloS11te ,of:dOttQl'SI
persot1ª1 Ülfol'l1úüiOllwould le~d totheir11tltasSfl.1eht.27 Atth~~l1bseqtlellt JèOPE ItH.\ètips,des}llte
zs SëeÚhibitAat3~lQ.
26 ÔBe,generc¡lly, Videoot the Jati,28; 2014 CQin1111ssiOhMfletina (avai1abletlt ..'.~
wwW,'fcöpe,ny.gov/public/webcast/20140128 JCOPE .wmv); Video of the F6h. 18,2'014 COu1I1Jl$$lonMeetI11g
(avçiilabl.e afhttp.'IIWrl,iV,l.lcåpe,ny.gov!publiclwebéastI20140218 ·JCOPE.wlnv).
21See, Video örthe Jan. 28. 2ó14 Commission Meeting ~avctilable at
www.jcopè.ny.gov/pl1blic/webcast/20140128_rCOPE.wmv}. ..
7
l1l1,.1ltiple requests by C0111l11isSl0Xlers that there be pllblic statements about the merits of the
appHcatiollS for exemptions, there was 110further disoussioll.28
In their diSse1it to the N);''CLU' s denia], ComrníesíonersCasteílero, Jacob, and Judge Roth,
···ÓhSêl'VèdthaI "tl1etêWas tö llleållif1gful dIs Cuss1:öIrbYfue C0I1UtiLsSl011·bf t1ié"evîde11èe Pj'ctffeted
by the applicants" al1Clfhat the Majority "ignored a dissenter1g request to consider the threatsand
aots.ofhostility directed at the officers,einployeeSJ Vol1111teers and affiliafesofthe àpplicanfs in
ctetel'mlning whether the tequired demönstretton of substantial Hkelihcæd ofhal'111 had beel1111et.'129
D. Conclusion
lit support oHts request fOl'an eXè111pHon fi'0111the díscíosnæprevisiens in the Source of Funding
regulation, the NYCLUsubmitted. to JCOP.Ea substantial factual record. The recordilldicated
there is Él sübstantia11ikelihoöd that NYCLU d0110rs WOllld be subjected to hah11, threats and
harassment ifinfol111Ættionlclelttifying them were made pl:~blicby the State,
Thos~c01i111¡J8s10Jiers· who voted to deny an exemption to the NY eLD l311np1yi.gnored thefaafual

record; they dismissed the evidence Ol-tt of héU1d.Andil1 fai1hlgto exercise a good fàith effo¡t to
provide. a basis ill1aw and fact .farits determhta.ticm.,thec.om1il1Ssiol1el'SorrCDPE xeacheda 1'0.s1\1t
thrJ,t is dearLy erroaeeus,
In the interest oÎprotect111g the NYCLU's f111ancialsupporters from threats and l1arass:mellt¡ the
NYOLU respectft:¡l1y requests that the decision to deny its exemption from the Sourqe ofFulldil1g
dísclosurerequitements is reversed.
æv4t~
Arthul' Eis.ellbet'g
L.egal Director
Donna Liebertl1all
Executive Díreetor
RobQ1'CPerry
Legislatiye Direotor
M 'Videoof.the Feb. 1812014 COllU:l1issionMeeHng(avallable.at

Mtp,'!/1/oIWrv.fco/J.e::ny.go\l/publiclwèbcClst/2 Q140218 JCOPE.wmv).
$,9 ExhibîŒ at .2.
8
Exhibit
December I~,2013~xetttpti()llRequestafid.SllPpörting'Lettt~r of the

NeWY otkCiYiILibertie.s Union
APPUCATiON REQUESTING ANE:){EMPTION FROM NYSJolntCommlssTonol1 Public Ethics
SOURçr; OF FUNDING DISCt.OSURE REQUlREMEN1'S S4Q 8ro:ª~way, Albany, NYl:UQ7
51S,.4QS:i3976[I.cope(f1ltcope .ny.gov
:rhiln:gw_lªtIcm,s:.gQ~Ler]l(\g tl.CHilntfJIEltlli oRtlt5'ª.tl.OJl J'~LdJ:~clps~,tO_LU:_CJ!~ºffl)n.clll)¡nlt!U;tlJJtaln¡;¡.qln :l11.NMCIß:ßR9rtJ!3.8, Tllª(lIL

regtrlatlol1s provide that.a ClIen(;·~II!lrmayseekarr exernptlonrrorn the source öHundlr\ß cllsclosme teqUlreméríts. Pal'f$3â;4
sets forth theappliea blestandards upon wh.lchanexernptkmshall be grantadhv eh.e. Joint Commission ol1i"ublIc F.thlcs, In
ncldltton to compl.etingthls forrn,l?f'tuílHl r~vrew tllé ~rèJcedur:es'toappty fö.tarH!Xernptlonlnpart9SB,5.
A U CLIENTFIL.fZRSS'r;¡;r<JNG AN ,XEMP'nON THt; S9URèf.OF fUNDINc!¡ ro

OlSCLOSURf!! OBUGAifON$ MUSTF1LLOIJT7'HIS'FORM.
E'4\tt\Jt\VeJ DittvUw'
'rßlepnone Number~ L'l,\J,) .~.O"'["'ß3> on
I'\W\JI!O'~; ylS ßtO·"a,Jl1"tf 1'1
Nt\N"(~r~I N"( .\'ti (}O~
E"Manl\dclt~ss; \T\f~ S1¡\'i ch.l ,t;¡Y'5
t. çJl(lrJ~ FUarl.s an IRC§5.01{s:}(4) org¡¡(1I'4<ltlqn.~¢ßktng ß.neXl1lnwtiQI1 føo.ffidlsf,!ç)$lng ~n$ourCíl$ pursU'lnt,to .1$;l.N¥Cf\l\ Pa:rt
'93'8..4(1:»,which reqUires, a showing tna.ttha Clle,ntt~¡i(~rl!."~r¡marya¡ctivltle,5. \J1volv~ areas of p!:lhIlc: concern th<lt
Il ,gu~st~HitlaI Hkelí,hoQd that cllsçlo~'~rre.üSoLÏre(\is \N'HIC&'Hlsa han'tll thnl:~lt$, !tätasShlent 'QI'
n'!pr!$al~ to the Smrr¡;éS orhiélivldUälsê)1,property' åfffHatodwlth thë SOL¡rc.~~.II,_,~ __
2, notan If\C§501(~)(41·organitatlonand III seeldng an .I,lxemptl'ort toril SOlwce, SQUrCIlS,'orr,Jass So~rl'~es or
NYèRR pilft.9ªa,4Î<r)¡ wblCh 'f~quiré$ashQwiflg~y1fc.têár convtñc!n(tevldIll11t;1\) thät~t$cfQ¡;trreQr the
[or 5\'ilrrcMj wfIJ câuseå'.slibsttlntlallikelihoôdùf hllr111Ifhr~~!:s¡ . toprlsQIstG the Soun;eor
lndl\lrcl~f¡j!s or propi¡rtyaffln~tèd wltn tITé Sóurta tor S<lUrces]/1 ._.~._.. _.•
All CHènE.rITer§must submit, wltnt/?js rothl/a letté.!' addi'èsSêa to thé Coml%1l¡¡slon t~.q!Jestingaf\eX~mpt¡çmål1d llettÎrrgförth
ln detiül wh y thé ap¡:llicablø. re¡¡UI¡¡to:W$tctncf¡¡rdt~ti NYCRftPuft. 9SB ..4(ajor (bH haso è~n, met.
fnsvpport oCtheekenîrJU¡).n !;ogethlilr·wl.tf1 thí'llœttøv,
-''''0''''''''''',,,,, ~""., .. , '4·"'''''''~r'"jï\'l}'I~~l\ër
mÎ1!¡eâls6"éo'ñ'fï!1111:rte:TQrlôlÑiñrnfg1îêä'çtë'ër¡t¡'atlëim""['tfeclär'f¡"~l'l"!l:rt'I'i"ltti1J'öl'ñ!fâ'ttfflftJôñ'rIHlléêl; lï~¡I~lir-"'~
,,,,'o ... ,.
~pplkatron Is Ude ..correct, ana r::ömplete to the best oft1'\y !~noWIl'!ageandbelí~f:"
Alt tn¡Ql'mæ.lt1ol1 suhmlt'Nrdlll $!1pportb!ctl1exemptFal1 ·wrfl hg rrlèlç/e pub.lltilY·C1vaHr:tble crn¿fdlsc;f;/$$edfl1

PubTlr:$e$slon afthe CommIssion's rnéetll1giTheonlyexceptlonto thlsrulelfJ Inlormr:ttIQ.n fot
WhU;hthe. CommlssionhctsgVçm ted ÇI Cfiei,t fller1s request fQI'cbn!f¿¡cmtlal trêCftmen~.
"
Tctc91ál'cthåOM ínfotl11.åtionCOl'ltªî¡l~clhk fhis appltcation

besl (If()tt1' kl1owledge~ndpeliêF.
POLJll,iJ. I.;i¢b~l'ln~l'rr
Exeöçüiv QPuec:tot
'NeWY ()\·kel vil· Lib¢rtrèsUnLqL'l.
NYClU~~~~~{"\OQØ~
...",... , ••
NgWYORKCIVIL Ll8EßrlES UNION
- ¡' 2. t 2...607·.:&3 1ú
l º
www,nYéhl.,Ql'g
§ellt by omail
Rob;;l'l't Gollen
Spedal CQunsel Director of Ethic's and Lobbytng Complhlnte
New .... PubUg rrltegrrty
'\,fIUHkI
'540 J3ma¿lway
New YOl'k t2207
Re:· Request fQrexemption t'rom tho.,disc.Jo~ll:re, I'cquil'cments In

l'è'i',j.scdsorl1'ce-()f~fm1d¡ng l'ogulntiøl1s mlopted by the Juin!
CO'tfull¡s$iQ~l Oll P1.lbUc Eth.ies l ..
Dqat'Mr. Cohem:
On 201.3>the Jo,frlI:OQJ11111].SSLOlÆQI1Ptl\Jl1í0Ht11icsO COPE~)àd()plecl~lfl1et1dcnî0nts th

teCID'L1tly¡prol1itJJgtttea.1f((l,~uh\tlŒl1S thm;t i'eq1.1.ite~11101'gal1:jzåt1on t.nate11,gages in 'lob'byimg
tø c1isclose th.~ l'laineS, 'addl'eilses¡ emplq.yél's anê[conttfbllt¡Ol'lf:nf01'l1î~ttio11'l'egt\rdÎl+g at1'y
contl'loutol' whopl'ovid,¢s ..étf 1~ust$St000 tŒ;suc1î~n Ol'gani4~ttYOl:l,~We write on behalf ()'fthø
New ¥i)vkCivil Libettlt;s Unlo.!1 (N¥CtU):seek.íllglm the I:,mbllc
di$clö$tttepl'O'Yisl011S l'elated to .sô1.Ircle(s)offtttldil'lg,
l'eg~¡t4ltiOl}S [Jl'övide that the CQlî1nli$siO\il~¡;ht¡ll gl'anfall eXéll1.ption to disclose :tlJI

Contrlb\:f.tiolls toa Olle-nt FUér if(.!), theCUent l:CUerh.~lseXen1pt statu,s '¡;~hder 'LR,C,
§501(c)Ç4j;a,11çi (H) eheöHelll File,t sho\'\"í:! pt'l1llal'y~oti:lfitl¢$; hwÔlveuré,a.t? Qf¡'î\thUe:
9olicernthwt. oteare. H~·uh,ytcmtictlUk.~llh(jodthat~disç:!QStU'f;) of its SQ~n:ce(s}wlII.Ct\ qs~ h:iutn,
threats) haraSiU11l:mt'Ol'.repl'is(:lIsto thit Soui'ce(s) or hrdtvidbu\ls IU'pl'öpl:}r,t;yafftHatcd '¡,y!thlhe
B'OlJrö¢(s) ",3 CEmphMisaddied:jJ
""",,-",,,,,.,,,,.,,_w""''"Îrt'";~~l~~~ffi~gti~{;';;~~~~i;'t¡o";1"'fi:ö;;·iiië'"~ö.i;~ë~:';;f:f~t;lIffï;i;'d¡scl;~ft;pr6·;¡~iÖ~S';·\*~''.""~.t~1ie"'
..,.". '···'' ' ' '·' ' '-"'··
""¡" •."""'"",-,
o~.iect¡ÖIl tc)thé rlLttenåedscellldttl:cl hY' 'which the COn:l1111s.$lo1'\ wlIl ê1\:Îtet1'nlnøeHglbnltyt~xl' StIch
fUl,öxemptÎolî .. TheSupl'cl11e CQl:u't has lqt1gheldth~ltthe~PlOJ'opdate stand~\rí.1r()r~xemptíl1;g
ol'gatl1.1zt'1.tlons· fl'øm theteqtlÎl'$t11e11t to ptlbUclyd¡,$'dlo~e inrOl'fnijt10!1 f'cgal'dit~g theÎ1' Jin¿\l1é.ial
l¡¡;¡ N,Y, Reg, 1.8-19 (dct,'23.¡,2013¡ (JPE·43.1~.3.D.O()21';EP) ('AI'llendl11ent ofParl93gofTltlø.19 'N'tORR),

~lçl
¡ l,l, at §938,4 (o)
d011011SIS-å showIng that there .'. ~:reasonable-prQbabmty'l. suchdiscros~we 'l¡vcmld C~l1s\.'l+~ewm?
thl'éà!$Ql'repl'ts-al to thQs~donol'soJto th.eirptQperty} Xtis,thi~stal1dm'd timtwas Adopt~d.by fhe
CGn'li11tssÍtn1erSQ! .JCO 1'11.ih.årCl$tllanbl1äc! opfed .ön. Apl'i!·lO,20 13" 5.Thepewlyamel1ded .
Teg\l.lßttion,.11.t)wevel ...adoptsa.h~rghtened:stal1dard ,-.i~s\ibstahtial.Hkelihood>' ••ofhärm.ot
harassment .....as the btlSlsforgrtl!1tingsllcbaußxel11ption.We,belíevethis. is ht~~\,Q~l:tQ{h~lf¡t
h1afvel'ofbonstitutÍQnallawandpu blicp9HGY; and theNYCLG reserves th~tfght toapjJe~\ltt
ruling by JCOFBthat is made pUl'stlant to this: stétndal'd,
1-¡¡riling:statedthisQbj éetio!1,W(\}S~t ou~bé ¡pw ~legäl änalysJsâi1df~kçM~1roéOtdfh~!

del11"onstr~xtesU1epUbUc dJSGJøslu'e,ofinformätîoo~ts required by the sotlréO-qf-ftlndhlg
l'egtlbtiol1.~WO~1IcT,jl'\ fa,ot~creat\:\(-1sqb$tEin,tia1like1ih()ocl of hannio the NyCLU mld tQ,it~
hlernqenl and. dopors,
The NYCLU' & ·mis$lOJl is to deteJlctMcfprôrtlöte theftlnèlaL11(1l1talpl:1í1ctplefJf,tllc1 valuea
ømbodied. in.the Bill of Rights, the U.S.· CúnsÛtvtiol1, änûtheNewYQrk CPlJstitütl911',lk'\.c:-hräiug
freed ó111 o,fspeech and t:eHgioni {he rIghtto pl'ivm:y,ßl1d¢ql.ltlHty alîC!..dll~process of law foral!
New YorkerSI •. Thé NYC~jU isol'gaJ1tz.edu11Qel' thçlR.C,asa '§501(~) C4}organi7.,ntiol1•
NrembersoftheNyçLtfb1aff:.t~l.'e register9dIQbl,;yistS.PilTª1.(~ultíO New.Yöt·k'$14QbbYAct/t~üd
;th~NYCGU reports astI lobbying HçUent.',1 .'I'h~,Qr~Mii~tionMsE\PíJl·Ox.ímate!y40)009
nwmbersst~t~y;Id(!lwith offí.ces'iTl. IhtffaIo,Rochestcl', .Syraè1lse,Albany,'Hempstc.ªt1 (Nassªu
GQ1:UltYJl anc{ Central Isllp.(Sl,lf£Qlk.CóUl1t)O,
. .. , ,. -,-. • -,' .• . 'o' '-'. .'. . . . ~ .
r~Çèontest OVCl"thø exercfse.cfq['Vltl'.lghtsand libe\,tie.s .oftenpJts theînteré~ts bfa.jlhlçl¡Vid'U~tl

ör ~rn.hlQritygroup .8:gaillSl;tt fål'.lT\Qrepow~rful. ~ltlJodty,whiohtYQt In£requentlY'iwaUgnec1 wífh
goyertll1wnr '\711tities thiltwí~ld. the p()w~l'~l:ldquthorityoftheslate~ •.Itishttheve~)'Í1atul'~of
tllis .COIlt~.sttha.t strong,9piniPJ1S mldfeelil1g8-~ref.\rO\lSed, TQuttvQcatoonbchal£ö f h1çliyid.~iáls:t
L'ights ('Hid Il bef'tie$istQ. ~ngag~Jn what, iSQ f1epet h¡S111ypub1içÇol1tt'qVel'¡¡~r
ltisêxpl'eS$(:veaclvÖç~\cy ôetMspâtute thätlegislatóx~SÖtighttoe}{e¡11.1)t ftom lhep~\vno. . .'•."...•'

d.isQlosur¢J:egu(ation,~ jJrQlllulgateèl.p~ll'SUaÍ1tt() tbeJ?u17lio Intëgi'¡,ty l\eforrn Ac:toffOl r CPm.A)}
Th,e'sponsot's111CmOrâl1dum ElCcP11wanying.that le~fslation~;{plI()îtly~t~tes that "dvill:rg!1Jsapd
cIvillibçrtiesli ül'gàülzat\ol1s;,~\IT1(jl1g otb~L'~ít!aœøx,pected toquanfy for such all (¡}xenWtíol} Intrw
Joint QOn.1I}lisstQn"s ¡:¢~llat¡ons¡,;9Th¢cQ1)1,tMnt~\l;ycmthebil.t,as,pl'ov.{dcd bythesP9lifsQI'{ng
le~islators, etaboräteson this P()in.t:¡TO~1'ganizatiQusWh9s¢.Primatyactivltîea foeqS()lí th~
~ll)e~t¡çm.9t'~bJ,wtiÇlI"LFightsl farnUyplal1nlngçJIsQrilJlinati.ot10rpel'seÖ\ltíol1.l?MQclupon l'qgc,
ethi1icitYlgcl1dct',~exualó1'ientåttdh()r l'~ltgron,Jm,migrantdght~,~tl1d the rights, ofçettain
ùriminal det'eildf;ü1t!lI\I"~ expeG-tèd to· be~Ôrvel'çdby such Uh elYarriptiÖl1,t,Jo.
¡fSuck.I",V v~VCllea,424JJ,S,Il8-g( 1976), '.' ..' .

.;J$ N. Y,Reg. ·11...1't).(ApriliQ, 'ZUI :1).lJPE·~7~12·.o01n~F.n,
I>N.Y,LM,kaw t·a,¢(os(1ct,
1~~@ N.Y, weg, taw§ J..,j(lt),
ß>QMptlU'.W9,L¡\Ws pf20 ll.. . '. '. ..' . . .' .'
<I DegislaciYéh1tl'öótl¢tióh,A,83Öl (20 i1)',(S~\lS~()nsörls¡nellloranç{1,l!11,.Parnj,Sl;lèÇiQ[1 r :,<lo!$Q10S11l'eby
Lobbyists".") . .
¡,Q Ibld.
Thesub stIllJtlve.ls.s1J~s()f Iaw anllp9Hcy ¡clG)1'.tifi(;)dln"thesp0ll.sqj'$'COll1J.11entaryç)1'\ the 1?rQPoSl~d
Puhile Integrity Reform Act l'eqd a.sifthey hacLbeen exeel'preó fl'Qt'Plh{} NYCLU'a.rníssiol1
statemènt 'rhe NYCJ.J1YS advocacyagendfil1 in support ofthrs mIssion, is well docurnel1,ted in
theÇJl'galÛ,%atlQJ'l~SmmHäl
BV~l1%\cw:s,Ol'y revíewof news, reports wlH confient that tbea:fol'el1'1el1tioned issues onen generate
fiyj'ce~al1d Yiokmè¡. cOntroversy, ,S1.lohçØlltrOYerªylsdrivellbydeel~lr h~ld opinions ~l'ld lnWel1se
emothms,. whiel'¡·often lead to ovettMts of høstÙ.itya.rldaggl'esslói1 towatds ..tbe mC'LU
ataff,
'(1 In 1999, fi[ ecl~t lawsuit iOI1\J~l]aLfof "¡l group ttf1:Uhùed wíth the
'Klan, an. ()rg~~l1¡za'n~);¡lwidelyknown, rOI' hostílityêfil'ècted ätè~l'taín 111îllorilygrot~rs,
111e ~tljt chulhmged a.sthlte .taw bîll1l11ing XtlOl'e .thtmt\~ç) 111divtchlt\ls weal'lllg masks. 1\'0111
>c0l1gl'egat!1'!5 tnfjtlblie, Th~NYCLUç\rg1J~dth{i\t the 9î'çlintmoeviQ L~tedFikst Áln~udmt-JJlt·
l'\ghtsQtexpressiö:n ·âUC[àSSQcltl.tiçnl, [ndtvid~l21ls.~lnd posed to the1?Jafntiffs
:ideoIQg)fbe¡$éll1 PI'otr¡¡.stlngcne'NYCLTJ for Its dec tø ¡f'J;i~¡¡.tè tl1f,t \läse ..
Prote.sts againsttheNYCLUè,sc¡:¡l'atedilsth.e cerse'pr.ogrcssed,$t~tffetmli'atecl

C~lsebemune the ü~rgets uf fmreats,twrasSn'¡Ç!T1t,.and, one occalSiol1,an,
~rtten.11jte.Çrhbjl1¡;¡:~n·y,etsl0n,. For e){~m1:pleJ em ol'ganfZ(ttlQn.fO'tltltltl1e hQnleÇl.çklr~$s' ufast~tff
111eniberon. case)fLlid J~ostedinø thegJ:Ql~p'Sw'ehsi,te\l'ht& il~dívíç1.ttr:llbqgan J'eceivlng
thllOEttenlng phQ,11ecalls at hOJ1l\e'.Un.kl1.oWl1 hldiy¡d:~ml.s ral1&1;the sl:at:f member' 6 ~Ít,1{)11
tttlzzøra.t .ell hOLl~'S In~äl bets of the 1~1:0t1'Pel1t~réd.tht,s individual's
~tpal'tl'11entb~IiTdl!lw~\nd bteak ··intothe 'I.ltafftl'lernhcl"slJpnt'tment,A, l1êighbol'
ctlHec1 thepQJièe v\lho m~ll oqtor the blIUding,
lä 'Deoêlnl.¡er 2,'O02·t Il pf'ötept al thegtafftnel1,Otl,l.g

wåsóbHgêcLto.. .'. ,gÚ!cll'dsfor th~H.tür~ltionQrth~Œ\Sr;;lc) Pl'Üt.i;lct
any rtn't.l1er problems, 'fr1Jes~~\Ctivit1eH m~}d~ .It neCeSSal'y hire pi'i\!ate
.IJt'öteot NYCLLJ ch¡¡; dlU'JtU011 oft,hceèlae. thIs. pel'!otf,tbeITle.t1.¡.tJel',
,f:ear:B.lI offal'liilywO'1..lld noL 'ehÎ~r øl' thee\P~tl'tmeiltbL¡ïld¡lÍ,g
with 'family.¡,nembers.
ê 'l'he NYCLU staff dUl'Ít'Jcg the ~it¡g~tiQl1related to the haL'!on

t¡ll'!?"et\'!d
W¢tU'Íl1g' .....•.•.•..•.• iPubHcl¥MnOtfllced efföl'tsfotargç¡tahigh-leve!'NYCLO ofllcial
.$0;Il¡~"11~,):ill[.$"¡¡1ØSl£~~!~,,th~Ny_c.Ul,,Qf~ŒIÛALh{lçi.Jn1.JmlLs.t&çU:1.QJ1,1G.;.~l~pbQll~t...... """""_,""".,",,,,
-~"~"-","".,-~."~,,,",,,",",,,,,,,"~dJltIJ;l,g~tb~
n.mnbertlndthe gtoup. faitecl tö IMt\'te the ofl1oiaPs hÇm1~addr~ss, The orfîçiàJ
'I1Œ1eth~!essfélt compelled tø.remöve.their \'ltlrtlcfh'1ena11Y' 'Vt~i.bl~H$t~nl?:sjl'Y ~hell'
ttpal'tl't1ent qL~!tdh1~drrectQrytll'il:Ín1ai I hOXéS.
Every yeªr~th1s].JYCLtJorfíci.aI teeeI Y~$ }¡nu¡l f'dO~¢l'Ii Ol' ,tmweÇ!nl,ti1111~~ssages" ør leltfm¡

that~LI:eöP·a,.threatenÎ.l1@ nåttll'e.Fal'·~ fltl1'Uhel'.ofychll:131 III Fhe;. Chl'i$tnlMae¡¡SOn.¡ th1s
öitlccial.tlnd ihe NYCLUSva"ffteoe iv~ do;¡:ell~,of greetb'l&;é!:1rdsal1d 1e:t,l!el'sreviHngtbe
3
C)tgÈudzaHonø.nd.tn cases, off~l'tng pl'ayel'sforthedemfseofth~ ol'gç1nL~aÜQl1~
some
whioh is typtèanyc.hanwtort~eda.g.Qo(Hess OJ: s~tal.ltè. TMs oftlclEd waS Hkow¡s,~ the I
reçipj~mtnf hósti1éand belligÇ)l"e)tltc~lJnœun¡cåtion~M .~res\lltófthèqJgªnizati 011't{
suppenifor the~stabUshmentQfa nëW111ösqtte l1éadhe formet' site of the World 1'te1tfe
Genbn' .
l
.,. On'~ PªHyh~sisrthe N¥CLt.J'ss~Velll:egionaloffiê¢.s·ªcrosstheSterte. åre~ng;ägeln
advOC~tcy .011bè}:¡a1fQf minority groups, and represent peùpl~ expl'essÎí1g'tmpaptllat
l~osition1)within theb' cQmmll1üties. Thé NYCVtfcl11ployeeswl1o sí¡Lfftheseo'fGces1 JIS
well.ås local NYÇU) me.1'nb~rslh&Y~Mtivelyéng~geç! in et'J'ùrt$ Jopl'oli1C)l~ ,th~ tightsôr
reUgiöllSmíl1drhygl'ollpsjÎnQluctïng Muslim COUlI11Ullities. ill thC(wakeoftheSeptçl11beJ'
U
l1 \¡tttack's; the rights ofCm'l.1.I11tmltiesof color inpredbllJimmtlyw-hfee pø l'tiQ!1søf \.lpstat~~
al.1dJ.!e.lltrªlNçwYQrk~ and the freedoI11$()fexpl'~$siQn. and àsscelation of'gaya¡1Ç1
Û'ål1sgentlcl' feêna.gers. .
Th~dÍl'ecto.1'Söf theN yeLu's ch'lP.te~Mcl regiom\ldfncës~tl)d~hcidOCà,lNYêtJP:

rtlømbcrshave ~.eellsubJect tohß.t'assme\1t.and threatsªs.a,~tíl'ectresultof these effo\'t!t.
FQrCXan11~1~lifJ.Tüne 2ÓQ9l, alt NYCLtJclientin 'SlwcbuJ;ll~, N ,y(,wâsthrèíl.V:nccfwi tha,
c¡¡ossbul'nlng. ol1hlslawn aftel' he pub 11ely Sl¡gw~st()dtheposslhilityöf höstlng a 11igktl01'
gay teemJge~s ?~:hisy01,ithce!1tt1km1e'Véri.t whièh the NYQL\J' Was supporting hí~l,íght
hökt
J1120Q7,the N'YCLt;'·s. ø.~entl·QlNe~Y Yö1'l< Chaptel'Olréctol'J\lld}\lî NYCLl] 11iGlllb~1'
were)oppmünga Pl'QPos~d towRgl'dina,nce. that wotÜd.bàn, an
layV1ts~gns¡Afterß~veral
l'ntJI1tl1sbfatt¢ndlllg. :to.wnti1eetings and ..testifyil1g~guhlst the 'pl'opos~d lawnalgn bM, tbe
NYCLU nWl'l1bel' had Jd$car tires getltrtecJ,;aml·.had the plintse,s ¡iF.."" t~AC~U\atid VIdie
fag'"painted onhllCÎ\l'wh,íJ~itwEtspark~d In.tM di'iv~w~yat his hOh1e¡c£he tnel11b~Falso
received~ .rIU1so'in~s~yleletterwi:thf.l death, threat. After thí$ tn,ctde1}t, the,çhaptet'·eJ il'~ctj)l:
M~ltheNYQ1DVl1í~:t1)bel':had to b~escOl'tedbx-law ~nfo'rccl11Slt1tif1ordet t()at.ten~l·lhe·
tthV11hall n:te¡;;tlng where thelawnsJgl1 hal1 \vafr,~tiU1àtelyVqtedoJ1.Thé$e are just¿~f~w
ofm~\n)tath.~L' tinws whellNYÇ;VJm¢mbt}mhù.ve.beel1thl'øat~neQ with 'YjQlf)nc~¡n
COlll1ecciQt1wtththehpubUQ afflH~tiQn with the NYCLO,
t) .$CWhdpl'êfêr.S böl tohavchisl}aÜ1eidel1tíf¡tûkt this' doqumetrt). fmsWet'stelepböJ1c
culls 1Tl~\ÇteCothe mainlXl\mberauhc NYC'LtJ';sNe\V 'ÚWKCity, ófJ1çe,.. Hctespondsió
gèlWtaJl11C(uJri eSIlJldhe take¡fi\1.fol:.mätfOltfl'o1TIJ~1cllvidu~ls· rçgal'ding alleged. d vi l
¡lib~t'tiE:~viölati9n~.Hel'eç~¡Vf:)s manycnHs f.rominôividLmli)~tnglty whh theªdvpc&tcy {rF
i ' . .'. .. theJ~YCf~U?I'.Qthe'~ACLU affîl;(atesar?Lm~t?eCallnt~~.'S,h~sbeehe_11tP!oyed\yitlr,thx ¡
.f.,,_.."~,." __ ~.~_~~_ .._," .",,_._.lt¥_C('1J •.ÎQ~.th:l:t}';:~w.e_y.~àJ;S!,â~11~lng.~~~JMlùiln.e-he.lil.\s:,œc;~t~€{.l.ap1)~:º.xlJtiß,t~1!i~a.Lli."ct,e~ùJ}--~··'"'·"'~·""~"
.f threElt$ 91' tlw.eatsof.physl.calassall.ltwblle atwprtc. tn one lI1St,U1c~, a c~ller sta.teçllhat he ~
I. woüld99meto the NYCLU's offices. and '\~öpostaLH. On änothel'o¢O~1Siön a cal te1'said -
I 'l}ewollldcQ)!:te,to th~buitclll1g, watt.forStqèmel'ge,ftl}c1.~tt1Etc.khîn:rj ..Ol1sevenn
i öcqas,ions~Slws l'eceiYeds~~spicionsP4lck~~~$ ~ttJ:;effo~ltóesl(,whiyh r~,9t(Íl'cÇl bUlkIlo&:
seötmty .a'gentstQr~movctl1e,pack~ges·for In.Spe~ttol) Wlth ,all X"l'uy.de;;VlcØ,
In:ord~ttQ ptoteöthhTiself~.8 uses 'a pseq({ól1yrn WhenèQ¡We1"S itt({ WHhthosewh.ö, êall thé.
NyctLUto r~.I?0t'tIl, ·oivn llbel'ti($ Ylolatión ol"tocOIUJilttíüå:houtn PPsltion takel1 hy the
'NYCt,U, Il} orde:rlo ptotect h¡:s.1:dentlCy,'hødoes nötaUQV\'l'epol'ters whd attend Itews
conferenQesat the N'YèLU öfflces tophöto[5l'åph !1inlat hfs desk. Aliti' f'Ol'thh reason his
!:\ctIt~lll1~MîCk1IJSl1ot appeal' o:l1.1!h~N¥CLtPI3. web gite,He.takes thes~ pl'~ç~\tllion8 oqt of
to Ø¡;Wl1'()tllthe.th.l'eHt or atl~······_·····.
'oQhCel'}1.t]¡~t.l'j¡ltU1'lh~r~·C¡lt: ~hc.pub:HcoC!ulcl,,(;1.\lC:J!thl~ll1f;(l1.'111rlti()rl
attax;:l¡: agruost'hil1i.
, The dlrv9'tor öfth~ NYCLtl's,W'estel'l1ÍZegiionaI 9fflcé.has receIved deâ[hthl'e~t$~)lí
three OèOMj!Ol1S. In l'eSp01'1se.:to the .Cil'íi!.mhfz¿üiol)1 §,ndvonacy W~)1'ktn tb:e Eh¡ffétlo~l¡~t.'rhe
firste f th~.se thtca:ts was 1'lla<le[112.000 GY ml Ind1:víd;('H\l.who:tolctehcexcc,'1ltlYIl d!l'€Jctot'
Il phO¡1ecal1¡.«Iflqatoh yp1:l~ru MU yQ1J,IJ
The se.cQ!1d\,le~tth. 01fc;l~1t- tö bOll!1D th.~NYCLLPso.Efice B Li:mÜO -' Was l'í1lî.deÍll the
lîe¡:io.d shortty aiftel' 8êpt.¡;)!n.beJ'111200 L PoUce. bad ttirectèd ån tncrtvid'LI~t¡ rerlíövr;;
.fl:ml'lhls V£Ulàslgl'r fh¡:¡r l·e~t~î)!!Alh\h.s;uókH\~' TherncHvtd~:i1lc:(H'rt¡:)jiÇ)'d;· h:¡têr IJ@Qillledtha
clain.lin1$. hls Fh:stAmèwirn¡¡mt rights. h.ad bGen.v:IQhtti;.ld. 'rhø NY.CLU'$
dlreç,tol'Ii}x;111ëtîJled. thÇjftheJ.'il'!' no ],o.l1gel'a bec~1.tl.s.O' the l'l'1èm h$l.dCtlll1pH~d
with the polioeol'der,. with él. 'V(.)tce·l11~tl tltl'catenh\g.eö bÖl'nb tile
NYCL1:Ps o.ftices,
thîrdel~äth tllI'er.ttagatnlit fhlsernf)[Qyee€¡lso lnvQ!veQ d(¡Jt(l11~t¡\1nóf li'OO¡'lll;) at the
\):ffjces. [nÄO;Q3the al1ti~at¡ót·t10rlgl'O:¡'lp Al'mY'ofGod thXí?a.t~l'iecLtO'bQlnb th~
WÇjste~llRegional.officeaflda wömell1 Shettltbc:llntc. 'Bot1tcrrflceswere
i
loc~\t~clin 'Buflalo.A rew.yeacs .e~wtüwBetnett' Sl¢plan¡ ·~.phys¡oLap.WhO.pl'ovjded

,~tb:ö¡·tion .¡j'è(vicèS ju Etrff.~,lo!'h~¡db~¡;ml'Xl.n¡;de;~edOl,Ib,il\:lí;\ h:ts hQ lUe} 11lr20ü3 ~nL'.
Idní;)rW~llion tl'hd ¡orthe· ctj111e.1Y!el1).b~,rs öf íh~ Altñyo:POad o~¡ntetc¡Buj)l1~tlÇ)
forcb.emt~rdetei·.tanc\. tOCC1tlt'elï1t¡;çhe sü,pporters élb~)rt1.01i rights·.,.
etnd wçm'letl'sneall:helinlc were l:l!'01'llÎnen:r,
t hl ¡O 13, the. NyQUJ p¡:.tbnt{h¢ditoHJ1{)~tlO¡-l, regtl¡'qf¡1gcel'í¡ftc~Cl0í10ta pl'o:speQtlv~
c1,LSS'Q fplalÎ1'ltlf'í::S in. Utlgm.tfo~'lchargblgthat re.galS.(ll:vi~es to indigent aefenq~\l1 t& ö'Ftel1
fan~dto 11:1eetOQ!lsti:ttltlomü standards ... In respönselone Indlvid'Lla! sent tt letter tClihe
NYCLU thatW¡;Ul aç1d¡:ess~d;"Deetr131ooclst1cl\l;I,ts,U'rh~a.uth().r.írr th~letter ~xal ah':n.eC!,
HiP~-~ym¡--~y.o1;lbt1$ttwóa,çwejust tryi:.ngho 'te.ar dQwnaQQi~t:y~m1daotlrH?J plOJ,ts all the
tÍJ1'le. H 'l'he l¡;ttcu~de.rxl~111(lèd,·«Wl10Pft1S£01: thi$' bulls ..A?'1 .
". hî2007,:fllmm cL¡·essed'. .hl black.l'öbè

w<lítld (¡~g1.ilårlyal?pe~(l·...theNYÇLtJ·~s 0fflc.es
irl.Jowel' Mm'lhEtttt1l1 .....whieh is .ttl$O thø loc(:ttJøt:Jofth~·natlbnaloEfh)eof'the ACtA1. ·Th~~
l1,l~lJ1. ." th¡¡;bL~ildlng, wavIng sIgns cl:em)Lmr;hlgthe ~l1dACLltJas
-·,··,··
..·~....
··_···,-~
....
·_~,·--~f~i~~~~6~W¡~1¿~·~~~;,~~~~::~n~c:~~~~~f.i·E~'1.~~~~_~~~t
..:~~,~:.::~E~~,~_""~,_,.,._._"."~
.."""".,.,",..
JI .hr~j):tlwww, p:J'Oí)hQ¡C\'),01·glelbotltllßÓ¡·tlol1/v!Ql'enc~~rmÎle~_l9\,>pj),ht¡n1.:Pn.vh;I.~taba,'tAbOl't1l;m· FQ~wh9 kllleci!

qoctcu' !Sllcntel'1Ced to 2.5 yeal's IQ'lura" N"fTÍltres. (Míl.Y 1 ÖJ 200$)r
http:tlwww.!IYClmes.colnf2003/l.)5110ÎüyregÎolilabo¡·tlündbe.whô.kined.dqctor.¡$.senl~n(}~d.to~:;t$ ..year~~to"
1¡fí).h!mI7rof*:~<i)·l1etU\slepj¡\I1&gWh\W40 I.IQ6.4CGG A9Â2l,C06D ß5C5·Ht.l,6C'tL'Y513"
I~ Brothel'N~ltJ1iÎnae[lswebsite ill' !w~II£1b!e:athttl:):lfwww.bl.oChomath¡¡mlel.comlinae1>:.}.ill~.A picttU'Çl o FhimâI the
N¥OlAi und ACI..U oenee ill New York ¡i:l!1v¡¡¡¡tlble.ll.llhttp://,,vv,(w,l'Iiék.I' ..CÖi.nlphö\m>/njokètll~\l{18O()(:¡28ftlO;tI, A
5
,_ In Jän~al'yöf20H, the. diteçiOl"CjrthëN'YtLUjsºh~pt~l'Qfficè ,In,Roêhest~w, NéW
York, received a sedes of èn1aaS from an Inôivlduål whó h~d cQrttactedthe oftlofJ,tO'
COi11pIäin ItbolJ~tlJ.è loca.lp()\nt~W$tï;:trl.. :rh~hostimy éxptesseçl inénes~eltl.ªi1~
.hittüls1 ti,¢ctöver t\ni¢;;;5$itcU~,~ctheiNY OLlT ,seeltíë.d töhøcpmepartö f the pl'n bletn. .\flic
'hlSÎ ip thiase.ri es, of el1ulUsi~1CI\.ldedthiscornmënt:Hlhi¡¡,gQvern)TIellt is theèucmyan<1
peopl~bettel'sltàrt realizitlg l:hatsooner thâf1lal~l',ThexlJçtt(}I'ßrive-ar{ltind hbüHe.t FrciOi'
,C~WS, L...J Beslof I~rck in Hfe.I>,fi'l bt;!ylnsª W~ap(;Í,ntc~m£il1èlf~st.lsl1gge8t yQLlâq thë
säme/' .'
l'heseëxflI11ples o.fharMsluel1tà11d l11timldatiotl ai'e.t1Qt¢xtraordimuy, ot'even. LU1usllal,reveritshl'
theCOU1'se of the NYCr_,U'swork. Theyl,'epr~sent,'UJ1f01't~lil~Uel~,\ thevölaCU~ nainteofJ1üh1i9
ÇHSOOU1'ªe: when:j~$V~S of civiJtfghtsandci viI Hbel'ti~sal'~ÙHUqp'~Lte.
A~tIîCN~wYotkSt~*,zyt11Uate()ftheAírteL'iêMCiyHl.Æberti¢sUniöü.thc NYCl.itJ is.öftel1

iTnpltoat~(}In öontI'0Yers1esª"l'tdccmmet':rëlat~d t(r(heex~1:cise,.or;suPP1'ØssiqL1, q1: cîvH liberties
.tl)ä~ H1;j.s~ªi)ywhetë in the.1)rlited· S tí,\tés. (Se~, ittta:ched! Slt¡)plê1'l1entâlSJàteinelltQr FqcJa.) .
Thêph~nDmell0n of 1·et~t.í1MQrym1ittltlstowärd. the NYCLU 'lsh1hc~e[1ttd. the~dvo~f¡cy' the

Ql'gnnization vw'siles.· .A.fid l~SthCSJipn)meCQuI'thafJ ;ObSèl'V\xl,a. gQyeï'l1l11ent l':~q\.linmw))tth¡tt
ml·.ol'g~üîza:tiol1($WShäll tIle:'NYCLV) disclose the identity. ~nçlp'ei'~ömt!îl1fQri11~tionotflnal1Qial
S~lp'pøtrel'~can coxl1prç.i(nlSelhai'mÍsstQIT by"seriously iltlHng[lng;jL ölypdwiC,¥ öf áSs(íéÎatkmähcl
'beliefgJJtlrtlnteect hy the PlrstArnendrnênt.'!13
Th~ fedSll'~~t.Cmllíf(')t±heSÖlltl1emPistrlct ôfNew Yørkhashelá thtttástatutWY Î',epô\'th1g

scheme ,)fçc¡ull'il1g 4'polltÍóE\1,cOml11ittee$"to.makepttblio reportsöflnfohmttiol1 vë.latectfQrec(jt¡~ts
.aj1d.êxpend.ltLll'eil~ inc)üdingthe nan1ßsarl.:d'ªddressés 9f cOn'f¡ilbutots;ÎmpQsøtl '·!.'l.xç~ss¡Ye
t'¢sn:åi.nhl Ön. th~é.Xe.rCrSéØf'FWst A:m~ríc1rùeltfrights .• ·.• 1·1<IThenüingil1êl nde~, whflt iH~In
.~eree t,EljtlclicnU .t1ndh1g tl1a.t th çxeqUlreô somçe øf fq ndingd iSGlqsù¡;e.s wi.íJc~ltsc· d 11'Gçthç1]'111Hi
the"stafrand mQ¡ñb~l'S:oJth~NYCL1Jàn<;1.l1lotébtoadly,LQthíiP.il'~tAm~n(hnentrLg_htsQfothets
wh9advoc",te·ptl b~hal,f()fMew 'Vorkers'é.lvllrights ~nd civil Hb.e.t'H~sJ
DefèL1d~n1ts(;1.d¡-pitíl1f1tat l~ast f1v~,aftheN YCLtJ'sapptoxl mate!)" 401-00/0

111~n1bel'shÇivebe~l1subjøèteâto.óPl11mnnity hostili tya1!ter rhei1:~ss(Jcí£\dè!l1Mith
plaln,tjff hadbeèomëk1:1øwll.ThISèridIt11ttMIYi was ßuff¡éiêpJ tód~tedhèª.e
pørsons from l\ssocla t~l1.gwith ph~h]ttff,18'ªseçl 011 th~}\boY\}facts, " .[plUaintiffhas
¡ dèf\1Önstrated, e,steq\Ïil'ec1by·the' 8!l}JrClTI.e.COlI11 in Buckleyf1A¡ flaleo]1 424 U.S. at
t74,thattherè'Í!:lU <!xèasQnable pl'Qhobilityth~t the cOltipelIeçldlsc19S91'e ofa
f . (groupis} èonttlbtttorsl'natneswUl stlbject thel'!t ,tQthl'r;Ç1ls~h~rn$Sm¢llr,ortéprtsaJa
l..",._""",,",~""
",_"~,.",,,_,.,.,
..g9E:c~ttJ1~tg~fl1~~~~11t2.fk\21ßl,~~9.~'J,,~Eiv.tlttP,~[tt~¿~l.:.~,",,".",.",,_,._~~,_,_,
~. "~_"_,C'-"'''.'''''~''"'"_''
.,'_,,',,-
_~'_,',.' ,-'''~,
..
j
tWlitige" th~L,h1ç hldes'nl?iëhll'óúfNY CL,rJ J ~gafdÍl¡ºctol' AltEisen bël'~ Ill1cl\lllln tetviewIn wn iobB rolhèl' N¡¡thflllilêl
clísgosse:¡ hisprotestofthe NYCLU anti AC1!U,¡S\ivn¡hibleathttg:ilwww!reàlrèWlÍ(íWg.coln17p~ 18. .j\,çöllagøwith.<I
pict~m: ofACLtJINYc:LUc!ièncEdie Wínçjsol'und AGLUlegatdir~<:tc\l"steveI1Sh¡¡p'iro 1S'¡jvªn¡Jb(Çlñt '
htt\):llwww.l·~n[JewnéWS;C0íí1I?}Y;1¿'i,
I} $tlc/i.f'iJ)rv. Valllo,¡¡24 U.S, 1,54(1,9'1qJ.
!',t fYyet-u v, A¢{1O,459F,S~lPP'45 (1~78')

IS fd,at 88(rl1ötnote øMttêd).' .
<5
Tt11'eviewil1g thîs reCJJl,est fO!'EtlleX~l11ption froxn the dfsclosurepl'ù'Y'l-skl11sof tL!eSO'l1l:'ceof
funding regttlntf.ÔJ1, the NYCLU lJl'ges the 111el11b~rsQ'f thr¿COll1n.üssløn on Public EthIcs to
êonsi'élel' the underlying ra.tionale th¡¡:t infQrms the N t¡W Yo¡'k State Legislature IS and tlll1: Supl'em,e
Cot!l~t';sadop~lon,ctfnlrØ~~U'l([stamdat'cTs,that £lP0teet oi·ganiZfl:t10ns.etlgage.cl in~pl'öl11ot:tngcivll
light,:! and cIvil liberties from disclo¡¡lng infQrmatiol1a:botlt donors and SiJpportó[·.s,
'It is well settJedl11$Uj:lremeCo\uij\;U'isl1l'l,fdenct¡,l that the tope\fítol1 thegQv~rl1mel1t le) take

1;1 positiontln proposed Legishttlorl banu:rngthe f1·cet!.Qn1SproleofedbytlwFlrst A,mk~l'1dm1i,1nC, [Cl
In ..~~rep1:cseJ1tatlYe d~11).ocrk\cyHIhe whoteCQ:flceptQ trepresen truia!l de.¡:K~ltdg tIl)On th It': äbí lhyo r
'the people to make theh'vvfshes lUl0Wl1 to their repl'esetttZtth,t¢f!,1'11
All(l tCl~:èçrC(t~·e.that the NYCLU .(ern¿Eshl1i1al'Iy sít~latedí5rgallizatl0l1RJ dIsclose P(;}l'sol1al

Íllfod'ulatiol1 of dOll01'S Mds~¡PPOl'tel:s tt) $ubj~~çtthQs~ inclivi:dt.1als, todsköf hfl1~m, tl:u<eàtsJ
'lutJ'Clssmentaxj.d l'epdsaLThis lsan tmwaxI'¡:jntedd¡¡k. ,a;ndallt:¡!'î11eCeSS~1t·y It tS~11'isk thnt we
;e\sktheCommlsslcH1elfl11iimrteas l'eg~rdsehe N'tOLU pl'()v$dh1gthem'gm\¡z,~ttîit~11l:t11
exelnpfl011 rl'011.1 th~pqbJic dls¢:fos1.ll~ereqtt1l'exnel1Cs.
the. basis of chis subrrl1ßstol'1, IMludingtheatiaOhttl<l

011
statel'netrt N'YeLl] }¡hottlclbøgrarlt~d ex:emptil.mthmt wi!.see:k
hm,} thnt the Ínlbl'm¡¡tioneclntaÍneèt
Jd·I.%,l in thtßm;J!lpHQatio]'ll¡¡.tl'Ll,e •. ¡;brl't:}.çt,artd~lOtnple£e
hest ol:"o.l,Jl'l<,l1owletlge and betlef. lIowe\l(;)J')tftheCømí1~îs.slonl'eg~1tds thl,ï¡:$(;lbniÍS'sloÍl à~
lnn.dequa;t~ t1,f .ålt)' ¡'casO hlWf.l W«Jl11{Lbe .lr117~p~\!'~a¡tó
.$1,I,fYpl(¡)'111entf,,¡¡<íllel' ,Q tlr,lqgtl1ID.M fachJrl]
t)l'escntEt.tTon.
Thank ymt for yOtll' cons] den\tft)l1 of this l11:atter,
Ro~ertPérry
Leg.islative Director
Alihul' Eisenberg
!~ 8¡J¡¡le,g,,7!;u,l~r(JJ'11 f'l'tI.,rfc{lfI11sCo¡1jkrtillaev¡ No,!!'/' 'NIo/øl' Freight, (l1a,¡36S U$,121, 138{1.1.8,.190)),

1"1 kl;ál I37,
Süpplltlllelltítl statel1'l eIlt oflfaçtsiullUpp<7re ofth eNYCIÆJ' S]·t)(!]UCílt (¡)r fmc.x,emptJonfl'øm
,the s(ju(·eø~of~(undl.llgdi$çlosUfé rcqulretueuts.
I
J.)ê(j¢mh~1'3,,.20 13
l'hø factspl'esentëd ihthé föregôlílgIettel'~ tö Whiôbthis;~llppletùeht is ~ltàÓhecl, descl'ibe}

incidents lnyol vh1.~}{YCLU. sta:ffltieíübê~'~MçI thë orga111?;ation .\~ 11ol1"ßtaffl11~tXÎl;¡el'$al')d
·suP!?Ql'tel's whó'have.beellthe.t~rgetott.hl'eah¡al'lô hurassnwntasa cHl'ectCQI1$equenqe·ofthë;!1'
~1'J:tl[i,ation with î:he NYC:LUal1cl.Hs f\dvøça~ton hehalfQf civl I' tigh t$~J)d'oivjll iberüeS',
Wtth tl:lÍ$SÜPP remel1talstatell.1etltQ~ faots) the NY CLtJprovid~s lÙt'theL{evklènce of thetltrèäts

ri
f
al1d'hatassluent· thaiareoftel'lcllrectedat tllt,l otgaüfzätlQfl 's~ltlfn(jye<;:s¡..c[ienJs. allÔ .~,ûppo\'ter$.
W~do so itt theiilter¢slQf ptQy¡dÍIlg the luél11bers of the 'Gomn11ssi(?!1 with. ê\ÔeepG}l'
~lnd~rstßL1dr:ngas to the héight~l1~dtiskofhar¡l1 th",t wot11d be"created .if tb,e NYCLD were
required lOlna,k~ p:ubtic the. pel'sQnElll1irOrll'H~UOllÖf the otgahiza,tiol1 Is SllppÖli~tS,
It.has beel11'ébbgrtizedthtttcölTtttWer@H pfg£{nlzatlous. se.eking e~emptfOxlSÔ:011l disQlostlr~

oolim\tiéms l[l1der}i~tçkÍay v, }lçÛ(W/I1ªl1d J.mdel~COtù·t !'lJJingsthfj.tdevelÓjJ Jh~lleg~1~tançl~J,1·4s.
m;ti<i.ühttëd •.ÎR13't(4kløy,J 9nrepél'1'öitted töfdyu,PÖi1_ thêh' bWi1örgariizationàl ex:periences :áSwt:\ll
HS Lhose. ()fCiQ111pemtble orgarÜz;,atîol1s. We follow those pteMdéîl(S J:¡et(;1¡
'Th~ NYCL1J is thQNew Yøl'k p;ftlJiflte.(¡i'tI'lèAn:lericäh Givn £iliertles Unid¡'l. Ihere ill ÆÜï
/-\Ct.tJ aftlli!;\teh1. eYe.tystat~h, ai1d,lnBuel'tö .Ri(¡ó,Théi\,CtM äffiliate'S· pUl'SlJCäC0l11mön
mfsstOtl-~ u.pholding individ q al rtghr~andIlbèL'ne~;, .1701:tbatr~ason thcstffffo f the A C'L1f~s state
nf±Hit1t~$'report Sll'nilal'experiences t~gal~dil1gth!'eaJs~mcl reprIsal that fa n ow from thi s·typm ø!'
oclvQQ.acy•. ln'this sens(jiH~n, ACL,Uaff¡liátesarl:)sit1111~lrlyshtlat~d,
It ls¡t!sQ· t1\ecas~ that J3tate.aff11íates often beCl9n)~ tl1el'çpt~s,(7ntatlQll öf thèpatiôna! AC.LD j
tl~l'Ucl!lar[Y'whêl, .t11e~natiOnal otganiza,t¡on .•i$inYQ1Vê~,Íl1cnntroYer~Y',Fo.rcxal1îpl~\llhO~)Id the

AOLU's na\10nal Milee bl'ingwi~iel-ypüblJêizëdlitigätlö11on hehalfo.fam hldhiid~lål in ..
,ÇàlHörtü~t or FIQl'ida,perSQlll)e[ WithtM st~teäft1na.tes·lhrpï.lghQut thëQÓn¡-¡Jí'yh~çtll:ne J.hê
l'~pr'9Sentàtiv¢Slàl1d spokespej'sö),\St for the ACMr! Tj1M i~>[oè~tstEdif memberS' beçol11\? tlw face
ohl1àtional cqntroversy. TQchegenßl.'al p~lbllc,th~ lQ,eaJaff1Ií~~e¡.sih~AèLU, Aildtö the _ ,
extemt îheACLlJís!1ssóciftted \vlth ªcblrtl,'oYersialQr.¡:m.lvöGmíve is~t1e, l'leople. v¡iH0ft,é~Îdh'Ç)ct
theirslLpport, ór l'age, at tho loê'älattlli'ate. .
Wq ask tb:o:tJCQPE CÖlt~idet'th¡$;lllstituC¡ol1al clynàl111cl11 its review o,fthefacts seto~¡,~ b~lI1W,

__ t_::rh~¡:e.pr.qduç.fL'l~,ti~ht_R_prQ¡t,l:ättlSjÛ:rhQ..:liCLU.nn.djhe.j':lyç)L.XLtl!.1ltS1tf.~.Iml¡Jjgflti®)r~"...,"~ ..,~, ..--,~~_..,.:
.~"~...."",..,,__,, ..,__~_~"~"
, l~glståtiVè advQçacytllic!.P\¡blk.·edt.¡êMiô!.1 with the~)bJeçtiv(;}of it1¢f~a&il1g:~Tc.GeS,$ to
¡:e¡JrodüOíive h¿althc~H"e,.incJud¡ng~bo{;tinn çal'e,'1~his'advöë~tcy)p~!'tiÖtlí~\'fiyasI'ßgärds
.abortlon rights,bas maçleslaPflll~mbe.l's ~he taJ'g~t Qfth~Q~\t'?h1,ailtÍ",abol',t)onàc1tvl.sts"
t~~Ol'eXE\h1IÙ~,t1 'fottllr:}rditéQtÖI'6'f.th¢ACUtJ,.äiiwell ~$ 'à. t'Ç)\1').wrACCUßI~rfanÖrney
~~mdle~ttl £~It()WltWØ:{is{\}d ·tllthe ¡¡Ntlrembcu'g FilosII websttei~vhichvilit1QS1'eprbcluç:lÍve-
..
Iltßl"Í ..lJ,$ .. IJ;;I4- Ct914J _.. . . . .
IQ' 6'6!¡¡o,i@'.g",l31'i{JWFli!,SpaJtrlMJ,WtJl'lèJ1/w IN Cam]i(l(g¡i.çOlll1n/tlt?ø..(QI1M)~ 1'59 U.S, 87,99-,fö.~ (l~a:n,
rights ~tdVDcate:säS wellns healthcal'e.professkmals Involved in l'epmductivesel"vlccs:M
T'he web site d¡spl~ysthe 11~meªal1d locations ·of val'Ío~¡sdoctol's who pel'fOrll'labQl'tiOLîS
thrôughQu't the Unltød St~"tes. Dt'..BametC Slepi~l1,a Bu:fn~J.!)physici~m,apljt;lal'S OJl the
sH£!.\.s.list.Q_f{+ª,bQ;rt~¿¡pr nek1.dyaQQJ:tc;:d
~abnJ.j;lQIJi:st.s.)~.It1;l988~ TJ.:C.LSJ.~p.iªnwas 111t]'l'çl~red:
by änatntl"f,tlJorHOl1 z¢ålot,h1 ~O()7,.theNinfhC'il'cüÎt. CO~trt p.rAppeals orcl,ered
'IWanted"posters 'removed from the website beeense they co.ns€Uutedtt ¡\tue threat" to
the pl1yslöiaL1s Identified hl, thepostets,"! I
ø. Mgh~1:anldngoftiolaI f>i'thQACtUsaff1fíate' tJ1Jowa,l'eccdveda threa.tening' lfitt~l' In

It
Jtll'le öf2013 the da,yafterhewas
j q1loted in~l, neW$pé,pel'ttl't¡Cr~ Qöml1Tentingenarr
ACr;u .report th.ataddressecl raci~ü disparitJes in lnal'U~ttU1{\.m·I'est$,The IetlCl'aúüed,
ilDe~u:ghltheacll] :
I read with c1isgustyolll'e\rtiale,. ,~\c'~1.m¡ngHte :poHce oftf:Trgetingthe [)arld~3, 'l'hat is
lîöthi ng 1:mttt.pac;k Qf liè:l. Yottl'ejtlst
11'yhlf!; los th'llP tro ubi\'!..like YU1.ll'tM'o..bie A CLUis
well knnwn fur, We U, l.h£\,~~an ~ùti111atllt11f'ol' Yº u,.' Getyotlr nas ty .ass (lr rOWEl,by
July 1st m'end 1.1p like that Um.l~kiehl Si;1I1fO\¡d~Flodd~1.ythat hntet1J:Ias lî¡.$t1veeks I'oé:ki~l1d
l'ôll.hit.'1
11 fictitious thelettG;1~ c1o$ed with! ~hO\,lght of a !1<;)W meaning
fm' ,YD\tL'" gn¡ll,lpa is Create LudiprQ,lJS .
lJlîtruthl:'!."
t In· Dctobe)'2;Q08, l.aw~en.fol'cel'ne\1tnel:iclåls WeIdCmlllty~ the

bUSÍl10fJ'S t'~èQ~·dsof·tllbCâl taxwlJ1'ep~ïraHol't COlltpany,
efí:orttll'1cÎ(Yçttl:11ented
The tecQrds hiitdbeetí.
i.l1íl1'1ig.1'atlts ttslng fl'å:udul~\l1ts(1riiml·seöLJ.dty ""","'1<>"'.,'"
l
I
Th~ ACLU öfColol1ado '~lltirriMelyr.làpl'esent~dofth.ê b\lSh1C~Swhof!lèd illllWstdt
t~lwyel's
of their l'ecof·ds.,. 22prtor to thí~ :mit1g of the lawsuit., ACCU
oPPois.ition.to th~Weld CQttnt)fp(;îUCe~1c\ions, ACLU tmd
I
l
pcople. lI, tbe t1t!gat¡on~e~ceIve.da 11.l,~Ll'l.betof thl'e.atel1lng and har!:1ssing t
COll'lll1tlX1ICätiQllS arcsuJ t oftheh' JY(.tbHccÖ1l1111eITtSè\Pout thepoll.c.eJfQ'l' I
ex,anl111e, on Nøvcl'nbcl'15, 2008') the l1Lalnti I:lfreoelved .ßpb.cme l1'l~SSê\ge,¡'Wf~tch yOlll'
step ladyIHA11ö,th(;)('pho1'le 111\~$SaRfe; ~Ifew tla,y'S later stØl.'ted~'IYp1Itfe .tI. crí.minølGö
tnMexico l,vith >,oi.t1:pe(i;ple,.r, •.. j í help!;}like heck. tilfilt tb~y t1U1 your butt. b~\ck
b.ord~T.,I o:al'clfYDu're all Arne-deal1 cÍi;[7.;en l'aL! 11eed tog()bMk.
they1recom:'111g from,n Tbe ACLtJ r.eceived. shnfral' messages; ~¡'¡i'well, incI~fdíngthtscmall
Q11.Jal1 u¢u'Y H,¡t-Om" UH~y Itehu'ds! r,.,..] Y.oU peopI~ 'I1~ed to !11oveaWLty¡ solt1ewhel'ê
very :fal'aw~'lYI' Hkr;; deep ültO Me}{i9Q ".Kis,s .off, Jl,.hQles·!;;'the Judge il~.thiscas¡¡¡I'tlll;ld .
.otlb,~J.ªK,..~...._.".,~"',.,,,.,,,
....,.,',.,...."",.,,,J}:Q,Q11bß(}_~11ç1!Jlmtt1'l~t\mLQf·l~tª1I~}lQ,~",£l11ª.11~1'~~~1,~,¡~'"¡;J.ix,~~t~9jltlh.~~Ql.Îe.nts ....,";.,¡¡.
pl'epamtiol1 b\lSiness Was so .gl'e~ttthat they cötildI)l'OC,eed in the Htlgatic)l1 ·as ~\nQl1yn1QLiS :
~\Tohn Doell phllxl,tŒ's,¡
I
\
3,1)
¡li
NW'emhnl'gFlfes, 1ml):1l~~ç~tlílJ.1,gJ1lillx,tw.11'tJLat'
Jllcllrn«d Pm'(?l'lIhc}odv,
,ltttl1l.
'.ZL'Ol\'(91hCk.4002), ¡
, tJ lI1R¡¡$I;ICll'é'h alAnTe¡Na .' .. .GIf, sunlmm'y'llldnlillgS!\Va!Jab¡~t\tlltwtlhlt:~II~ l
co,ól·¡¡1çnselre,s~¡l!'oh"alll!jH\lS.t!'M~Ii\tlÇlp"ßI11.f"t'a~1~l'yíç~,
lI
,
-if '•I.n rCiSPQn\~e toaqvoQacy promoting 'LO J$"f'righfs,theACL tJofOkl'al1ømaWâsscrftn,
h Qstil(;ll1'Rl~lGvideo tñá~In te.rc,tltpI ctW(;S Ohmti Yi* wi th '1magesp fa fire. 2~ '..The vid yn
was çielívf;r~dwitha"Iw~§~mg~;
'IIl1Watèhíqg the l1nldo ¡:th~.Jsöí1giY¡d~Q.l.l~íd~J$t¡U1.dth~t
...•
th.o~l~hthecqtu'Ís maygive )loua f~d$eSellS¢.0fltlc~()t~ISOÔL1you\vHIr~·ceiWtho
tt'c£\tiWel1t thtttlsbeíl1gappl lød In France, Aipray~(has gone Qùtl~gainst y~1u: .lttsQlnJya
xmrt~eI:.9t'f~ltléi, y öJ1a¡:eUl1l'latqraL V/hQñ.yoq.playwitb. flt'c,¥ouwiIlget bum·ed. 'YQ\Ja1!~
fo¡:dl)g yq\!t dis.fmstil'lg> vil~J ·YQI'f'tlpt~e¡llÇlljJ1,mQl'a1.Jlfeli1;yt~qponpøQ[J¡ewhQ,sotlI]CUy
1'ejcc,t .it1andT01' thatro V\yil1\ll Umately .s\tff(?l'CQI1Syql1çnC~E¡,~o 'bel?r~pnred to dÇ}Cel'ld
yo~n;selves for thy Jtoti.olis you täke,¥ol1 c§,l1.11(lversay..that.yOtIWí:)re heve'l~wavn~d'!''l
As teccrttly a¡;¡last wéek, (h('JÁCt{:tof (Jklahomacol1timlegtöt~geivethJ:e~ltstQthe.
's<.1:f'èiyoHhell' st~lÍlcD+1FÍ'id~YiQQtobt;}¡:18, 2013jthe ACLUof 0khl,hQl1,1~t !'eceivec!.a
bomb thl'èat. in. the,fo.i'1~1.Qfa.Voiceni.t'd1, Thec~\ll~l" á$lf,ed::
Al'e i~tUpartö.f'the sameACLU thalsuedJbè T.unlntefUg,ihLel . c' dlstdCfln
OhIo b~ck)uSelhèy háÇI ~pic;tw·~ºf.Jesns·?i.rthtle~·abunch6f goddäli'ln büU~h~~·.
YO\.lKU9W Wh~lt?Mª)tbe r shaùld g,øup ther¢andbo mhY91,11' godcta11;ltl pl ace, y011
\Üot11él' r"'H~l'S"Pissillg Mother 'l'-'~'-el'S,
peep leoff;...
". Iii }q1)'4010, :Çj. ni.~n nanled 13ymuWíllia111sJoadedhi,scatwtülî gUlls.andboclxa1t1l01',

He thenhendedfQl'Sçlf1 FJ;aJ1CisooWith the jl1t~n.IiQn óJ kilHI1.(gemplQyèes~\t thepr!:1ëes oJ
.tl.:!.e.'.·A..C....'...·.L.U...· t).fN...·.ó...ühe. m C.a..Ji.fo...tn. Î...t.l.'.ru.ld
.. tl..·.t.t.h.é. Of.r.lOI¡)S ..,o.f. tl".,e 'T
.. iC.les. I. ?o..t.mdatio. n,. a..
p hilál1thl'opic •örganIzatlguth¿t slIP11ör:ts .elWil'onmental.pteservatiOlt. a11d'ôthersocnü
Jt¡¡¡tiQe.ls~ueªó24 B~rCü'eWiIUái11SXëÇt9h.~d.$.mlFrai)<>i~Cb~.ppl.iceputled hirnóvçl'£Ol'
dri ving ~rtatiç¡llly~~nçlheellgaged hlabdefg~\nbattle '.vi th theoffîc.t,'.rs~ Artel' 11iis'al'í'~Stl
á\.1thQl'hies telJorkclhe told then} that hrs goal.h~d .been tQ\~·st.at·'t·tt.revolution,¡,25
'" The v¡d()9iàl\Vl\¡hlhleatJ1ttp.";llwww,YOtitllb.e:Co1TlN¡a¡ch'~v;:,åJiQNi~11UW .. M,.

~<I ,Henryi<,Lee,írAIl(;~edgïll1man S~)'S ho wanted~'t~vóll1dQIl,"SFQafe,cqmOtl(y,?1.,20 I O),
hup:llvrww,Sr¡!'li~~&Qn1&11Ll1éLªÍ'ticle/A[íe$i;,.Çhgylllnan'Says,;ne.wànted~a-n~ÚÛU\Í{1n~J·¡,B07~14.p..h¡¿
~~¡b"jd, " .' .. ' .. .. . '.. ."
10
ExhlbltD: .
Photos of NYCLU Member's Car

2018.01.16 NYCLU Request For Exemption

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2018.01.16 NYCLU Request For Exemption

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

125 Broad Street

New York, NY 10004

January 16, 2018

Mr. Seth Agata

Re: Request for exemption from Source of Funding disclosure requirements

Dear Mr. Agata:

T C Atf [;íili J9. CI ¡}J/_

Warmest Greetings and

C!wiu«fJJ, VVUke¡ fux/f; 1M A CL U

CUUlghl~9 ~ou a Chftlgtmag ~QQed

Lard assed, Pig ignorant, Vindictive,

Lard assed, Pig ignorant, Vindictive,

Simply a whiny, sniveling, flatulent,

, W &L a» ê!. tlí e I~ l< 1< J, e v- e 111 \tvash!!Jr.To» ci c,

~I t'cT hIM as. ffie /7ex'1 I-It-;/ t: i- 5{ <¿r-vltlr ro (QFr7c¿;

J,_!f hc¡kb don cC cP T,:""" M f I So fl tOh) ?Jæ_ "Zit!!k-t?' h ¡- (9 F 7k

CiCJilïac.7 L1t ct T 21fJL.-5!l? - J£/'6 -DJ- 5]00-'137 -'8791

P'IIN\D L. al l/)o ""Il e/Est,

May lB, 2017

··---------4J1ifE " lfJ· ~'ßJll[Jl-,-tIfl_- --

-_'·---1----7fJi;J4~ W]nc____:__-J_-' ----

_..-- ..-~-~-., ....

--- ~--tjtllf~{ f> i

·-Jf~tJd-A)Æ-~:"---h '- 'I:¡.,!-";!~

------ ---_.._. ...

-._, j;)-~, "~~--,- . _..

NofÖnlyis thisÖél!iRnJbr~~t~.n~.<:t 2YJ~·2iÇª.LI.slªrni~t~~$WE:!ba_vè,,$~$rjl~ºmi.~ç¢nt¡

--~-.- ~-_.- ... Il' .c

3Tf\f2--\ r:rrw-hck~ lAS

All, ~.~ ~?r

.lrfu.Jz.- 4( .x. ~~ t~. c::kM~, I

Hannove Messe Fairgrounds

A- .=3(6. {)ls'WJJtJ~ wi"T7+ 1'L 5' 0AA ¡:fa ~ ¡'Ö 4{ çQ.{)dC ~

It rv\f'.;I~Lw-tJ S W (res 'rH €. ÆC.l.t( ¡J£.w '1o~I<'( NV 1000 '-f 'il

~MEnICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

'. ACLU 50·STATE SURVEY

Complete our SO-State Survey to share your"

• Are yo~ alarmed thatabus.~sOf ~o.w~r by Do~al,d um~\.:h.·; iCcs

• Do you believe a new round of voter suppression I'

Parenthood and passing a federal abortion ban? ~ ..

gree that banning refugees and others f

125 BROAD STREET' 18TH FLOOR' NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400' WWW.ACLU,ORG

THE NIGHT THE WISE MEN FOLLOWED

~ l f ~FM-LI ttlY\t;{L-\1Â SJe;d'/~/.v'J I

---------.----- __ o N 0''- -_,á.--Uj)4··-·Q£__-j¿AJ_b:!_f'tJL:r~e_L&f¿£M(UÆ£_-AU_~''(r.'-L_..1::!_ß ~-~(J_ .._

-----.-----.--- ~@-ki-L--¡g--if-VÉ-AW.A4--~.k.t J.r~è!:r1Yf_-"XQ--4.N1--.I.Mm-L~.M:r...['------

..- ...' - ...~~-----

- .... - i1L.k .ßrrc.iliil..- ~-~ 3J¿_f_'Coj(,.,ÆN'1 . Ç-¡.¡ oo.re:n~~}1tcr.:ej

-.-------- ._ .J:t¿ _f1b2 r t'f" IZ rf__g_}_t!.7--- ...-Il{'[lirLi&- J lc·.f '(£_-~

-----..-..:.-- ..Lmn}-L~tJA:--IL¡)_AL---':LH !rr_--.:s:!..---::f:2..eJ:'ÍfJÆ_JLt!j--~--

-..--------.------- ~e_CAl.kŒi_--,--McL--f.¡_JI...A J...;ry- beCk; f!r.ttfF(--~-HA.'!( __E~}'gJ.fY___-t:__~_~c/-

- -.. ---.- -- .. "_'_n_. -+:f-.-~-~WPdL'L--.n-JJ-~~f.-- ¡)_-f}['fß-¡-_£rw:ro--~b---toV_1l7gyG-~r--eæ--E.~~f/94

.-- --.----~-..------- S.2f.T"-,=-Ùl }:!-..~D.1kLkfIk{[,,:::, SfCdLPL..--A[,J!_-~--~~rtterU...-.¿tLl-H-e.1P---T..H1:'l!L-IJH.~

...- -.-.---------.. CXC_EI£{'1--0_N_e_---Gfrly--~-'!-H9.-lj~L£ç:_ __Ah! __Ame&'!CAH._!_J¡h_~~q_trt!l __

1l'e, "o\.De ti\) sr P II)

WOO" N A œbAN\ZW ~ND OF

S~~-m-MAllG MAU€R/MANN€'R J RclEN11t%Çt..'1 tN'tAre AN

The preferred response of Pro-Choice to Pro-Life encounter,

Is one side maybe sensing

Like a sunrise on a clear-skies morning .....

Is this maybe what happens

.An!! life goe$ on ..... , guess not ~Iways exactly in prime:

Actuality (in) ¿f¡.¡ttën

-_'·---1----7fJi;J4~ W]nc__:-J_-' ----

-..--------.------- ~e_CAl.kŒi_--,--McL--f.¡_JI...A J...;ry- beCk; f!r.ttfF(--~-HA.'!( E~}'gJ.fY_-t:__~_~c/-

...- -.-.---------.. CXC_EI£{'1--0_N_e_---Gfrly--~-'!-H9.-lj~L£ç:_ Ah! Ame&'!CAH._!_J¡h_~~q_trt!l __

surveillance of media, activists and protestors. . '-'---·.YL ~ ,

.....gFINI:9~A1l0NSJeM ITIID I(\J~<?~ ..':P!1.9.·.N

'P;;¡\r.î~"'<'tlôl~_IIV·i_j.QS) NW fÁlÖ 71 t.lIM_m'~_