Strunk Affidavit In Opposition To Ca Mtd Dcd 09-cv-1295 W Exhibits A Thru U 102909

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x : Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse and the CHRISTOPHER : (aka “CHRIS”) STRUNK jus tertii People, : 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

:

Plaintiffs :

845-901-6767

:

Civil No.: 09-cv-1295 Hon. Richard J. Leon

:

v.

: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (BOC) et al.

: : : Defendants. :

: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x PLAINTIFF’S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND STATE OF TEXAS DEFENDANTS STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF KINGS ) Accordingly, I, Christopher –Earl: Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1.

Affiant / Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, (Affiant, Strunk) hereby responds in

opposition to the motion to dismiss the complaint as to Defendant State of California represented by Attorney General Edmund G. (“Jerry”) Brown Jr.’s Deputy Seth E. Goldstein alleges on several grounds: (1) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1) because the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars claims against the State of California, because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claim, and because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the bizarre conspiracy theories alleged in the Complaint; (2) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over the State of California; and (3) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state

1

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

a claim, ordered by the Court to be filed no later than October 30, 2009; and 2.

Further Affiant herewith responds belatedly in consolidation with the Notice of Motion

to dismiss the complaint as to Defendant State of Texas shown as Docket No. 16 having failed to sort out the mail for the Order of the Court shown as Docket 17 ordering a response filed by September 18, 2009, and in that Affiant relied at the time upon an assumption that the Docket No. 17 entry that is without specific mention of any Defendants, and since Affiant had no recollection of receiving the mailing of the State of Texas Motion only applied to the Maryland Province Defendants, and that Affiant error was discovered when the electronic copy of the Docket 16 and 17 from the ECF / Pacer today, October 26, 2009: 09/02/2009

17 ORDER that, on or before September 18, 2009, the plaintiff shall file his opposition or response to the defendants' motion to dismiss. If the plaintiff fails to respond timely, the Court may grant the defendants' motions as conceded. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 9/2/09. (see order.)(kc) (Entered: 09/02/2009)

3. Further that Affiant neglect in filing by September 18, 2009 in opposition to the motion to dismiss as to the Defendant State of Texas that in the Memorandum stated with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) allows a party to file a motion asserting a number of defenses, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), (2), and 6. The Court should dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Court possesses jurisdiction.” 4.

That Affiant has an ongoing related case with the States of Texas and California (State

Defendants) demands a 28 USC §2284 three Judge Panel in the Civil RICO case filed by Affiant / Plaintiff and four other self-represented there with 18 USC §1964(c) with a RICO Statement for

2

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

suffrage infringement also involving the False Claims Act false billing with improper use of the Help America to Vote Act and intent of Congress and State Law of the several States in Case Forjone et al. v the State of California et al. NDNY 06-cv-1002 having been transferred from Western District Case number 06-cv-0080 by the Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara, and three judge panel demand decision before District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. 5. Plaintiff's injury and associated history that supports the need for a declaratory judgment and writ of Federal Defendants to act in their fiduciary capacity and or absent such thereby must facilitate Plaintiff with 18 USC §1964(c) to recover damages incurred after the Quo Warranto Inquest is done by this Court in DCD 08-cv-2234. 6. That upon hearing the facts on the injury to Plaintiff(s) in esse (living being) here in New York, along with those similarly situated, and as recognized by the New York State Legislature as Plaintiff jus tertii represents any standing as aggrieved State Citizens (1), and also as a United States Citizen(s) resident in Washington District of Columbia as a (fictional) corporate entity(ies) that as Government contractor(s) by way of each entity registration and bonding with Plaintiff’s actual birth certificate whose bond is on file at the Department of Commerce and used as an article of trade by Defendants against Plaintiff’s in esse rights protected by New York law. 7. That Affirmant in esse makes a special appearance herein without waiver of any sovereignty as the Trustee and a benefactor of his corporate bond as CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK questionably held in Washington District of Columbia otherwise against his wishes as an article of trade in commerce under the Uniform Commercial Code, against New York Law 1

Citizens: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." -US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1812) case.

3

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

and having damaged Plaintiff in esse in excess of One Million Dollars. 8. That Affirmant filed an affidavit response in opposition to the Federal Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to them with annexed Exhibit A through Q which coincide with a common argument and request for relief (e.g. the pending inquest for the Usurper with a Quo warranto verified petition before this Court) and for economy and to further avoid burden upon the readers Affiant uses the Exhibits chronological order for reference herein. 9. Further by reference Affiant asserts as a matter germane herein as regards the Fiduciary Duty of Federal Defendants breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Provincial Defendants apply to State Defendants infringement of Affiant suffrage and first amendment and guarantee of a republican form of government rights, and are involved in an enterprise defined under 18 USC §1961 that by my expert Witness testimony of Eric-Jon: Phelps in esse will show and includes the copy of the Affidavit (shown in referenced Exhibit C) that will testify inter alia that: “That on or about January 10, 1984 President Reagan, by Executive Order, recognized the Vatican as a sovereign political state exchanging diplomats thereby laying the legal groundwork for the signing of a treaty―a Concordat―with Rome, as did Roman Catholic, Jesuit-advised, Knight of Malta-backed military dictators Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco; That as a result of said Executive Order issued by President Reagan (having chosen at least six Knights of Malta to conduct his administration), the Society of Jesus is acting in concert serving a foreign sovereign (the Pope of Rome) ruling a sovereign state, (Vatican City) ―exclusive of all other considerations―intending to submit the American peoples to a socialist-communist or socialist-fascist military dictator secretly loyal to the “Vicar of Christ;” That this ubiquitous Jesuit Power extends to every State capital, to include every State legislature, judiciary and governor in command of his paramilitary state police; “ 10. The thrust of this case is that there is a conspiracy by acts of treason by Nancy Pelosi (the Traitor) who was and is responsible at the hub to place the Usurper in a coup tat in the oval office and thereby to have the Usurper deliver the USA and New York of the several States sovereignty to an enterprise in furtherance of the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, 4

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009, and with the agenda then to totally integrate all tourists at will into the total Census enumeration preparing for the Immigration reform legislation scheduled for early 2010 to the detriment of the People of the United States of America, People of New York and Plaintiff in esse along with those similarly situated, and that U.S. Census is no longer done by the Department of Interior nor by the Commerce Department but done by the Usurper and Traitor out of the Oval Office, with 13 USC §195. 11. Affirmant complains with Civil RICO use of 18 USC §1964(c) with the duty for providing detail normally missing in complaints demanding writs for non-enforcement of specific laws, as by design Civil RICO crosses a tremendous domain of civil and criminal activity requiring the connecting of dots with patterns of interlocking activity and facilitation normally unseen but necessary for any private litigant, with no less than two predicate acts that have a pattern of crime dating back to before the Federal Election of 1996 there in California injuring the Honorable Robert K. Dornan (Bob) and voter suffrage in his Congressional District as a matter involving malicious violation of 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens) coup tat against Bob personally and inter alia for the purpose of making false claims against the U.S. Treasury generally but not least of which is the misuse of Congressional intent of reimbursement with the Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) from 2002 to the present; and that States Defendants’ agents include but are not limited to the State Secretary of State, various present and previous Governors and others complicit in conjunction with La Raza, ACORN, PICO and as yet named parties-in-interest as defined under 42 USC §1983, §1985(3) and §1986 involved with the enterprise in a conspiracy to commit vote fraud and infringement of speech, with violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), related State election law

5

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

and 42 USC §1973 to suborn the U.S. House of Representatives with the Speaker of the House, Traitor Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Nancy Pelosi (2) to forward objectives of the enterprise. 12. As to the Government’s contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction alleging Plaintiff has not provided a preponderance of the evidence for standing per se, Affiant strenuously disagrees, notwithstanding the use of 18 USC §1964(c), in that the matter of the Usurper’s Quo Warranto takes precedence over such claims based upon the facts so-far presented and in that Usurper acts to date in conspiracy with Defendants herein along with those yet named forming an enterprise defined with the RICO Act as evidence sufficient to meet what U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall held on Court jurisdiction when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821): "It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one." 13. That verification of evidence requested of that Court shows that the Usurper, Defendant

2

In 2006, former Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA) stated of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), that “loyal Catholics” and others who “believe in Christianity” should make sure she stays out of power. The failure to do so would mean jumping “into the hell fire of a Nancy Pelosi Catholic who votes for abortion and rights for perverts.” Watch it: Dornan also stated – I think the big unknown in this election is what are Christians — traditional loyal Catholics, traditional loyal Protestants — who believe in Christianity — they must not stay home — they’ll jump from the frying pan of some frustration over Republican hypocrisy into the hell fire of a Nancy Pelosi Catholic who votes for abortion and rights for pervert.

6

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

Individuals under Civil RICO includes Nancy Pelosi (3) both Clintons and many others including then Speaker Newt Gingrich as the essential facilitators the coup tat fraud against Bob and also infringing Plaintiff proprietary property rights along with those similarly situated, who are singled out as heretics and injured by the pattern of abuse by the enterprise whose benefactors upon investigation use false billing of the treasury and falsification of documents as defined under law but not limited to the follows Federal statutes: 18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents) 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens) 18 USC §1341 (mail fraud) 18 USC §1343 (wire fraud) 18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully) 18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim ) 18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents) 18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) – (interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering Enterprise) 18 USC §1957 – (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from specific unlawful activity) 14. That on July 5, 2006 Bob acknowledged Affiant’s letter (Exhibit D-1) of April 17, 2006, marked by the Clerk of the Court July 18, 2006 as page 43 of 47 filed at Docket Item No. 97 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MAKE A CONSOLIDATED REPLY OF EXPANDED LENGTH WITH EXHIBITS (A-1 thru D-4), by a Letter (Exhibit D-2) as page 44 of 47 of Docket Item No 97, to the Honorable Chief District Judge Richard J. Arcara in the Western District of

3

Nancy Pelosi is from the Jesuit stronghold of San Francisco in the Republic of California whose Bank of America since 1850 directed the Republic of California incorporation into the Union as the 31st State on September 9, 1850 as part of the 1850 Compromise complex package of five bills, passed in September 1850, defusing a four-year confrontation between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North that arose from expectation of territorial expansion of the United States with the Texas Annexation (December 29, 1845) and the following Mexican-American War (1846–1848). It avoided secession or civil war at the time and quieted sectional conflict for four years until the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act.) today use the strawman Jesuit temporal coadjutor Frank Pelosi executive of Delmonte Foods with overlapping directorship and significant stock ownership of Starkist Tuna exploitation of labor facilitated by Speaker Nancy by maintaining open boarders. 7

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

New York Case Forjone et al. v. EAC et al. 06-cv-00080, (see Exhibit R); and 15. Further, in which the False Claims Act / Civil Rico Case Affiant and John Joseph Forjone, as two of five self-represented plaintiffs therein 06-cv-0080 filed a RICO Case Statement with local rule 5.1(h) (see Exhibit S); and 16. Furthermore, in which the False Claims Act / Civil Rico Case 06-cv-0080 Affiant along with those self-represented plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint by leave of the Court, and that among the numerous defendants named, the States of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico (4) , and Texas are defendants as its actions relate to the 2000 Census enumeration, allotment and subsequent reapportionment therein, as a matter of any state and or subdivision / person, territory that makes a false claim, as defined under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 USC

4

Former New Mexico Secretary of State Indicted on August 19, 2009 was made public, charging former New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and Chairwoman of the National Association of Secretaries of States (NASS) (sued in Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. 04cv-1193 NDNY) with fraud, money laundering, tax fraud, attempts to evade or defeat tax, making/permitting false public vouchers, soliciting/receiving an illegal kickback, offering/paying an illegal kickback, and tampering with evidence. The charges seem to relate to federal funds sent to the Secretary of State’s office during 2004 for voter education. See this story, which has a link to the 20-page indictment. Vigil-Giron served three four-year terms as Secretary of State. She was elected in 1986, 1998, and 2002. She is a Democrat. She made some rulings that were hostile to minor parties. During her second term, in 1999, the Libertarian Party was conducting a registration drive. Her office disallowed all new Libertarian registrants in any particular county, if even one person in that county complained that he or she had been tricked into registering into the party. However, a state court judge disallowed that ruling and restored the registrations. During her third term, when the Green Party was entitled to a primary in 2004 (because it had polled over 5% for Governor in 2002), she ruled all Green candidates who were running for public office off the Green Party primary ballot, so that the Green Party was left with no nominees except for president and vice-president in 2004. Also, starting with the 2006 election, she removed the straight-ticket device from the general election ballot for all parties except the Democratic and Republican Parties, even though nothing in the law authorizes such discriminatory treatment. Also, while she was Secretary of State, the Secretary of State’s webpage was set up to show voter registration data by political party, but omitted any mention of the qualified minor parties, thus giving the impression that they didn’t exist.

8

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

§3729 thru §3733, as well as Racketeering provisions of 18 USC §1961 thru §1968 as done under color of HAVA for Federal Treasury reimbursement certification review by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for the United States Election Assistance Corporation (EAC) on May 1, 2006 by order of that Court filed the Verified Amended Complaint (see Exhibit T). 17. Affiant since 1992 has studied the use of the census in shifting power to the southwest by changing the questions asked during the Census enumeration as part of predicate acts that aid and abet the objectives of a racketeering enterprise. 18. In 1999 Affiant filed a challenge to the 2000 Census enumeration in the Eastern District of New York 99-cv-2168 that languished for two years by judicial inaction and by way of this entry all the history from the 1910 Census through 1930 Census are incorporated herein as a matter of fact including the role of the San Francisco Bohemian Grove member Herbert Hoover and his 1928 Presidential election opponent SMOM member Al Smith who threatened to challenge the election of 1928 due to the non-allotment of House seats since 1911 that lead to the fraudulent voice vote adoption of 13 USC §141 for “capping” seats using the 1911 allotment without a role call in June of 1929, and thereby preventing the increase of House members ever since until hell freezes over; and that this case is different it is about a Traitor, Nancy Pelosi and the Usurper hijacking the 2010 Census enumerations as part of predicate acts that aid and abet the objectives of a racketeering enterprise. 19. That Bob in his July 5, 2006 letter to the Court, shown as page 44 of 47 in the Exhibit R, stated that he was: “…outrageously defeated illegally by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by a minimum of 2,369 alien votes, and according to I.C.E. (I.N.S.) records 4,023 alien votes illegally cast in the 1996 California General Election; and that by consensus of the both the Republican and Democratic parties behind the scenes in violation of the majority of voter rights conspired then and now for control over illegal alien voting power in California and seemingly nationwide. Aliens illegal, voting with impunity and whereas with thousands of felonies having been committed…”

9

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

20. That since Bob wrote that letter back on July 5, 2006, the California Secretary of State on June 30, 2009 arrested and seeks conviction of the Jesuit temporal coadjuditor / community organizer Larry Nativo Lopez who is and was responsible for illegally registering the various aliens (tourists at will) who participated in the cited 1996 California General Election through the present and now faces three years in prison on a related charge as National Director of Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana and President of the Mexican American Political Association; and 21. Further, to add insult to further injury having been suffered since the 1996 California General Election and Nationally since the Federal Defendants malicious refusal to ask the simple question in the enumeration of the 2000 Census (i.e. “Are you a USA Citizen?” and or “Are you a Permanent Resident alien?”) didn’t and under the control by the Usurper and the questionable Census Monitoring Board with 13 USC §195 still intends not to ask any such question that would differentiate a Tourist at will or diplomat from a USA Citizen and or a Permanent resident Alien, and as a cover-up operation the hubristic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Larry Nativo Lopez on October 8, 2009 was reported by the San Fernando Valley Sun in an article entitled “Census Becomes Point of Contention for Latinos” (see Exhibit U) by reporter Alex Garcia to say:

"If we cannot count on the government, why are we going to get counted?," asked Nativo Lopez, president of Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana who along with Rev. Miguel Rivera, chairman of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy, are asking undocumented immigrants to abstain from participating in the census as a way to pressure the Obama administration to pass an immigration reform. Lopez said Latino participation was very high in the past two censuses, in 1990 and 2000 because there was an incentive for immigrants to participate. "The success of the 1990 Census was based on the legalization that took place in 1986. There was a strong incentive because immigrants felt they had become accepted and were no longer fearful," he said. He added those gains carried into 2000, when those immigrants who were

10

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

legalized in 1986 were becoming citizens and were starting to vote for Latino politicians and saw their representation grow. 22. That Larry Nativo Lopez was instrumental in the Gray Davis victory that also marks a political shift in that Californians had no Democratic governor for 16 years since Jerry Brown from 1975 to 1983, assisted by Fr. “Jim” Jones, S.J. (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978); and 23. That Larry Nativo Lopez now to a lesser degree than Jesuit fourth level oath extremist Fr. James Warren "Jim" Jones, S.J., who was the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple and Templer New Age Democratic Party insider, throughout the sixties and seventies was the associate of Jesuit trained temporary coadjutor Attorney General Jerry Brown; that since then Jerry Brown now is one of ACORN's A-rated attorneys general; and that all the while ACORN was engaged in its apparently many unlawful activities in his state, Jerry Brown was helping ACORN on the taxpayer dime. It is a bad sign, to say the least, when the chief law enforcement officer of a state is actually helping an entity that is conflicting with multiple laws. Bob’s election was stolen by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana, a group that made a concerted effort to register illegal aliens. Since then, the art of rigging the vote has been refined and perfected by the likes of ACORN and other community activist organizations. The modus operandi is clear. First, there must be a team of lawyers to challenge any efforts to determine voter eligibility. What we ended up with is "motor voter" registration everywhere screwing up suffrage! 24. The on-going enumeration of the 2010 Census are compounding the injury sustained from the motor voter act and HAVA that since the enumeration of 2000 without differentiating citizens and permanent residents from all person present at the time which included diplomats and tourist at will must be resolved herein and that associated crimes for which it created the basis for that is evidenced in Texas, and California along with other state of the several states than has injured Plaintiff and those similarly situated in New York as complained of in the

11

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

related case Forjone et al. v California et al. NDNY 06-cv-1002, shown as Exhibit T, because plaintiffs present facts of injury complaint here is continuation of the Civil Rico matter now involving the Usurper who beforehand was an Attorney for ACORN and other vote fraud organizations. 25. That both Texas and California agents use the Census to commit a fraud upon the US Treasury as defined under the FCA using an improper overly-broad interpretation of the HAVA law as to “Voting Age Population” (VAP) which may only mean those eligible to vote for which permanent resident aliens, tourists and diplomats aren’t, went ahead and illegally falsely billed for all those 18 years or older even against the state law as alleged and shown in Exhibit T. 26. Texas and California agents are active participants in the enterprise whose associated predicate acts committed False Claims under HAVA with active harboring of tourists for financial gain as defined with involving malicious violation of 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) and related law and are not abating such activity shown a long pattern of activity that goes to support the predicate offenses, and therefore, are rightfully to be included as Defendants. 27. As for Mr. Goldstein’s contention that I haven’t been injured with sufficient particularity, Affiant contends that beyond the normal reference to pain and suffering and financial injury of the One Million personally, the five trillion dollars for the jus tertii People of New York is just a small portion of the 650 or so Trillion Dollars of commercial instruments in each person’s corporate name that effect People in New York, as WE have been rear-ended here with tourists; Affiant’s spiritual injury pre-supposes that the victim is able to know when it happened and when recognized is not to be compared to the fellow who after getting run over by a car crawls home, sits in his TV Chair and waits to see if the victim is news-worthy, or later to be defined by an attorney if in fact victim were injured, a spiritual injury happens when a sovereign living being’s spirit is intentionally broken, faith trampled and hope extinguished; and that only when

12

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

the victim fights back to recover his spirit, faith and hope may he be able to regain in esse’s sovereignty, both to pursue happiness and the blessings of liberty in a republican form of government under concepts of God, Country and with a Family as Affiant does herein. 28. The Ratification of the Constitution by the People of New York July 26, 1788, declared: “That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security. “That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve. That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; … That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference of others.” Wherefore, Affiant prayer of relief of the Court is for an order: I. Deny both Defendants’, the State of Texas and State of California, Motion to Dismiss; II. That both States be enjoined to cease the use of tourists and diplomats in suffrage matters; III. That the predicates and patterns shown in case Forjone et al. v. California et al. NDNY 06cv-1002 be heard with 28 USC §1407 as part of a complex Multi-district litigation; IV. That both Case as they are related be consolidated and or partially severed as to interstate actions for hearing by a Three Judge Panel as requested by the Motion filed and pending before this Court since July 13, 2009; V. a preliminary injunction with special master to over see the Census Monitoring Board with 13 USC §195 wrongly formed by Pelosi and Usurper to conduct the 2010 Census enumeration with questions: are you a citizen, and or are you a permanent resident alien. VI. That the Verified Petition for a Quo Warranto inquest be expedited as matter of ongoing irreparable harm; VII. That were Barack Hussein Obama held a Usurper in fact that Plaintiff be granted an opportunity to amend the complaint with a Civil Rico Statement with 18 USC 1964(c);

13

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

VIII. That a declaratory judgment on the application of the Immigration and Naturalization Act in regards to 13 USC §141 for Tourists and Diplomatic Corps with the Logan Act be issued, including whether or not the New York Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A and New York Constitution Article 3 that differentiates Aliens from Tourists must apply with the Vienna Convention treaties in its entirety in Census 2010 Enumeration and allotment; IX. That Federal Defendants by writ of this court enforce the Logan act and Vienna Convention as to each John and Jane Doe member and XYZ entity doing business in the United States of America and or its territories and New York so that the New York Province for the Society of Jesus and by notice to all twelve Province must show cause why each should not conform and be subject to: a. to the contract provisions of New York law or as applies in another state of the several states as its members in New York Province of the Society of Jesus, Inc.; b. the provisions of the Logan Act and related law; c. to the provisions the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; d. restraint of suffrage in New York and at united States Elections as voluntary honorary members of the Consular staff under the Vienna Conventions interfering with receiving state internal affairs; e. As to whether or not the Diplomatic service of a foreign sovereign state is subject for enumeration for the purposes of allotment of members to the US House of representatives on a state-by-state basis applies. f. restraint of suffrage at United States Elections as voluntary honorary members of the Consular staff under the Vienna Conventions interfering with receiving state internal affairs; g. That each member not be enumerated for the purpose of allotting U.S. House members with the 2010 Census; X. That Defendants and Provincial be restrained from interference with the internal affairs of the receiving States and commerce; XI. Those Federal Defendants restrain interference with the Vatican and USA to favor People; XII. That the allotment with 2 USC §2a to Maryland include the enumeration for the Washington District of Columbia Citizen resident and permanent resident for the purpose of calculation with 13 USC §141, and that residents qualified according to Maryland Election Law grant Federal election suffrage; XIII. That this matter be consolidated with Strunk v New York Province of the Society of Jesus et al. 09-cv-1249 and Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234; XIV. That Plaintiff be reserved opportunity to include Defendants in an actual RICO Statement; XV. and for further and different relief as the Court deems necessary.

14

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

I have read the foregoing in regards to enforcement of law as is required with 18 USC 1964(c) as against the States Defendants and its agents as to the ongoing 2010 Census enumeration and effects upon equal representation in Congress, equal treatment of suffrage and substantive due process associated with the 9th and 10th Amendments, that in lieu of the secession of the People of the New York from the Union with the united States of America as of right by and for the CHRIS STRUNK jus tertii People of New York, and know the contents thereof and jus tertii effects those similarly situated with five causes of action with spiritual and temporal injuries with irreparable harm, affirms the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

/s/ Christopher –Earl : Strunk ____________________________ Christopher –Earl : Strunk ©in esse Sworn to before me this the 27th day of October 2009

/s/ ____________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

15

St&

v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-c~-1295

I have read the foregoing in regards to enforcement of law as is required with 18 USC 1964(c) as against the States Defendants and its agents as to the ongoing 21010 Census enumeration and effects upon equal representation in Congress, equal treatment of suffkage and substantive due process associated with the 96 and 1oh Amendments, that in lieu of the secession of the People of the New York fi-omthe Union with the united States of America as of right by and for the CHRIS STRUNK jus tertii People of New York, and know the contents thereof and jus tertii effects those similarly situated with five causes of action with spiritual and temporal injuries with irreparable harm, affirms the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3* parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

before me this of October 2009

-.

-. .

.

: .-.

. .

--

-

*_

..

\

.

.> - - . -,

-.

wk74/4

NO%!!Y PUBLIC -..A

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

-. - -

'..

.. .,. . ... -.. / - ---

-.. - -

-

'

'

,

-/

Qualif~edIn Kings County Commission Expires March 3,20#/

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

.

MYRA J. HAILEY

. --T.Notary Public, State Of New York -. - . .No.01 HA6068323 -'

.

New York Province Society of Jesus -Welcome to New York Province of the Society of ... Page 1 of 3

Nenr Yurk Prdnce llc Sociery ofJars <

NEWS New York Provincq M L ~ J o d R C m a t ~ Un4 pw-ts its &@ember *eats sckiuk.

~

p m m t s L M * o f ~ m m b a

swidsaaIitndm-andarpboial aAan00a Ewrvone B e l a - f athe families and fii& of gays aIId fesbis.

-

~ m d r q r ~ ~ w b o t O I l a b ( 1 # ~ W s w

Y a k m c a a m v h d b a ~ ~ o n ~ o u r h i t Identity Rootad m Igualiau Spmmatity"at ST. Ignatim h i t

F,.-M~sI. ~FdhtmtUninmtfy.hburss conmunion at 1a)iem's Manfor fnaomiqfmhman rmd their fmnl185.

~ebeatHou&MabrsEet.NY.~,S.ptanbet12.

Loydam&mMorrirrsDam,NJ,i+ miastoa&kvof~-~Irpldoing armsthiog newnewnew conductal by Fr. WU R,akowicq SJ,on September 17.

-

Sociity ofJesus. A

.

~

l

w

o

s

l

l

:

.

n

h

A

~

"Silenaand fwmt D ~ Y Qf avocations are rm lower adequate responses t i ak pied shortage in the unit&Stabs." ForinsightmlDwhdpumigMdotocnoo~rqgavocldioar,md a hlrrk" bv Fr. Richard Mallw. SJ. ~nA m r i a magazine.

Make c donation

&'$&& Ph"Q CJdkrrofmar MKIjoined the Jamits in the United Stldes in 2008.

.

-

--

-.

-

EXHIBIT A

'A

~

The text of the Jesuit Erh.eme Oath of Indmtion is meticulously recorded in the Joumais of the 62nd Congress. 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (House Calendar No. 397. Report No. 1523,15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216).

(Text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction:)

(

,now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin I Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy- Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and A1 the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by s t . Ignatius Loyola, in the pontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the V i the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, &d the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do fiirther declare the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do W e r declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest; to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels &om time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac Exhibit B .

- .

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MIR THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA CIRCUIT In re Christopher Earl Stnmk,

Petitioner for a Writ ofMandamus.

AFFIDAVIT of Eric-Jon: Phelps 6 in esse In support of Christopher-Eark StnmW in esse, Petitioner in the Original Proceeding for a writ of mandamus under FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to Reease the district Judge in QSlcv-2234,09-~-1249 09e-1295 atid investigation of District Clerk's Office with 28 U.S-C. 5455 and related law in its entirety.

CMstopher-Earl:Strunk Q in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Em&: cesmck@m*cQ* -----.--.. --.-...- .... .-.. Cell- (845) 901-6767

EXHIBIT

C

+

AFFIDAVIT of Eric-Jon: Phelps © in esse

In support of Christopher-Earl: Strunk© in esse, Petitioner in the Original Proceeding for a writ of mandamus under FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to Recuse the district Judge in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249 09-cv-1295 and investigation of District Clerk’s Office with 28 U.S.C. §455 and related law in its entirety.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF BERKS

) ) )

ss

I, Eric-Jon: Phelps© in esse, Affirmant, being duly sworn, depose and state under penalty of perjury: 1. Am a natural born citizen of the Republic of California residing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, am over 18 years of age and not a party to this instant action. 2. Affirmant’s residence for service of process is 203 South Fort Zellers Road, Apt. D, Newmanstown, PA, 17073; Email: [email protected]; home phone : 610-295-5082. 3. Affirmant makes this affidavit in support of Christopher-Earl: Strunk© in esse (“Petitioner”), Petitioner in the Original Proceeding for a writ of mandamus under FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to recuse the District Judge in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, 092

cv-1295 and investigation of District Clerk’s Office with 28 U.S.C. §455 and related law in its entirety. 4. That Petitioner has requested that Affirmant testify herein and or related proceedings as an expert witness on the Society of Jesus, also called the Company of Jesus, and related organizations in the following matters: a. The history of the Bible-based, Protestant Reformation; b. The history of the Society of Jesus, a.k.a. the Jesuit Order, established by Pope Paul III in 1540; c. The Jesuit Order’s extreme oath of induction swearing complete obedience to the Pope of Rome, which allegiance includes the “extirpation” of all “heretics and liberals” by any means necessary including political assassination; d. The history of the Jesuit Order’s involvement in the western hemisphere, especially as it relates to its de jure conversion of “these United States of America” founded in 1787 into a centralized, consolidated Empire in 1868 (via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution) until the present; e. The history of the Bull promulgated by Pope Clement XIV in 1773, suppressing and extinguishing the Jesuit Order “forever;” the Society’s resultant war on the papacy through its Illuminati3

controlled Grand Orient and Scottish-Rite Freemasonry leading and directing the French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars; the Order’s restoration in 1814 and subsequent history as to how it presently exercises exclusive control over the Pope of Rome; f. The grave danger to the very existence of the papacy, the Order having murdered popes, altered Canon Law for its advancement, including directing the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965); the military “Company of Jesus” now serving as the primary impetus behind the international social, religious, political and financial movement for a highly-centralized “New World Order” which, at its consummation, necessitates the destruction of the Vatican and thus the historic Roman Catholic faith; g. The paramount influence of the Jesuit Order over Washington, D.C., through Georgetown University via its political surrogate, the New York City/Washington, D.C.-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its offspring, the Trilateral Commission (TC); h. The secret and yet complete power of the Jesuit Order over a myriad of papal “Court Jews” serving the Company via their membership in the CFR and/or in high-level Freemasonry (Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Charles Schumer, Henry Kissinger, 4

billionaire George Soros, Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Senior Advisor David Axelrod, past and present chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, etc.); i. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over the unified Intelligence Community of the American Empire centralized at National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters, Fort Meade, Maryland, it defending the pope’s purported power of “binding and loosing;” j. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over the Central Intelligence Agency since its creation with the National Security Act in 1947, the CIA serving as the Order’s enforcement arm over its CFR; k. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over Pope Benedict XVI’s thirteen American Roman Cardinal Archbishops includes the former president of Fordham University, CFR member and Professed Jesuit priest under extreme oath of the fourth vow Joseph A. O’Hare. The immediate foot soldiers of the American Cardinals include Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (CFR member and President Regan’s Secretary of State, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., whose brother, Francis Haig, is a powerful Jesuit priest under extreme oath of the fourth vow; CFR member and President 5

Reagan’s National Security Advisor, Richard V. Allen; etc.); the Knights of St. Gregory (CFR member and Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch, etc.); the Knights of Columbus (CFR-affiliated House Majority Leader John Boehner, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, etc.) and Opus Dei (CFR-affiliated Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, former Director of the FBI Louis Freeh, convicted American spy for the Russian KGB/SVR, FBI counterintelligence officer Robert Philip Hanssen, etc.); 5. That Affirmant hereby agrees to testify in this or any related other proceeding schedule with reasonable due notice. 6. That Affirmant’s area of expertise on the Jesuit Order with references is as follows: a. History of the Order including its present Crusade against Islam; b. Counter Reformation Doctrines of the Order; c. Power of the Order over the late British Empire, American Empire, Russian Empire and Chinese Empire; d. Power over the Moslem World and Israel (Rome’s revived “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem”) via Freemasonry; e. Power over all political leaders worldwide via Illuminized Freemasonry ruling all Supreme Councils of the 33rd Degree; 6

f. Power over the Pope’s International Intelligence Community and International Crime Syndicate both conducting the Order’s International Drug Trade; International Islamic Masonic Terrorist Network; International Banking Community including all central banks of Europe, the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, etc. through the ubiquitous reach of the NSA, its most secret enclave being “The Jew Room” from which all American Jews are denied access as a matter of National Security; 7. That Affirmant was an expert witness for the Plaintiff(s) regarding the Jesuit Order in the California case Kronzer Foundation v. Caritas of Birmingham in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, Case No. CLJ 425608. See attached affidavit submitted in that case. 8. That Affirmant believes as a factual matter based upon Canon and related law as well as press releases and private periodicals: a. That the Society of Jesus has re-gained its death grip over the papacy since no later than October, 1836, in which year it secured a papal Brief by which Pope Gregory XVI gave himself and his church over to the diabolical rule of the Order; b. That the Jesuit Superior General of the Company of Jesus obtained absolute control over every Roman Catholic cardinal, archbishop, 7

bishop and priest through the decree of papal infallibility issued by the Jesuit-directed and controlled First Vatican Council, 1870, the “Father General” now unfettered in his rule over the Pope’s Vatican Empire by commanding the movements of one man; c. That the Society of Jesus, in order to secure all past privileges granted to the Order prior to its suppression , extorted the Bull Dolemus inter alia from Pope Leo XIII in 1880 by first poisoning and then providing the antidote after the Pope signed that Bull further entrenching Jesuit tyranny over the Vatican; d. That according to the Code of Canon Law, the Pope must have a Jesuit for his immediate confessor, the Jesuit General being fully apprised of all secret designs and counsels of the “Vicar of Christ” and his Roman Curia lest a covert movement to suppress the Society be crowned with success as in the case of Pope Clement XIV’s Bull of suppression and extinction of the Society in 1773; e. That the Society of Jesus “tempers the Chair of St. Peter with assassination,” should any Pope disobey clear commands of his Jesuit confessor and advisors as in the case of Pope John Paul I; f. That in upholding the Pope’s universal temporal power in his fanatical quest to rule all nations, the Company of Jesus, exercising 8

unrivaled control of Pope Pius IX, assassinated President Abraham Lincoln (1865) and with its subsequent assassination of President William McKinley (1901) assumed absolute control of its “Holy Roman” Fourteenth Amendment, cartel-corporate fascist, socialistcommunist, American Empire with which to rule the world for the benefit of the Jesuit papacy as Chicago Archbishop James Quigley stated in The Chicago Tribune in 1903: “Within twenty years this country will rule the world. Kings and emperors will soon pass away, and the democracy of the United States will take their place. . . . When the United States rules the world, the Catholic Church will rule the world.” g. That the Jesuit Order rules the world from America is attested to by Fordham University graduate, G. Gordon Liddy, so stated in his book, Will: The Autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy, pp. 23, 36: “As much as I had admired the German Benedictines, I admired the Jesuits more . . . These men [Jesuits at the Fordham University Club] ran the world, and they enjoyed it.” h. That Jesuit priest James Shea, Provincial the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus, is the overseer of Jesuit Georgetown University president, Knight of Malta/CFR member John DiGioia; 9

he in turn directing the domestic and foreign policy of Prince Hall Rite, 32nd Freemason, Mulatto U.S. President Barry (Davis) Soetoro (alias “Barrack Hussein Obama”) through Georgetown University directing Roman Catholic papal knight Vice President Joe Biden, both Sunni Moslem Obama and Roman Catholic Biden being groomed for these positions by Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors for over twenty years, including Roman Catholic U.S. Senator and CFR member Edward M. Kennedy and Roman Catholic ex-National Security Advisor and CFR/TC member Zibignew Bzrezinski; i. That the Jesuit Provincial of the New York Province for the Society of Jesus, David Ciancimino, manages and oversees the centralized wealth and economic power of the American Empire through his control of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York City (which houses over 600,000 gold bricks), JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, etc., as well as Wall Street, the Stock Market and the Securities and Exchange Commission first headed by Knight of Malta Joseph P. Kennedy, the foremost short-seller of stock in 1929 precipitating the Stock Market Crash and Great Depression; j. That on or about January 10, 1984 President Reagan, by Executive Order, recognized the Vatican as a sovereign political state 10

exchanging diplomats thereby laying the legal groundwork for the signing of a treaty―a Concordat―with Rome, as did Roman Catholic, Jesuit-advised, Knight of Malta-backed military dictators Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco; k. That as a result of said Executive Order issued by President Reagan (having chosen at least six Knights of Malta to conduct his administration), the Society of Jesus is acting in concert serving a foreign sovereign (the Pope of Rome) ruling a sovereign state, (Vatican City)―exclusive of all other considerations―intending to submit the American peoples to a socialist-communist or socialistfascist military dictator secretly loyal to the “Vicar of Christ;” 9. That Georgetown University is within the jurisdiction of the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus, its Provincial having authority over Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, D.C., enveloping government service in the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security and other agencies manned by papal knights politically loyal to the Pope of Rome; 10. That this ubiquitous Jesuit Power extends to every State capital, to include every State legislature, judiciary and governor in command of his paramilitary state police; 11

financial power of the Jesuit Order, he will be removed from office as was Illinois Governor ~ o Blagojevich d (an Orthodox "heretic" of Serbian descent) who promised that his Illinois State government would refuse to do business with the Jesuit Order's Bank of America headed by then Chairman and now CEO, papal knight Kenneth D. Lewis; 12. That I, the Affirmant, have read the above and know its contents as an

expert witness; the facts stated in the Petition are true pursuant to my own

personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief ?he grounds of Affirmant's beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: third parties including a former CIA assassin, classical histories, encyclopedias, rare books, official records, and personal knowledge except as to those stated

being logical conclusions premised upon undeniable facts.

Sworn and so Stated before me this

...

pz

.

3'

,

fi;b,3.;.;&j,:1

-

Notary Public ANN M HASSLER Notary Public WOMELSOORF BOROUGH. BERKS COUNTY My Commlsslof~Expires Jan 24.2013 -....

day of September 2009.

~ i e n n aConvention on Consular Relations 1963

Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963. Entatd into fbra on 19 March 1967. Unied Nations, Tr- &f?es, vol. 596, p 261

Copyright O United Nuions

2005

F

EXHIBIT

D

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963 The States Parties to the present Convention, Recalling that consular relations have been established between peoples since ancient times, Having in mind the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations, Considering that the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities adopted the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which was opened for signature on 18 April 1961, Believing that an international convention on consular relations, privileges and immunities would also contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems, Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of functions by consular posts on behalf of their respective States, Affirming that the rules of customary international law continue to govern matters not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention, Have agreed as follows: Article 1 Definitions 1. For the purposes of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them: (a)

“consular post” means any consulate-general, consulate, vice-consulate or consular agency;

(b) “consular district” means the area assigned to a consular post for the exercise of consular functions; (c)

“head of consular post” means the person charged with the duty of acting in that capacity;

(d) “consular officer” means any person, including the head of a consular post, entrusted in that capacity with the exercise of consular functions; (e) “consular employee” means any person employed in the administrative or technical service of a consular post;

2

(f) “member of the service staff” means any person employed in the domestic service of a consular post; (g) “members of the consular post” means consular officers, consular employees and members of the service staff; (h) “members of the consular staff” means consular officers, other than the head of a consular post, consular employees and members of the service staff; (i) “member of the private staff” means a person who is employed exclusively in the private service of a member of the consular post; (j) “consular premises” means the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the consular post; (k) “consular archives” includes all the papers, documents, correspondence, books, films, tapes and registers of the consular post, together with the ciphers and codes, the card-indexes and any article of furniture intended for their protection or safe keeping. 2. Consular officers are of two categories, namely career consular officers and honorary consular officers. The provisions of Chapter II of the present Convention apply to consular posts headed by career consular officers, the provisions of Chapter III govern consular posts headed by honorary consular officers. 3. The particular status of members of the consular posts who are nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State is governed by article 71 of the present Convention. C HAPTER I. C ONSULAR R ELATIONS IN G ENERAL SECTION

I.

ESTABLISHMENT AND CONDUCT OF CONSULAR RELATIONS

Article 2 Establishment of consular relations 1. The establishment of consular relations between States takes place by mutual consent. 2. The consent given to the establishment of diplomatic relations between two States implies, unless otherwise stated, consent to the establishment of consular relations. 3. The severance of diplomatic relations shall not ipso facto involve the severance of consular relations.

3

Article 3 Exercise of consular functions Consular functions are exercised by consular posts. They are also exercised by diplomatic missions in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. Article 4 Establishment of a consular post 1. A consular post may be established in the territory of the receiving State only with that State’s consent. 2. The seat of the consular post, its classification and the consular district shall be established by the sending State and shall be subject to the approval of the receiving State. 3. Subsequent changes in the seat of the consular post, its classification or the consular district may be made by the sending State only with the consent of the receiving State. 4. The consent of the receiving State shall also be required if a consulate-general or a consulate desires to open a vice-consulate or a consular agency in a locality other than that in which it is itself established. 5. The prior express consent of the receiving State shall also be required for the opening of an office forming part of an existing consular post elsewhere than at the seat thereof. Article 5 Consular functions Consular functions consist in: (a) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, within the limits permitted by international law; (b) furthering the development of commercial, economic, cultural and scientific relations between the sending State and the receiving State and otherwise promoting friendly relations between them in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention; (c) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the commercial, economic, cultural and scientific life of the receiving State, reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State and giving information to persons interested; (d)

issuing passports and travel documents to nationals of the sending State, and visas or appropriate

documents to persons wishing to travel to the sending State; (e)

helping and assisting nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, of the sending State;

4

(f) acting as notary and civil registrar and in capacities of a similar kind, and performing certain functions of an administrative nature, provided that there is nothing contrary thereto in the laws and regulations of the receiving State; (g)

safeguarding the interests of nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, of the sending

States in cases of succession mortis causa in the territory of the receiving State, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State; (h) safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, the interests of minors and other persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State, particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such persons; (i) subject to the practices and procedures obtaining in the receiving State, representing or arranging appropriate representation for nationals of the sending State before the tribunals and other authorities of the receiving State, for the purpose of obtaining, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests of these nationals, where, because of absence or any other reason, such nationals are unable at the proper time to assume the defence of their rights and interests; (j)

transmitting judicial and extrajudicial documents or executing letters rogatory or commissions to

take evidence for the courts of the sending State in accordance with international agreements in force or, in the absence of such international agreements, in any other manner compatible with the laws and regulations of the receiving State; (k) exercising rights of supervision and inspection provided for in the laws and regulations of the sending State in respect of vessels having the nationality of the sending State, and of aircraft registered in that State, and in respect of their crews; (l)

extending assistance to vessels and aircraft mentioned in subparagraph (k) of this article, and to

their crews, taking statements regarding the voyage of a vessel, examining and stamping the ship’s papers, and, without prejudice to the powers of the authorities of the receiving State, conducting investigations into any incidents which occurred during the voyage, and settling disputes of any kind between the master, the officers and the seamen insofar as this may be authorized by the laws and regulations of the sending State; (m) performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the sending State which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the receiving State or which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the sending State and the receiving State. Article 6 Exercise of consular functions outside the consular district A consular officer may, in special circumstances, with the consent of the receiving State, exercise his functions outside his consular district.

5

Article 7 Exercise of consular functions in a third State The sending State may, after notifying the States concerned, entrust a consular post established in a particular State with the exercise of consular functions in another State, unless there is express objection by one of the States concerned. Article 8 Exercise of consular functions on behalf of a third State Upon appropriate notification to the receiving State, a consular post of the sending State may, unless the receiving State objects, exercise consular functions in the receiving State on behalf of a third State. Article 9 Classes of heads of consular posts 1. Heads of consular posts are divided into four classes, namely (a)

consuls-general;

(b)

consuls;

(c)

vice-consuls;

(d)

consular agents.

2. Paragraph 1 of this article in no way restricts the right of any of the Contracting Parties to fix the designation of consular officers other than the heads of consular posts. Article 10 Appointment and admission of heads of consular posts 1. Heads of consular posts are appointed by the sending State and are admitted to the exercise of their functions by the receiving State. 2. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, the formalities for the appointment and for the admission of the head of a consular post are determined by the laws, regulations and usages of the sending State and of the receiving State respectively. Article 11 The consular commission or notification of appointment 1. The head of a consular post shall be provided by the sending State with a document, in the form of a commission or similar instrument, made out for each appointment, certifying his capacity and

6

showing, as a general rule, his full name, his category and class, the consular district and the seat of the consular post. 2. The sending State shall transmit the commission or similar instrument through the diplomatic or other appropriate channel to the Government of the State in whose territory the head of a consular post is to exercise his functions. 3. If the receiving State agrees, the sending State may, instead of a commission or similar instrument, send to the receiving State a notification containing the particulars required by paragraph 1 of this article. Article 12 The exequatur 1. The head of a consular post is admitted to the exercise of his functions by an authorization from the receiving State termed an exequatur, whatever the form of this authorization. 2. A State which refused to grant an exequatur is not obliged to give to the sending State reasons for such refusal. 3. Subject to the provisions of articles 13 and 15, the head of a consular post shall not enter upon his duties until he has received an exequatur. Article 13 Provisional admission of heads of consular posts Pending delivery of the exequatur, the head of a consular post may be admitted on a provisional basis to the exercise of his functions. In that case, the provisions of the present Convention shall apply. Article 14 Notification to the authorities of the consular district As soon as the head of a consular post is admitted even provisionally to the exercise of his functions, the receiving State shall immediately notify the competent authorities of the consular district. It shall also ensure that the necessary measures are taken to enable the head of a consular post to carry out the duties of his office and to have the benefit of the provisions of the present Convention. Article 15 Temporary exercise of the functions of the head of a consular post 1. If the head of a consular post is unable to carry out his functions or the position of head of consular post is vacant, an acting head of post may act provisionally as head of the consular post. 2. The full name of the acting head of post shall be notified either by the diplomatic mission of the sending State or, if that State has no such mission in the receiving State, by the head of the consular

7

post, or, if he is unable to do so, by any competent authority of the sending State, to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry. As a general rule, this notification shall be given in advance. The receiving State may make the admission as acting head of post of a person who is neither a diplomatic agent nor a consular officer of the sending State in the receiving State conditional on its consent. 3. The competent authorities of the receiving State shall afford assistance and protection to the acting head of post. While he is in charge of the post, the provisions of the present Convention shall apply to him on the same basis as to the head of the consular post concerned. The receiving State shall not, however, be obliged to grant to an acting head of post any facility, privilege or immunity which the head of the consular post enjoys only subject to conditions not fulfilled by the acting head of post. 4. When, in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, a member of the diplomatic staff of the diplomatic mission of the sending State in the receiving State is designated by the sending State as an acting head of post, he shall, if the receiving State does not object thereto, continue to enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. Article 16 Precedence as between heads of consular posts 1. Heads of consular posts shall rank in each class according to the date of the grant of the exequatur. 2. If, however, the head of a consular post before obtaining the exequatur is admitted to the exercise of his functions provisionally, his precedence shall be determined according to the date of the provisional admission; this precedence shall be maintained after the granting of the exequatur. 3. The order of precedence as between two or more heads of consular posts who obtained the exequatur or provisional admission on the same date shall be determined according to the dates on which their commissions or similar instruments or the notifications referred to in paragraph 3 of article 11 were presented to the receiving State. 4. Acting heads of posts shall rank after all heads of consular posts and, as between themselves, they shall rank according to the dates on which they assumed their functions as acting heads of posts as indicated in the notifications given under paragraph 2 of article 15. 5. Honorary consular officers who are heads of consular posts shall rank in each class after career heads of consular posts, in the order and according to the rules laid down in the foregoing paragraphs. 6. Heads of consular posts shall have precedence over consular officers not having that status. Article 17 Performance of diplomatic acts by consular officers 1. In a State where the sending State has no diplomatic mission and is not represented by a diplomatic mission of a third State, a consular officer may, with the consent of the receiving State, and

8

without affecting his consular status, be authorized to perform diplomatic acts. The performance of such acts by a consular officer shall not confer upon him any right to claim diplomatic privileges and immunities. 2. A consular officer may, after notification addressed to the receiving State, act as representative of the sending State to any intergovernmental organization. When so acting, he shall be entitled to enjoy any privileges and immunities accorded to such a representative by customary international law or by international agreements; however, in respect of the performance by him of any consular function, he shall not be entitled to any greater immunity from jurisdiction than that to which a consular officer is entitled under the present Convention. Article 18 Appointment of the same person by two or more States as a consular officer Two or more States may, with the consent of the receiving State, appoint the same person as a consular officer in that State. Article 19 Appointment of members of consular staff 1. Subject to the provisions of articles 20, 22 and 23, the sending State may freely appoint the members of the consular staff. 2. The full name, category and class of all consular officers, other than the head of a consular post, shall be notified by the sending State to the receiving State in sufficient time for the receiving State, if it so wishes, to exercise its rights under paragraph 3 of article 23. 3. The sending State may, if required by its laws and regulations, request the receiving State to grant an exequatur to a consular officer other than the head of a consular post. 4. The receiving State may, if required by its laws and regulations, grant an exequatur to a consular officer other than the head of a consular post. Article 20 Size of the consular staff In the absence of an express agreement as to the size of the consular staff, the receiving State may require that the size of the staff be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the consular district and to the needs of the particular consular post.

9

Article 21 Precedence as between consular officers of a consular post The order of precedence as between the consular officers of a consular post and any change thereof shall be notified by the diplomatic mission of the sending State or, if that State has no such mission in the receiving State, by the head of the consular post, to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry. Article 22 Nationality of consular officers 1. Consular officers should, in principle, have the nationality of the sending State. 2. Consular officers may not be appointed from among persons having the nationality of the receiving State except with the express consent of that State which may be withdrawn at any time. 3. The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a third State who are not also nationals of the sending State. Article 23 Persons declared “non grata” 1. The receiving State may at any time notify the sending State that a consular officer is persona non grata or that any other member of the consular staff is not acceptable. In that event, the sending State shall, as the case may be, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the consular post. 2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable time to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may, as the case may be, either withdraw the exequatur from the person concerned or cease to consider him as a member of the consular staff. 3. A person appointed as a member of a consular post may be declared unacceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State or, if already in the receiving State, before entering on his duties with the consular post. In any such case, the sending State shall withdraw his appointment. 4. In the cases mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this article, the receiving State is not obliged to give to the sending State reasons for its decision. Article 24 Notification to the receiving State of appointments, arrivals and departures 1. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or the authority designated by that Ministry shall be notified of:

10

(a) the appointment of members of a consular post, their arrival after appointment to the consular post, their final departure or the termination of their functions and any other changes affecting their status that may occur in the course of their service with the consular post; (b)

the arrival and final departure of a person belonging to the family of a member of a consular post

forming part of his household and, where appropriate, the fact that a person becomes or ceases to be such a member of the family; (c) the arrival and final departure of members of the private staff and, where appropriate, the termination of their service as such; (d) the engagement and discharge of persons resident in the receiving State as members of a consular post or as members of the private staff entitled to privileges and immunities. 2. When possible, prior notification of arrival and final departure shall also be given. SECTION

II.

END OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS

Article 25 Termination of the functions of a member of a consular post The functions of a member of a consular post shall come to an end, inter alia: (a)

on notification by the sending State to the receiving State that his functions have come to an end;

(b)

on withdrawal of the exequatur;

(c)

on notification by the receiving State to the sending State that the receiving State has ceased to

consider him as a member of the consular staff. Article 26 Departure from the territory of the receiving State The receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, grant to members of the consular post and members of the private staff, other than nationals of the receiving State, and to members of their families forming part of their households irrespective of nationality, the necessary time and facilities to enable them to prepare their departure and to leave at the earliest possible moment after the termination of the functions of the members concerned. In particular, it shall, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property other than property acquired in the receiving State the export of which is prohibited at the time of departure.

11

Article 27 Protection of consular premises and archives and of the interests of the sending State in exceptional circumstances 1. In the event of the severance of consular relations between two States: (a)

the receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the consular premises,

together with the property of the consular post and the consular archives; (b)

the sending State may entrust the custody of the consular premises, together with the property

contained therein and the consular archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State; (c)

the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third

State acceptable to the receiving State. 2. In the event of the temporary or permanent closure of a consular post, the provisions of subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply. In addition, (a)

if the sending State, although not represented in the receiving State by a diplomatic mission, has

another consular post in the territory of that State, that consular post may be entrusted with the custody of the premises of the consular post which has been closed, together with the property contained therein and the consular archives, and, with the consent of the receiving State, with the exercise of consular functions in the district of that consular post; or (b)

if the sending State has no diplomatic mission and no other consular post in the receiving State,

the provisions of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply. C HAPTER II. FACILITIES, P RIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES R ELATING TO C ONSULAR P OSTS , CAREER C ONSULAR O FFICERS AND O THER M EMBERS OF A C ONSULAR P OST SECTION I. FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES RELATING TO A CONSULAR POST

Article 28 Facilities for the work of the consular post The receiving State shall accord full facilities for the performance of the functions of the consular post. Article 29 Use of national flag and coat-of-arms 1. The sending State shall have the right to the use of its national flag and coat-of-arms in the receiving State in accordance with the provisions of this article.

12

2. The national flag of the sending State may be flown and its coat-of-arms displayed on the building occupied by the consular post and at the entrance door thereof, on the residence of the head of the consular post and on his means of transport when used on official business. 3. In the exercise of the right accorded by this article regard shall be had to the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State. Article 30 Accommodation 1. The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws and regulations, by the sending State of premises necessary for its consular post or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way. 2. It shall also, where necessary, assist the consular post in obtaining suitable accommodation for its members. Article 31 Inviolability of the consular premises 1. Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this article. 2. The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State. The consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action. 3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity. 4. The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purposes of national defence or public utility. If expropriation is necessary for such purposes, all possible steps shall be taken to avoid impeding the performance of consular functions, and prompt, adequate and effective compensation shall be paid to the sending State. Article 32 Exemption from taxation of consular premises 1. Consular premises and the residence of the career head of consular post of which the sending State or any person acting on its behalf is the owner or lessee shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.

13

2. The exemption from taxation referred to paragraph 1 of this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes if, under the law of the receiving State, they are payable by the person who contracted with the sending State or with the person acting on its behalf. Article 33 Inviolability of the consular archives and documents The consular archives and documents shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be. Article 34 Freedom of movement Subject to its laws and regulations concerning zones entry into which is prohibited or regulated for reasons of national security, the receiving State shall ensure freedom of movement and travel in its territory to all members of the consular post. Article 35 Freedom of communication 1. The receiving State shall permit and protect freedom of communication on the part of the consular post for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government, the diplomatic missions and other consular posts, wherever situated, of the sending State, the consular post may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic or consular couriers, diplomatic or consular bags and messages in code or cipher. However, the consular post may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the receiving State. 2. The official correspondence of the consular post shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the consular post and its functions. 3. The consular bag shall be neither opened nor detained. Nevertheless, if the competent authorities of the receiving State have serious reason to believe that the bag contains something other than the correspondence, documents or articles referred to in paragraph 4 of this article, they may request that the bag be opened in their presence by an authorized representative of the sending State. If this request is refused by the authorities of the sending State, the bag shall be returned to its place of origin. 4. The packages constituting the consular bag shall bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only official correspondence and documents or articles intended exclusively for official use. 5. The consular courier shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the consular bag. Except with the consent of the receiving State he shall be neither a national of the receiving State, nor, unless he is a national of the sending State, a permanent resident of the receiving State. In the performance of his functions he shall be protected by the receiving State. He shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

14

6. The sending State, its diplomatic missions and its consular posts may designate consular couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the consular bag in his charge. 7. A consular bag may be entrusted to the captain of a ship or of a commercial aircraft scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry. He shall be provided with an official document indicating the number of packages constituting the bag, but he shall not be considered to be a consular courier. By arrangement with the appropriate local authorities, the consular post may send one of its members to take possession of the bag directly and freely from the captain of the ship or of the aircraft. Article 36 Communication and contact with nationals of the sending State 1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State: (a)

consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have

access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State; (b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph; (c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this article are intended.

15

Article 37 Information in cases of deaths, guardianship or trusteeship, wrecks and air accidents If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty: (a) in the case of the death of a national of the sending State, to inform without delay the consular post in whose district the death occurred; (b) to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State. The giving of this information shall, however, be without prejudice to the operation of the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments; (c)

if a vessel, having the nationality of the sending State, is wrecked or runs aground in the

territorial sea or internal waters of the receiving State, or if an aircraft registered in the sending State suffers an accident on the territory of the receiving State, to inform without delay the consular post nearest to the scene of the occurrence. Article 38 Communication with the authorities of the receiving State In the exercise of their functions, consular officers may address: (a)

the competent local authorities of their consular district;

(b) the competent central authorities of the receiving State if and to the extent that this is allowed by the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State or by the relevant international agreements. Article 39 Consular fees and charges 1. The consular post may levy in the territory of the receiving State the fees and charges provided by the laws and regulations of the sending State for consular acts. 2. The sums collected in the form of the fees and charges referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, and the receipts for such fees and charges, shall be exempt from all dues and taxes in the receiving State.

16

SECTION II . FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES RELATING TO CAREER CONSULAR OFFICERS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF A CONSULAR POST

Article 40 Protection of consular officers The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity. Article 41 Personal inviolability of consular officers 1. Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority. 2. Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, consular officers shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect. 3. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and, except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, it has become necessary to detain a consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay. Article 42 Notification of arrest, detention or prosecution In the event of the arrest or detention, pending trial, of a member of the consular staff, or of criminal proceedings being instituted against him, the receiving State shall promptly notify the head of the consular post. Should the latter be himself the object of any such measure, the receiving State shall notify the sending State through the diplomatic channel. Article 43 Immunity from jurisdiction 1. Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply in respect of a civil action either:

17

(a)

arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a consular employee in which he did

not contract expressly or impliedly as an agent of the sending State; or (b)

by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the receiving State caused by a vehicle,

vessel or aircraft. Article 44 Liability to give evidence 1. Members of a consular post may be called upon to attend as witnesses in the course of judicial or administrative proceedings. A consular employee or a member of the service staff shall not, except in the cases mentioned in paragraph 3 of this article, decline to give evidence. If a consular officer should decline to do so, no coercive measure or penalty may be applied to him. 2. The authority requiring the evidence of a consular officer shall avoid interference with the performance of his functions. It may, when possible, take such evidence at his residence or at the consular post or accept a statement from him in writing. 3. Members of a consular post are under no obligation to give evidence concerning matters connected with the exercise of their functions or to produce official correspondence and documents relating thereto. They are also entitled to decline to give evidence as expert witnesses with regard to the law of the sending State. Article 45 Waiver of privileges and immunities 1. The sending State may waive, with regard to a member of the consular post, any of the privileges and immunities provided for in articles 41, 43 and 44. 2. The waiver shall in all cases be express, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article, and shall be communicated to the receiving State in writing. 3. The initiation of proceedings by a consular officer or a consular employee in a matter where he might enjoy immunity from jurisdiction under article 43 shall preclude him from invoking immunity from jurisdiction in respect of any counterclaim directly connected with the principal claim. 4. The waiver of immunity from jurisdiction for the purposes of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be deemed to imply the waiver of immunity from the measures of execution resulting from the judicial decision; in respect of such measures, a separate waiver shall be necessary.

18

Article 46 Exemption from registration of aliens and residence permits 1. Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families forming part of their households shall be exempt from all obligations under the laws and regulations of the receiving State in regard to the registration of aliens and residence permits. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply to any consular employee who is not a permanent employee of the sending State or who carries on any private gainful occupation in the receiving State or to any member of the family of any such employee. Article 47 Exemption from work permits 1. Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered for the sending State, be exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labour. 2. Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular employees shall, if they do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State, be exempt from the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 of this article. Article 48 Social security exemption 1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this article, members of the consular post with respect to services rendered by them for the sending State, and members of their families forming part of their households, shall be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in the receiving State. 2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 of this article shall apply also to members of the private staff who are in the sole employ of members of the consular post, on condition: (a)

that they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State; and

(b) that they are covered by the social security provisions which are in force in the sending State or a third State. 3. Members of the consular post who employ persons to whom the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 of this article does not apply shall observe the obligations which the social security provisions of the receiving State impose upon employers. 4. The exemption provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article shall not preclude voluntary participation in the social security system of the receiving State, provided that such participation is permitted by that State.

19

Article 49 Exemption from taxation 1. Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families forming part of their households shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except: (a)

indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services;

(b) dues or taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, subject to the provisions of article 32; (c) estate, succession or inheritance duties, and duties on transfers, levied by the receiving State, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of article 51; (d) dues and taxes on private income, including capital gains, having its source in the receiving State and capital taxes relating to investments made in commercial or financial undertakings in the receiving State; (e)

charges levied for specific services rendered;

(f) registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duties, subject to the provisions of article 32. 2. Members of the service staff shall be exempt from dues and taxes on the wages which they receive for their services. 3. Members of the consular post who employ persons whose wages or salaries are not exempt from income tax in the receiving State shall observe the obligations which the laws and regulations of that State impose upon employers concerning the levying of income tax. Article 50 Exemption from customs duties and inspection 1. The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services, on: (a)

articles for the official use of the consular post;

(b)

articles for the personal use of a consular officer or members of his family forming part of his

household, including articles intended for his establishment. The articles intended for consumption shall not exceed the quantities necessary for direct utilization by the persons concerned. 2. Consular employees shall enjoy the privileges and exemptions specified in paragraph 1 of this article in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.

20

3. Personal baggage accompanying consular officers and members of their families forming part of their households shall be exempt from inspection. It may be inspected only if there is serious reason to believe that it contains articles other than those referred to in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of this article, or articles the import or export of which is prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or which are subject to its quarantine laws and regulations. Such inspection shall be carried out in the presence of the consular officer or member of his family concerned. Article 51 Estate of a member of the consular post or of a member of his family In the event of the death of a member of the consular post or of a member of his family forming part of his household, the receiving State: (a) shall permit the export of the movable property of the deceased, with the exception of any such property acquired in the receiving State the export of which was prohibited at the time of his death; (b) shall not levy national, regional or municipal estate, succession or inheritance duties, and duties on transfers, on movable property the presence of which in the receiving State was due solely to the presence in that State of the deceased as a member of the consular post or as a member of the family of a member of the consular post. Article 52 Exemption from personal services and contributions The receiving State shall exempt members of the consular post and members of their families forming part of their households from all personal services, from all public service of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting. Article 53 Beginning and end of consular privileges and immunities 1. Every member of the consular post shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in the present Convention from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when he enters on his duties with the consular post. 2. Members of the family of a member of the consular post forming part of his household and members of his private staff shall receive the privileges and immunities provided in the present Convention from the date from which he enjoys privileges and immunities in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article or from the date of their entry into the territory of the receiving State or from the date of their becoming a member of such family or private staff, whichever is the latest. 3. When the functions of a member of the consular post have come to an end, his privileges and immunities and those of a member of his family forming part of his household or a member of his

21

private staff shall normally cease at the moment when the person concerned leaves the receiving State or on the expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, whichever is the sooner, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. In the case of the persons referred to in paragraph 2 of this article, their privileges and immunities shall come to an end when they cease to belong to the household or to be in the service of a member of the consular post provided, however, that if such persons intend leaving the receiving State within a reasonable period thereafter, their privileges and immunities shall subsist until the time of their departure. 4. However, with respect to acts performed by a consular officer or a consular employee in the exercise of his functions, immunity from jurisdiction shall continue to subsist without limitation of time. 5. In the event of the death of a member of the consular post, the members of his family forming part of his household shall continue to enjoy the privileges and immunities accorded to them until they leave the receiving State or until the expiry of a reasonable period enabling them to do so, whichever is the sooner. Article 54 Obligations of third States 1. If a consular officer passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted him a visa if a visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or return to his post or when returning to the sending State, the third State shall accord to him all immunities provided for by the other articles of the present Convention as may be required to ensure his transit or return. The same shall apply in the case of any member of his family forming part of his household enjoying such privileges and immunities who are accompanying the consular officer or travelling separately to join him or to return to the sending State. 2. In circumstances similar to those specified in paragraph 1 of this article, third States shall not hinder the transit through their territory of other members of the consular post or of members of their families forming part of their households. 3. Third States shall accord to official correspondence and to other official communications in transit, including messages in code or cipher, the same freedom and protection as the receiving State is bound to accord under the present Convention. They shall accord to consular couriers who have been granted a visa, if a visa was necessary, and to consular bags in transit, the same inviolability and protection as the receiving State is bound to accord under the present Convention. 4. The obligations of third States under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this article shall also apply to the persons mentioned respectively in those paragraphs, and to official communications and to consular bags, whose presence in the territory of the third State is due to force majeure.

22

Article 55 Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State 1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State. 2. The consular premises shall not be used in any manner incompatible with the exercise of consular functions. 3. The provisions of paragraph 2 of this article shall not exclude the possibility of offices of other institutions or agencies being installed in part of the building in which the consular premises are situated, provided that the premises assigned to them are separate from those used by the consular post. In that event, the said offices shall not, for the purposes of the present Convention, be considered to form part of the consular premises. Article 56 Insurance against third party risks Members of the consular post shall comply with any requirements imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, in respect of insurance against third party risks arising from the use of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft. Article 57 Special provisions concerning private gainful occupation 1. Career consular officers shall not carry on for personal profit any professional or commercial activity in the receiving State. 2. Privileges and immunities provided in this chapter shall not be accorded: (a) to consular employees or to members of the service staff who carry on any private gainful occupation in the receiving State; (b) to members of the family of a person referred to in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph or to members of his private staff; (c) to members of the family of a member of a consular post who themselves carry on any private gainful occupation in the receiving State.

23

C HAPTER III. R EGIME R ELATING TO H ONORARY C ONSULAR O FFICERS AND C ONSULAR P OSTS H EADED BY SUCH O FFICERS Article 58 General provisions relating to facilities, privileges and immunities 1. Articles 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, paragraph 3 of article 54 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 55 shall apply to consular posts headed by an honorary consular officer. In addition, the facilities, privileges and immunities of such consular posts shall be governed by articles 59, 60, 61 and 62. 2. Articles 42 and 43, paragraph 3 of article 44, articles 45 and 53 and paragraph 1 of article 55 shall apply to honorary consular officers. In addition, the facilities, privileges and immunities of such consular officers shall be governed by articles 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. 3. Privileges and immunities provided in the present Convention shall not be accorded to members of the family of an honorary consular officer or of a consular employee employed at a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer. 4. The exchange of consular bags between two consular posts headed by honorary consular officers in different States shall not be allowed without the consent of the two receiving States concerned. Article 59 Protection of the consular premises The receiving State shall take such steps as may be necessary to protect the consular premises of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity. Article 60 Exemption from taxation of consular premises 1. Consular premises of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer of which the sending State is the owner or lessee shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered. 2. The exemption from taxation referred to in paragraph l of this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes if, under the laws and regulations of the receiving State, they are payable by the person who contracted with the sending State.

24

Article 61 Inviolability of consular archives and documents The consular archives and documents of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be, provided that they are kept separate from other papers and documents and, in particular, from the private correspondence of the head of a consular post and of any person working with him, and from the materials, books or documents relating to their profession or trade. Article 62 Exemption from customs duties The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of, and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services on the following articles, provided that they are for the official use of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer: coats-of-arms, flags, signboards, seals and stamps, books, official printed matter, office furniture, office equipment and similar articles supplied by or at the instance of the sending State to the consular post. Article 63 Criminal proceedings If criminal proceedings are instituted against an honorary consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and, except when he is under arrest or detention, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When it has become necessary to detain an honorary consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay. Article 64 Protection of honorary consular officers The receiving State is under a duty to accord to an honorary consular officer such protection as may be required by reason of his official position. Article 65 Exemption from registration of aliens and residence permits Honorary consular officers, with the exception of those who carry on for personal profit any professional or commercial activity in the receiving State, shall be exempt from all obligations under the laws and regulations of the receiving State in regard to the registration of aliens and residence permits.

25

Article 66 Exemption from taxation An honorary consular officer shall be exempt from all dues and taxes on the remuneration and emoluments which he receives from the sending State in respect of the exercise of consular functions. Article 67 Exemption from personal services and contributions The receiving State shall exempt honorary consular officers from all personal services and from all public services of any kind whatsoever and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting. Article 68 Optional character of the institution of honorary consular officers Each State is free to decide whether it will appoint or receive honorary consular officers. C HAPTER IV. G ENERAL P ROVISIONS Article 69 Consular agents who are not heads of consular posts 1. Each State is free to decide whether it will establish or admit consular agencies conducted by consular agents not designated as heads of consular post by the sending State. 2. The conditions under which the consular agencies referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may carry on their activities and the privileges and immunities which may be enjoyed by the consular agents in charge of them shall be determined by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State. Article 70 Exercise of consular functions by diplomatic missions 1. The provisions of the present Convention apply also, so far as the context permits, to the exercise of consular functions by a diplomatic mission. 2. The names of members of a diplomatic mission assigned to the consular section or otherwise charged with the exercise of the consular functions of the mission shall be notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry. 3. In the exercise of consular functions a diplomatic mission may address: (a)

the local authorities of the consular district;

26

(b) the central authorities of the receiving State if this is allowed by the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State or by relevant international agreements. 4. The privileges and immunities of the members of a diplomatic mission referred to in paragraph 2 of this article shall continue to be governed by the rules of international law concerning diplomatic relations. Article 71 Nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State 1. Except insofar as additional facilities, privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, consular officers who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction and personal inviolability in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of their functions, and the privileges provided in paragraph 3 of article 44. So far as these consular officers are concerned, the receiving State shall likewise be bound by the obligation laid down in article 42. If criminal proceedings are instituted against such a consular officer, the proceedings shall, except when he is under arrest or detention, be conducted in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. 2. Other members of the consular post who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State and members of their families, as well as members of the families of consular officers referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, shall enjoy facilities, privileges and immunities only insofar as these are granted to them by the receiving State. Those members of the families of members of the consular post and those members of the private staff who are themselves nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall likewise enjoy facilities, privileges and immunities only insofar as these are granted to them by the receiving State. The receiving State shall, however, exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a way as not to hinder unduly the performance of the functions of the consular post. Article 72 Non-discrimination 1. In the application of the provisions of the present Convention the receiving State shall not discriminate as between States. 2. However, discrimination shall not be regarded as taking place: (a) where the receiving State applies any of the provisions of the present Convention restrictively because of a restrictive application of that provision to its consular posts in the sending State; (b) where by custom or agreement States extend to each other more favourable treatment than is required by the provisions of the present Convention.

27

Article 73 Relationship between the present Convention and other international agreements 1. The provisions of the present Convention shall not affect other international agreements in force as between States Parties to them. 2. Nothing in the present Convention shall preclude States from concluding international agreements confirming or supplementing or extending or amplifying the provisions thereof. C HAPTER V. F INAL P ROVISIONS Article 74 Signature The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to the Convention, as follows: until 31 October 1963 at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Austria and subsequently, until 31 March 1964, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Article 75 Ratification The present Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 76 Accession The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in article 74. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations. Article 77 Entry into force 1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.

28

Article 78 Notifications by the Secretary-General The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in article 74: (a) of signatures to the present Convention and of the deposit of instruments of ratification or accession, in accordance with articles 74, 75 and 76; (b)

of the date on which the present Convention will enter into force, in accordance with article 77. Article 79 Authentic texts

The original of the present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in article 74. IN

WITNESS WHEREOF

the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their

respective Governments, have signed the present Convention. D ONE at Vienna this twenty-fourth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three. _____________

29

a

D.

-

nw. Drecnnn~c%Errarr~caarn

~ d ~ % n ~ r o ~ . . . s i i , b t d ~ ~ m

SmnPROU

urnmar--

u-

u-4 M .

lnuasr+lllbubmLaoadlWmsd w l r u ~ w o l n i dmuit: ~ . -mnm

R D~REL

OUR.

s n m m & m D . aoa.

XI. • mm. bmn

u-

nmt

I : * /

4, -1.

..

bu kr BUh.

writmla~,-1.

r w w l y .

-

* -I . a w . of tnnlcrip a*h

c h t b . 1 ~ crrimd . ..a

lrul

c m m . o f . o r h ~ r s i x q ( b Q ) 6 q . r t o ~ L b .

l u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~ b z k l i ~ C c r p t L . . d L i b . U c % d ~ I r ~ l . . ill-.LiblRam: d Lldl-1CO3- -.lr b 1. Y h t -8

IPSLPC .ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.k bq~.-L.x.~.Idbmbywmdmc.aorla brrram~ar&.rtb.,ok.e,rlm.

--

-.

r ta

a

-.

-

-I"&.

oL rtn Lia.11-

thi.

Iw-

&

d., .IOI S .-

6W M U m Of CaDH1

c..r rp 9rAEn U

D.

-.

LLL.lb.c

&.-...

r - p w d - s m , ~ l h l t . h u . -

epnthllr sham a f a l l a r t I n m t ~ I I a r a a t ~ m S . = b n a a a ~ r r e b a b r . r n L l a c a i ~ , U t Y m d ~ ~

t&t Uballr L. NU*

apahlll, Sum 6 - 8

IWasQa srrrs.

-,

.s 17D

k.-.Ct.. II

-.

i.

~ U b . l l m ~ d ~ r n ~ f . p r r W

IW, S u m d IlnaU. on

ma MI-

CD

~~ Z . l % L ,

pal-

u

c

by

d .ad

mrdnc.th.td.C.Lmbun~mnal.uLIDO.Il11"u..

m f b t U L . w m d U t d U lrt

lad

% tb. '01.

-

4 OM*

oi Oi fL. d

&

-.

L. 170 ClkW. 7 .

-r

1%

nu-In*

c ~ s r t s - y o t . I d p ~ b L h . ~ d m . -1m. Wi. tbh d., ol

Ir IpB Ib. kLb.1 P U S O . n ~ N1.d by Ck U b d b rhirh

Wrp.W 1-t.

tra

Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-

dm . h l l d bm b.ta D o m ; 4. b d t r . r b . c b a r d r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t a t o ~

a c e b,

-17; ~.o~auh.l..~trm-r*~llr~.nip

amem mmc hp ~ .ofrlet

2 .

3.

-:nia-tormre..m-..w~~nd d. norm eulp nawsoa; s d d W

unm uw:

4

m r t U ! i d . o ~ y o C t b .W m f i l e b m L d d t b t b m c i a h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l d

u

--

. . I I - o L . @ Y W I r ~ . C U U b . l l ~ b

uhaLI.hdd*tU..i.Irrot~tLrra~ ~t.a.0.llr~l,brdLI..u..YUL.llr

EXHIBIT

E

Dr. orly Tail& A r n r a e y d - L m 29839 S M a g y l t a Pkwy Ranelm Son61 MPT&Prlt.CA 92688 pb. 949-683-541 1 fax 949-766-7603 California State Bmr No.: 223433 E-Mall: dr ta1k'?t%8vahoo.com

1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTIIERN)DIVISION

W r n Pamela Bmett, ct al., Plaintiffi, Civil Adion:

v.

Baracl;HusseinObama, Michdle L.R Obamq tlillary Rodham Clinton, Of State. 14 Roben M. Gat-, Swmary of De ens, Joseph R. Bidm Vim-Presidan and 15 Pmtdent of lhc Scnsre ~el'&~s. 16 NOTICE O F FILING 2.8 USC. 11746 Ded.ntbnof Daniel Smltb wlth Exblblt and PLALNTIFFS. ATTORNEY'S 18 1711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE O F ADDRESS

I

u

wj/

I

destruction in the nwr future. Plaintiffs fear that evidence relating to the' cause may be destroyed as soon as it is identified as relevant to the 5 questions relating to their lawsuit, and for this reason have asked the.Court1 to consider allowing the Plaintiffs to take depositions pursuant to the "spirit" of Rule 27, even though a case has already beea filcd, but prior to 8 the Rule 2 q f ) Conference which normally marks the initiation of formal 9 discovery under the Fed& Rules of Civil Procedure. I0 PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS I1 Counsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that I211 she her ofice and mailing address has changed. All cormpondence andl I311 orders in this court should from this day forward be sent to her a t

California Bar ID Na 223433

18

Come now the Plainti& with this Notice of Filing the 28 U.S.C.

19

Respectfully submiaed

a3 21,

F ~ . s c P ~ 4 . 2 5 0 9

&

Dr. O d y T.itrEka 6 B N 223433) Rancho S a n l a - ~ a r g a r i t a 92928 -~~ ph. 949-683-54 11 fax 949-5862082 California Bar W No. 223433

I'

2 3

PROOR O F S e R n C E

4

UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR M E C M R A L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN)DIVISION

Ithe~mdasignedCharfeaEdwa~dLhrolo.being overtheageof l8andnota

5

partytomise.sohenbydedareunderpenaltyofpajuymatmthis,Friday.

6

Seplembcr 4,2009. I pmvided facaiile or clcc&mic

copies of thc PlahntifB' above-

1 and-foregoing Noticc of Filing of thc 28 U.S.C. 81746 Dcclantionof Lucas Daniel

7

1

8

Srnitb with attached Exhibit, as a aupplcmmt to Plaintiffs

10

FIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE O F LelTERS ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO

I1

TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., T O PERPETUATE

CONDUCT PRERULE 26(0 DISCOVERY

1

TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMLT M ~ R ROGATORY S PURSUANT to 28 U.SC. @17111(a)(2)+bx2) to all of & hcfdlowmg m m p m y sllomeys arhosc rtmxs w m f i e d to the

I

"STATEMENT0FINTEREST"whokappearcdmthisem~wih

Disain of calihnin,to wit:

'Il. I2

'5

l6 1711 LEON w. WELDMAN

.Il

l7

ROGER E WEST raaWmWd*.cov( b i g n a t e j I lead muusel for Pmir!enJ

19 1 Bmck Hussein Obanra 00 Augus17.2009) DAVlDkLkJUTE

l9

ao

21 FACSIMILE (213)894-7819 22

I

all

DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Friday lhc 4'day of SqHanba, 2009.

22

ar 25

a5

"

'

28 1746 DsLntlea 01Loar Damid Smith wlth E d M 1 M y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i e l S & I a m o v ~ 1 8 y ~ o l ~ a m d solmdmiadandfreeof~y-meotaldiseaseorpsyehologieali~toC any kind or condition. 2. 1am a c i t i m of the United States of America, 1 am 29 years old and l was born and raised in the state of Iowa. 3. I have m n a l lmowledge of all the facts and circNmstances described herein below in this declaration and will testify in open court to ofthe same. 4. On February 19,2009 1 visited the Coast General hospital in Mombasa, Kenya 5. 1 visited the hospital accompaniedby one more penon, a nahual born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as "Zaire" and before indepmdence as the "Belgian Congo"). 6. 1traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particularwith the intent to obtain the original bklh aertificate of Barack Hussein Obama,as I was told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the ~ U S C g l 7 4 6 D o r r . r * . ~ ~ s l b * ~ A l-4N 9

N&aJirmsL4dmwb4

A-'n

- # / A h

mm-rn~rnm DL(.TA"Z

mu~u%ml!!

Y6U*-C*Ua.,.sl*I

M U u t f

-m.~-r*mmcat

EXHIBIT F

1

1

2

2 3

fact that the prime minister of Kenya Raela Odinga is Barack Hussein

3

4

Obama's cousin.

4

5

7.

6

duty to look the other way, while I obtained the copy of the birth

6

7

certificate of Barack Hussein Obama.

7

8

8.

The copy was signed by the hospital administrator.

8

9

9.

The copy contain the embossed seal.

9

10

10.

The true and correct photocopy of the Birth certificate obtained, is

10

11

attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A.

11

12

11.

12

13

under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

13

14

statements of fact and descriptions of circumstances and events are true

14

15

and correct.

15

16

12.

I have not received any compensation for making this affidavit.

16

17

Further, Declarant saith naught.

17

18

Signed and executed in ____________, ___________ on this _____

18

19

,KDGWRSD\DFDVK³FRQVLGHUDWLRQ´WRD.HQ\DQPLOLWDU\RIILcer on

I declare, certify, verify, state, and affirm under penalty of perjury

day of September, 2009.

20

21

23

Exhibit A: /XFDV'DQLHO6PLWK¶V3KRWRFRS\RI Birth Certificate from the Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in February 2009

19

20

22

5

21

By:_____________________________ Lucas Daniel Smith

22 23

24

24

25

25

26

26

27

27

28

28 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ $WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV

- 5±

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ $WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV

- 6±

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Exhibit A: Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of Birth Certificate from the Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in February 2009

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address

- 6–

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

----

EXHIBIT

__

G

S b In IRsgLsMr Now TODAY'S Subs&x

SEARCH: Tly Our New Search

.

.

NEWSPAPER IPObtPoinls

@ l~wrshingLon~.cMn

Web :Revr1IU lry

(&qif

I Seardl Archives

[email protected] PolMcr > mo Fix

About Chn. WUW

I on h i t ~ ~Tho r : Fix and TIM Hyper f l x I on Facebook I On YouTutm I

a m ETWdlSMSmO

White House polical director Patrick Gaspard met last Monday with New York Gw. David Patemon (D) to express concsm about the incumbent's chances at winning re-election in 2010, according to several sources briefed on the matter.

i latest m csmpagnsand

P o l d b l rims .LweP&A

, .Tranncnpts .rnRSSFesd

1

HALLOFFAME

Cheaout~latsPl '

,

Fsod

Paterson, White House Adviser Huddled About ReElection

THE LIVE FLX

; JohtheFlxFrldsysal4

I

aRSS

Induwln* m's

-

Lessthan 24 hours after that meeting, Paterson announced that Richard Fife, a longtime New York operative and volunteer for President Barack % # l l &Zoo8 S pr&d&h! Calll@gll, h d 88 CarnMgIl managerfor his 2010 bid.

~0tMlnmheon

Sources on bdh sides said that the President did n d reach out to Paterson directly to ask him to leave the race. Gaspard, a former pdtiil diredor at the pwelful Service EmployeesInternationelUnion 1199 based in New York City, has a long rdationshipwith Patemon.

FIX PICKS

1

1 1,

-

RkhDadmwY~ LaunchY W Bu8lr10~8. Be your Om Boss. FREEworkshops

NOV.2-6

w w lil~nChyOUrbUSiMB5*1orkshop.~m

~~f~~

ch&.

! Cornems have been mounting about Paterson since he stepped into the

I

governorship following Gov. Elliot Spitzer's resignationafter it as revealed he frequented a high-end hooker. Paterson's rt+election numbers have tumbled over the past few months

i

Ron Paul is going to

and a rscant Marist Colleoe survey shavedjust one in five voters approving of the job he is doing. Paterson was also lm.ng badly to

*VasMoinesFeglrter

foriner New York City Rudy Giuliani, who will announce his political mtMWr.inmpd

, 5 MICIWI~O. ar Lem FrM.vW .USATodsy

:

'

SEARCH THIS BLOC I

' i

1

If Pate'rson runs and loses, it cwld haw widespread emda as the Empire State will redraw its legislative and congressional distdd lines following the 2010 census - a process the governor will have 1 considerable influence over. I September 20.2009; 0:W AM ET CJtegodes: Governors, Whlte H o w shsmm13: ~ ~ ~ e c r m o r a t l ~ ~ e l . l s l o . u s ~ ~ ( p p ~ ~ Previous: Ltuckabeewns values Vow Straw Pol! Wxt: Mornlna f l x : me W h b Home mvr (PolitleanHadbell By Ch- C i l l i p .

8

RECENT POSTS

I

OeSgeethose~~PaknronhasmademborvCpditid rearty - insistingthat he is running for and win win a second tam. State Attomev Genersl Andrew Cwmo (Dl is widelv seen as the referred 1Democ;atr.c nominee but seems to be . ,d i n g for Paterson to make a move before annovnang his intentiom.

'RomnsytOnisaSPPh

for DeMhd

.me I i

MM lmpomsm

Number In Politics Today

'

Morning F)x. A ~twocelebnmon

RepublicanRecruiting and the NationalEnvlmmenl (CU 9.2009) ~emng~tke C a m Is U I ~latest In a wries of recRw(memsucoeusesfor Senate

for the OM,

-

The Molt bnportam Number In P W u 7-y Romney on

Read More ojThe Line a

m:

"Unalloyed Evil'

EXHIBIT H

'

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL

..

Document 27

p7 7 fi k t , :.. 5.; .& % '"

!%, .

i ai

!g-3,.?; 0 .

.:.

..:*. JK- ;:I,:! :AXE :,-a:-

Filed 10/21/20 9 Page 1 of 1 %-h*

. 3

i ~ g h

593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1 B d p , New YO& 11238 Telep-. (845) 901-6767

QP-

Email: [email protected] Christopher-Earl: Stnmk 0 in esse

Honorable David 0. Carter Judge, United States District Cornt Central District of California, Southern Division 41 1 West FadStrcct,Courtroom 9D Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 Re:Bmett. et a1 v. Obcad et al,Case No. 8:09-cv-00082 Subject: Request for permission to transfer with the 28 USC $1407 Multidistrict matter $#run& v US DOS et al. DCD O&v-2234 (RJJ.,) with demand for Quo Warranto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro). The Honorable Judge Carter,

I am the P Chistopher-Ed: Strunk 0 in esse, in the r e W Case and make this smment under penalty of pejlPypursuant to 28 USC 1746. Declmt is self-represented in the above civil action on-going in Washington District of Columbia before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon. Judge Leon ordered a stay of dimvery pending a decision on my Quo Warmto demand for an inquest of multi-allegiance h t s associated with the August 4, 1%1 birth ofBamk Hussein Obama Jr., ak.a Barry Soetoro (the Usurper).That I duly fired theUsurpermJaanrary22,2089~tbeUs\apaiSmqualifiedtoactwithmypaweraf sttomey as the Usurper has more than one allegiance at bhrth by bis own admission; and &enSm, with dual allegiance is ineligible to hold the office of President accordiingto U.S. Constitution Article II Section 2 Clause 5, because the Usurper is not a n W - W e n without two U.S. Citizen parents on August 4,196 1. Offiwther prima facie importance to the inquest are fectsfiled before this Court for vcrificatiw that prove the Ususper is not even a native-bomcitizen either, and thereby triggers review of facts as to Usurps's mtumhd citizen status also if proper allegiance filing is absent upon entry into Hawaii as a citizen of Indonesia. Iam~~withthtfactsassoci~withtherCfdcasesas~harerC~and subject to comlidation here as an urgent matter of National Security before this Court and that the U.S. Govemmmt has argued that any Quo Wananto be done in Washington District of Cohrmbia and I urge herein m e iswith a Multidistrid Judi this q u e s t hss been sent to Counsels and Court in both cases.

,hk....sg2m

Bmklyn New York

cc: Judge Richard J. Leon Brigham John Bowen, AUSA - o d Roger E. West AUSA rwzw.west~usdoi.gov Charles Edward L i i ~ n , - l l IEsq. , ~harlcs,lincoln~k~.com Dr.Orly Taitz, Esq. dr tai-.corn

EXHIBIT I

Carbon Communism P Source: 20'03'2009 Pravda.Ru

P URL: http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/l07272carbon-communism-0

Ithink that the C02caused Global Warming theory is blse and unproven junk science.

But let's suppose for a moment that the C02 equals Global Warming equation is real. The wealthy elitists James Hansen, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and the other high-profile cheerleaders for C02 reduction are asking the poor and middle classes to suffer the consequences of a radical shutdown of global commerce and energy production in order to 'save the planet' from Global Warming. They want to make serfs of the masses of working people, while a privileged elite will be permitted to continue living in high style with a much larger 'carbon footprint' than the un-entitled lower classes. We should never let that happen. The only way that 'carbon rationing' should be allowed is by assigning the exact same carbon limit to all people everywhere. Al Gore, Barack Obama, a London cabbie, and a Kalahari Bushman should all be assigned exactly the same number of 'carbon credits', period. Let them trade their credits with each other, but everyone should be restricted to the same limited 'carbon credit' allowance. The long-term ultimate effect of this would be an economic leveling of society; essentially global Communism. Under such a system, no one would be able to accumulate an excess of personal property or wealth because they could never accumulate enough 'carbon credits' to do so. When Hansen, Gore, Blair, and Obama give up their patrician incomes and lifestyles and restrict their own 'carbon footprint' to the level of the common labourer or office worker, Iwill begin to believe that they are sincere about preventing Global Warming. Their obvious unwillingness to do what they are asking the rest of us to do proves that they are not sincere. They want the common people to sacrifice their lives to prevent Global Warming, while the wealthy retain their high-carbon consuming and producing privileges. We cannot permit a privileged elite to enjoy a 'highcarbon' lifestyle while the poor are restricted by law to a 'low-carbon' lifestyle. Any effort by any government to impose carbon rationing with preferential treatment to any class of people should be seen as sufficient reason for an all-out French-style revolution in which the majority population dispossess the elitists of their wealth, their positions of power, and their privilege. In a world that is constantly threatened by Global Warming, we cannot allow a greedy few to consume or produce in excess of the average 'carbon footprint' of the world's population as a whole. Barack Obama keeps the temperature at 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the Oval Office while telling the rest of us to turn our thermostats down. James Hansen has received grants amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the Global Warming theory. A1 Gore has invested heavily in the 'carbon trading' brokerage business. All of these men jet around the world, live in oversized houses, and ride in limousines. If the common people are to be required by law to reduce our 'carbon footprint', we need to demand that our leaders and the wealthy elite be restricted to exactly the same carbon allowance as everyone else. We are not all together in the fight against Global Warming unless everyone is required to make the same sacrifices by sharing an equal 'carbon footprint' and an equal 'carbon ration', which should be assigned equally to every living person in the entire world. We need to hold the elitists' feet to the fire and require them to make exactly the same sacrifices as the rest of humanity. Individual carbon limits and carbon rationing? Bring them on. Viva la Revolucion! Gregory f egel

EXHIBIT

Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: The Vatican's Quest for a World Political Authority By Carl Teichrib

I Published by America's Survival, Inc. ..-

--

www.usasurvival.org 443-964-82081

--. - . -

-

-

EXHIBIT K

-

This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explains how the Roman Catholic Church has taken a prominent role in the unfolding plan to establish a world government. Researcher Carl Teichrib examines how and why: x The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vaticaninsider and author Malachi Martin described in his book The Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over an emerging world government. x Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.” x This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.” x In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding the power and authority of such global institutions as the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization. x Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control can be incorporated into this emerging world system, a possible or even likely result is global tyranny.

ʹ 

Introduction By Carl Teichrib* “Most of us are not competitors… We are the stakes. For the competition is about who will establish the first one-world system of government... No one can be exempted from its effects. No sector of our lives will remain untouched.”i – Malachi Martin. In 1990, a former Vatican-insider claimed that a titanic struggle was being waged to bring about a world political system. This contest, the now deceased Jesuit explained, was primarily between three players: international Leninism, transnational business elites, and the hand of the Vatican. Almost twenty years have passed since Malachi Martin drew attention to this three-way quest. At the time his assertions seemed over-the-top. Granted, the idea of a world government via communism wasn’t new as decades of Cold War posturing still played in our minds. And the writing was on the wall in respect to the growing power of international corporate and financial elites, exemplified by the likes of David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission. But the Vatican? For many, the belief that the Holy See was pursing a vision of world government was simply too much. After all, this ancient hub of Roman Catholicism had a reputation – especially among Europe’s agnostic youth – as an institution of old men, steeped in tradition, procession and ceremony. Never mind that the history of the Continent, more often than not, revolved around the Vatican’s political prowess. In the summer of 2009, the Holy See’s political cards were revealed in a major papal document. Harkening back to Malachi Martin’s talk of world government, the most powerful religious office on the planet had promoted a world political authority to manage the global economy. Food security, disarmament, and peace would follow suit. A sound global economy and world peace are noble sounding goals, to be sure. But the danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soil of good intentions. ________________Q * Carl Teichrib is a Canadian-based researcher and the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly digest on global affairs from a Christian perspective. ͵ 

On July 7th, Pope Benedict released his new encyclical titled Caritas in Veritate, or “Charity in Truth.” Two years in the making, this document was disclosed on the eve of the G8 Summit in Italy and the Pope’s meeting with US President Barack Obama. Some 30,000 words long, this encyclical outlined the Pope’s concerns regarding globalization and economics, corporate ethics, and the role of the Catholic Church in promoting social doctrine. Commenting on the encyclical, The New York Times noted that, “sometimes Benedict sounds like an old-school European socialist…”ii And The San Francisco Chronicle explained that, “Caritas in Veritate addresses very modern issues such as globalization, market economy, hedge funds, outsourcing, and alternative energy, calling for people to put aside greed and let their consciences guide them in economic and environmental decisions. Many of the ideas put forward would likely rankle conservatives…”iii E.J. Dionne, a columnist for The Washington Post, gushed that Benedict is “well to Obama’s left on economics.”iv While Pope Benedict’s perspective on the global economy was a perplexing blend of free-market and social welfare ideals, what raised eyebrows were his thoughts on international politics. In section 67 of Caritas in Veritate, the Pope dropped an ideological bombshell – a world authority to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.” Here is a major part of section 67. The reference to a “world political authority” is very clear, and Pope Benedict explains that this international agency should be given the power of enforcement... “real teeth.” “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decisionmaking. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political Ͷ 

authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums.” Immediate controversy surrounded this paragraph, with some Catholics quickly attempting to distance the idea that the Holy See would support world government Hierarchy Of Power John-Henry Westen, writing for LifeSiteNews, stated unequivocally that the Pope was speaking “directly against a one-world government.”v Westen’s justification for this position was the Pope’s call for a “dispersed political authority” in paragraph 41 – a reference to the role of States in the international system. Westen also brought up the use of the word “subsidiarity” in section 57 as a strike against world government. This is an important point: Subsidiarity is the Catholic social teaching that issues should be dealt with at the lowest level possible. In many respects it builds on the theme of self-determination, and in this sense it would seem antithetical to a world authority. Section 57 of Caritas in Veritate says, “In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.”

Mr. Westen, who claims that Benedict’s use of subsidiarity opposes world government, has misdiagnosed this section. The Pope is not speaking against one-world government by evoking subsidiarity; instead he’s offering a hierarchical model upon which to build an international ͷ 

authority. Essentially, where issues can be dealt with at the local or national level, let them be handled in this domain. And where issues are global and cannot be adequately addressed at a lower level, then a world authority is necessary. Pope Benedict also suggested that subsidiarity could be a safety value that checks the power of a universal government against taking on tyrannical traits. But to propose that subsidiarity is a counter to tyranny is unconvincing – it can’t even check the expansion of over-government today. John Laughland, author of The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea, noted that, “…the German constitution has become increasingly centralised as a result of its subsidiarity clause.” The European Union also incorporates this concept, yet that hasn’t stopped the EU from centralizing political power and amassing a super-bloated bureaucracy. Subsidiarity, according to Laughland, is a model that assumes a “unitarian, pyramidal hierarchy of executive functions” with a decidedly corporatist doctrine.vi Subsidiarity can even be found in the UN system. Professor Robert Araujo explains that, “the principle of subsidiarity is recognized as a fundamental principle of the United Nations Organization.”vii Here, the concept is centered on self-determination under article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. Yet this doesn’t stop the UN from seeking empowered international jurisdiction under the banner of “reform.” It’s important to note that subsidiarity does allow for grassroots decisionmaking and self-direction, but it’s within the context of a broader perspective. Professor Araujo explains that it’s a “a concept synthesizing the interests of the individual with those of the community.” Hence, it’s not difficult to see how this principle can align itself with a world authority – you can pursue local political direction, but where local involvement ends then other levels of government step up for the “common good.” To say that Pope Benedict opposes world government because he evoked subsidiarity misses the point: subsidiarity plays a functioning role in a hierarchy of increasing political powers. What paragraph 57 demonstrates is not an aversion to world government, but the order of decision-making Benedict believes it should be based upon. Reform And World Authority Paragraph 67 of Caritas in Veritate is overtly political in nature. Here’s a breakdown of some key points. Y “Reform the United Nations” – UN reform centers on more than just “voting changes” or “transparency.” Rather, reform is connected to world ͸ 

taxation, a global enforcement component, and the creation of an international parliament. A small mountain of reports and documents that support this version of reform already exist, supported by the United Nations, national governments, and pro-UN groups such as the World Federalist Movement and the Club of Rome.viii In fact, this platform of international taxation, enforcement, and a world parliament were major discussion points at the UN Millennium Forum – particularly during the sessions hosted by the working group on “Strengthening and Democratizing the United Nations.”ix Cliff Kincaid, the President of America’s Survival, Inc. and editor of Accuracy in Media, noted the linkages between reform and global governance in section 67 of the papal text. “…the ‘reform’ of the U.N. is designed to strengthen it. Hence, the U.N. is clearly destined, from the Vatican point of view, to become the World Political Authority.”x Y “Responsibility to protect” – Known as R2P, this is a world federalist ideal that would give the UN a mandate to intervene domestically when a nation commits human rights violations. It sounds good on the surface, but critics – and even some advocates – realize that such a mandate may open Pandora’s Box. José E. Alvarez, President of the American Society of International Law, recognized this situation while addressing a conference on international law at The Hague in 2007. R2P, he suggested, could be used as a pretext to engage in all sorts of questionable, interventionist actions.xi Nobody in their right mind wishes for any people group to experience genocide or gross injustices. R2P, however, is a seriously flawed concept that has the potential for grave abuses. From a world management perspective, the Right to Protect becomes the legal justification for a world political authority to act militarily. The danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soil of good intentions.xii Y “To manage the global economy…” – This is already being discussed within the international community, and it’s looking like the new world financial order will be a top-down power structure that will greatly empower existing global institutions: Bank for International Settlements – to become the global banking regulator. The BIS is fast setting itself up as the international banking manager, a body that will oversee the world’s banks and financial system, including the regulation of international capital. An entity of this kind would be equivalent to a banker’s “king of the hill.” The Los Angeles Times wrote last year that, “…such a system would force countries to give up a measure of ͹ 

national sovereignty over banks operating within their borders. It also could lead to international bureaucrats trying to shape financial policy and possibly taking punitive action.”xiii International Monetary Fund – to become the world reserve currency bank. Under this scheme, the IMF would be charged with regulating a new global currency to be used in world trade, including the energy sector. Collaborating with the World Bank, the IMF would likewise use this new currency unit for international loans and debt obligations. National and regional currencies would still exist, at least for the interim, but values would react and adjust according to new global benchmarks. World Trade Organization – becoming the global trade regulator. The WTO would establish the rules for the trading of goods and services via a globally organized set of standard, a process it’s currently working through. National trade policies would hereafter line up with accepted world practices. All of this is already happening, but there’s a further link between global free trade and a new international financial system. Richard Cooper, while advocating a single global reserve currency, noted the following in a 1984 conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, “It would be logical if free [world] trade accompanied this single currency regime. That would also be consistent with the collaborative political spirit that would be required to establish the single currency regime. Free trade would insure one market in goods as well as in financial instruments.”xiv United Nations – fast becoming the global ethics and governance agency. The UN would give moral input and political guidance to the newly managed world economy. In essence, this body would become the “planetary consciousness,” shaping consumer and political attitudes, values, and behaviors. This too is already happening. At the end of June, the UN hosted a conference that outlined an accepted social norm for the global economy: an Earth-centric worldview, international socialism, and a New Age vision of planetary evolution. Remember, Benedict’s world political authority is supposed to manage the global economy. How will the execution of this mandate happen? Will the world authority operate as an umbrella to the above-mentioned groups? Can the United Nations reform to the point of being this global economic manager? Caritas in Veritate gave us a glimpse into the world authority’s directives, but it didn’t give operational specifics. Has the Holy See actually fleshed out the details: maybe outlining the process through an internal working document? If so, it would be a very interesting read! Or, in only offering generalities, does the Vatican expect other major players – such as the United Nations or World Federalist Movement – to hammer out the particulars? If so, where does that ͺ 

place the Vatican in this world government framework? Observer? Advisor? Overseer? A lot of perplexing questions arise, and so they should. Y “An authority…regulated by law” – Governments the world over are regulated by internal laws and accountability measures, yet this doesn’t stop abuses, corruption, or even tyranny from entering the picture. The idea that a world authority could be kept in check by a system of world law doesn’t hold water. Y “True world political authority” – This isn’t a moral or spiritual ideal propagated by the Holy See, but the vision of an actual world government. This is evident in the overall context of section 67 and in the wording itself: a “world political authority.” No doubt the papal office desires to see a spiritual standard incorporated into this political entity, based in large part on the social teachings of the Catholic Church. However, this in no way guarantees that a world authority will act in good will. As history bears out, the Vatican itself is far from immune in this regard, and “holders of power” tend to amass power. Remember the words of Lord Acton, a Catholic historian who penned the following in response to the Vatican’s unquestioning authority: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”xv Following A Tradition Pope Benedict’s promotion of world government didn’t happen in a vacuum. Since the 1950s the Holy See has consistently moved to support an empowered United Nations and world political authority. Pope Pius XII: On April 6, 1951, Pope Pius XII had a meeting in the Vatican with the World Movement for World Federal Government – a precursor to the World Federalist Movement. During that meeting, Pope Pius encouraged his “world government” audience to continue in this quest. “Your movement, Gentlemen, has the task of creating an effective political organization of the world. There is nothing more in keeping with the traditional doctrines of the Church, or better adapted to her teachings on the rightful or unjust war, especially in the present world situation. An organization of this nature must, therefore, be set up…” The Pope then explained, rightly so, that the “deadly germs of mechanical totalitarianism” might infect this “world political organization.” ͻ 

However, in noting this possibility, he reminded the attendees to pursue a morally firm world federalist approach. Ending his meeting, the Pope encouraged his audience to pursue this grand idea. “…you have the courage to give yourself to this cause. We congratulate you. We would express to you Our wishes for your entire success and with all Our heart We will pray to God to grant you His wisdom and help in the performance of your task.”xvi Pope John XXIII: In his 1963 encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII called for an international public authority with a “world-wide sphere of activity” to deal with global problems. This authority would be “equipped with world-wide power and adequate means for achieving the universal common good,” although it could not establish itself through force: “it must be set up with the consent of all nations.” In contemplating how this system would work, John XXIII called upon the principle of subsidiarity, saying that this should be applied “to the relations between the public authority of the world community and the public authorities of each political community.” Subsidiarity here, like Benedict’s use of the term, doesn’t negate a world authority – it simply imposes a hierarchical structure that recognizes each level, from the bottom-to-the-top, as a key to the process.xvii Pope Paul VI: While speaking at the United Nations in 1965, the adulation coming from the pope was palatable. During his talk he praised the UN system as “the obligatory path of modern civilization and world peace.” “The edifice which you have constructed must never fall; it must be perfected, and made equal to the needs which world history will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind, from which retreat must never be admitted… Advance always! ...Let unanimous trust in this Institution grow, let its authority increase.” Alas, Pope Paul VI called for a world government. “Is there anyone who does not see the necessity of coming thus progressively to the establishment of a world authority, able to act efficaciously on the juridical and political levels?xviii Pope John Paul II: In his 1995 speech to the UN, John Paul reflected on the historical connections between the Vatican and the world body. “The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, which makes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has ͳͲ 

supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization from the very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operative approaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nations constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their common concern for the human family.”xix Although Pope John Paul II butted heads with the United Nations over family issues, he did place enormous importance on pursuing political systems of world law. In 1985 he spoke to judges at the International Court of Justice, telling them that, The Holy See attaches great importance to its collaboration with the United Nations Organization and the various organisms which are a vital part of its work. The Church's interest in the International Court of Justice goes back to the very beginnings of this Tribunal and to the events that were linked to its establishment…. The Church has consistently supported the development of an international administration of justice and arbitration as a way of peace fully resolving conflicts and as part of the evolution of a world legal system… Strictly speaking, the present Court is no more – but it is also no less – than an initial step towards what we hope will one day be a totally effective judicial authority in a peaceful world.xx [italics in original] In other speeches and writings, such as his encyclical Sollicitudo rei Socialis, John Paul called for a strengthening of world law and a “greater degree of international ordering.”xxi None of this has the same blatancy as Pope Benedict’s recommendation for a “world political authority,” but it does follow a common political theme – enlarged and enhanced global governance. Pope Benedict’s idea of a “world political authority” didn’t spring out of thin air. Rather, through successive papal offices stretching back to at least Pius XII,xxii the Holy See has nurtured visions of an international politic. Influencing Princes and Paupers The fact that a religious leader has called for a world authority is interesting in itself, but because this emanates from the papal office, an extra measure of attention is warranted. We cannot overlook the influence wielded by the Holy See. The Pope is vastly different in relation to other religious figures when it comes to global significance. It’s true that some Protestant and evangelical leaders are consulted by political elites; and government officials often court the ͳͳ 

heads of other religions, such as the Dalai Lama. But all of this pales to the historical and contemporary powers of the papal office. For centuries the Holy See has been the centerpiece of European political affairs. Its history is replete with geo-political intrigues, papal wars, and the rise and fall of national powers. Royalty from every corner of the Continent have traveled to Rome seeking an audience with the Pope, hoping for papal favor. Moreover, the Vatican has been a hub for banking interests, espionage, and transnational business dealings.xxiii And today, just as in the past, Presidents and Prime Ministers bow before the Pope, seeking his counsel, and privately discussing matters of great political, economic, and social importance. Eric Frattini, the author of The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage, gives us a window into this geo-political world. “The papacy, the supreme authority at the head of the Catholic Church, is the oldest established institution in the world. It was the only institution to flourish during the Middle Ages, a leading actor in the Renaissance, and a protagonist in the battles of the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the French Revolution, the industrial era, and the rise and fall of communism. For centuries, making full use of their famous ‘infallibility,’ popes brought their centralized power to bear on the social outcomes of unfolding historical events… …throughout history, the papacy has always displayed two faces: that of the worldwide leadership of the Catholic Church and that of one of he planet’s best political organizations. While the popes were blessing their faithful on the one hand, on the other, they were receiving foreign ambassadors and heads of states and dispatching legates and nuncios on special missions.”xxiv And standing behind the Pope is a worldwide following of devout Catholics, who may not agree with world government, but who are nevertheless committed to the Roman Catholic Church – thus supportive of the Pontiff. Avro Manhattan, a critic of the Holy See, correctly made the correlation between the Vatican’s power and it’s faithful. “What gives the Vatican its tremendous power is not its diplomacy as such, but the fact that behind its diplomacy stands the Church, with all its manifold world-embracing activities… …Vatican diplomacy is so influential and can exert such great power in the diplomatic-political field because it has at its disposal the tremendous machinery of a spiritual organization with ramifications in ͳʹ 

every country of the planet. In other words, the Vatican, as a political power, employs the Catholic Church as a religious institution to assist the attainment of its goals. These goals, in turn, are sought mainly to further the spiritual interests of the Catholic Church. …the Catholic Hierarchy automatically reacts upon those innumerable religious, cultural, social, and finally political, organizations connected with the Catholic Church, which although tied to the Church primarily on religious grounds, can at given moments be made either directly or indirectly to serve political ends.”xxv The point is this: No other religious leader on the planet holds such political and economic influence within a religious framework. Consider just the number of adherents that make up the backbone of the Church of Roman: In the US, Catholics make up approximately 22% of the populace, and of the world’s total, 17% – or about 1.14 billion people.xxvi That’s why Pope Benedict’s call for a “world political authority” is so significant; what he says influences leaders and laymen alike by the hundreds of millions. If the local Baptist pastor or Mennonite preacher, with a flock of a few dozen or a few hundred, appealed for a UN-styled “world political authority” it wouldn’t mean much beyond the pews of that particular church. The congregants would either cheer the minister or, hopefully, challenge his assumptions. But generally speaking it wouldn’t cause a ripple beyond the local community. However, when the “Holy Father” – a Catholic title that denotes more than just a “leader” – makes such a recommendation, and has the backing of earlier papal appeals, the waves of influence travel worldwide. Conclusion - That the Holy See has, for at least six decades, supported the quest for a global political structure. - That Pope Benedict has, through his recent encyclical, explicitly supported the idea of a world political authority; and that this world government should be designed to incorporate the principle of subsidiarity. Further point: That subsidiarity in a universal political structure would be akin to the slogan, “think global, act local.” - That the influence of the Holy See upon the international community is substantial, and that the Papacy has the backing and general support of hundreds of millions around the world, adding “local-to-global” support for the Vatican’s geo-political visions.

ͳ͵ 

- That advocates for world government – such as the World Federalist Movement – will pick up on Pope Benedict’s recommendations and use it to parade the idea of world management. - That many Roman Catholics and Catholic organizations will subsequently endorse the proposal for a world political authority, and hence support various movements for global governance. - That individuals and organizations within and outside the Catholic Church will defend the Pope’s encyclical by seeking to spiritualize or moralize the text, thereby attempting to soften the controversy. Yet, the Pope’s intent for a world political authority remains. - That a minority of Catholics will vocally oppose the Vatican’s call for UN empowerment and international government (many more will be indifferent). Ridicule may occur for those who publically speak against Benedict’s political ideals. Expect rifts between those who oppose and those who advocate global governance. - That non-Catholic faith groups will support Pope Benedict’s encyclical. Already an evangelical response document has been issued by a group of professors and national evangelical leaders. Titled, Doing the Truth in Love, this text agrees that new forms of global authority are necessary, but that it “must secure increased participation, transparency and accountability, and help strengthen the nation state relative to the power of global finance.”xxvii Such a view is more utopian than practical, as few real incentives would compel a world government to operate this openly. - That new alliances and networks will be formed to increase political and social pressure in support of world management, and that these networks will incorporate Catholic/Vatican groups, non-governmental organizations, and elements from the United Nations. When the Holy See raises the specter of world government it should jolt Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Even if a world political authority doesn’t come to fruition, such advocacy is stunning. Here we have the planet’s most influential religious office – itself politically structured as a top-down authority – promoting a top-down system of international management. The perception alone is deeply troubling. And if a world political authority does come into play, what will keep it from morphing into an autocratic regime? Even in this we are assuming that the global authority will be introduced as a limited government. The ultimate contradiction, of course, is a toothless world authority. Without enforcement capabilities it would be little more than an advisory board. To be effective, ͳͶ 

therefore, it must be a centralist power with clout: Anything less would be meaningless. But is this what the world needs to ensure global order? Consider for a moment the last one hundred years, a century rife with examples of “well-meaning” centralist governments – they were always well meaning to somebody. In the name of “peace and security” these regimes crushed domestic opponents, often liquidating their own supporters in the process. From Chile to China the unofficial motto, “peace is the destruction of all opposition,” was translated into action. And in the case of Nazi Germany, the government rose to power through the democratic process. Sadly, in some cases the Vatican itself held the hands of those who perpetrated such crimes, as in Croatia during the 1940s.xxviii Does all of this mean that the Holy See supports a dictatorial world regime? Not according to Pope Benedict’s encyclical, as he openly recognized the dangerous possibility of a “universal power of a tyrannical nature.” His hope, as outlined in Caritas in Veritate, is a world political authority checked by legal boundaries so as not to “infringe upon freedom.” Government overstep would be offset by accountability measures. A fine concept in theory, but it rests on a shaky assumption: That the world political authority will remain content to live within prescribed limitations; satisfied to operate within tight social, economic, and political constraints. Here’s the snag: our advanced, democratic nations – and even the Vatican – haven’t and can’t live up to this basic standard. While Pope Benedict tries to soft-sell Catholics and national leaders on the idea of world government, the sobering words of Lord Acton drift-in from a nearly forgotten past: “Power corrupts…”

ͳͷ 

Endnotes:

 i

Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood (Touchstone, 1990), p.15. The New York Times, “Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the ‘Common Good’,” July 8, 2009. Online edition. iii David Ian Miller, “The Pope pays the economy some attention,” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 13, 2009. Online edition. iv E.J. Dionne Jr. “To the Right of the Pope,” The Washington Post, July 8, 2009, online edition. v John-Henry Westen, “Pope’s New Encyclical Speaks Against, not for On-World Government and New World Order,” LifeSiteNews.com, July 8, 2009. vi John Laughland, The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea (Little, Brown & Company, 1997), pp.154-155. vii Robert John Arujo, “International Law Clients: The Wisdom of Natural Law,” Fordham Urban Law Journal, August, 2001. viii For a few examples among many, see the following reports: Our Global Neighborhood (The Commission on Global Governance, Oxford University Press, 1995 – directly supported and endorsed by the UN Secretary General); Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations (Government of Canada, 1995); Rethinking Basic Assumptions About the United Nations (World Federalist Association, 1992); Reshaping the International Order (Club of Rome, 1976). ix UN Millennium Forum, May 22-26, 2000. See the final document, Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action. x Cliff Kincaid, “Who Will Probe the UN-Vatican Connection?” Accuracy in Media, August 4, 2009. (www.aim.org). xi José E. Alvarez, The Schizophrenias of R2P, Panel Presentation at the 2007 Hague Joint Conference on Contemporary Issues of International Law: Criminal Jurisdiction 100 Years After the 1907 Hague Peace Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, June 30, 2007. xii For more on the R2P concept see Volume 2, Issue 7 of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org) – “Kosovo and the International Community: Just Another Pawn in the Game.” xiii Jim Puzzanghera, “Calls grow for global banking regulator,” Los Angeles Times, October 17, 2008 (online archived edition). xiv Richard N. Cooper, “Is There a Need to Reform?” The International Monetary System: Forty Years After Bretton Woods (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1984), p.33. xv Reprinted in Eric Frattini’s book, The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage (St. Martin’s Press, 2008), p.2. xvi Address by His Holiness Pope Pius XII During an Audience with Delegates of the Fourth Congress of the World Movement for World Federal Government, 6 April 1951. A copy of this speech is in the author’s library. It is reprinted in its entirety in The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents and Resources on Global Governance (2004, can be obtained at the Forcing Change website, www.forcingchange.org). xvii Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, paragraphs 137 to 141. xviii Holy Father’s Talk at United Nations, October 4, 1965. Reprinted in its entirety in The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents and Resources on Global Governance (www.forcingchange.org). xix Address of His Holiness John Paul II, United Nations Headquarters, Thursday, 5 October 1995. xx Address of John Paul II to the International Court of Justice during the Meeting at the Peace Palace, The Hague, 13 May 1985. xxi Sollicitudo rei socialis, paragraph 43. xxii Pope John Paul I was in office for only 33 days before being murdered in 1978. During that time he made a number of speeches, but I have found none that directly support global governance. xxiii Volumes have been published on the role of the Holy See in global dealings, including banking, espionage, and international diplomacy. One of the most recent books on this subject is The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage, by Eric Frattini (St. Martin’s Press, 2008). ii

ͳ͸ 



xxiv

Eric Frattini The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage (St. Martin’s Press, 2008), p.1. xxv Avro Manhattan, The Vatican in World Politics (Gaer Associates, 1949), pp.28-29. xxvi “Frequently Requested Catholic Church Statistics,” Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University, statistics are for 2009; http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm. xxvii Doing the Truth in Love. A copy of the document, along with signers, can be found at www.cpjustice.org/doingthetruth xxviii The Croat liquidation of Orthodox Serbs was one of the most horrific examples of genocide in modern history. So gruesome were the attacks that “even hardened German troops registered their horror.” See John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (Viking, 1999), pp.248-260. See also Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks by Mark Aarons and John Loftus (St. Martin’s Griffin, 1998); and Avro Manhattan, The Vatican’s Holocaust (Ozark Books, 1986). Mark Aarons and John Loftus attest to Manhattan’s credibility, explaining; “he was very well informed, having worked for British intelligence during the war” (Unholy Trinity, p.86).

ͳ͹ 



This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explains how the Roman Catholic Church has taken a prominent role in the unfolding plan to establish a world government. Researcher Carl Teichrib examines how and why: x The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vaticaninsider and author Malachi Martin described in his book The Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over an emerging world government. x Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.” x This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.” x In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding the power and authority of such global institutions as the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization. x Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control can be incorporated into this emerging world system, a possible or even likely result is global tyranny.

ͳͺ 

EXHIBIT L

Printed from America's Survival, Inc.

- http://www.usasurivai.org/

Vatican Backs Obama's Global Agenda By Cliff Kincaid

I

October 12, 2009

Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem to understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues. This is the untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a New World Order. Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care reform. These topics are mostly taboo in the liberal and conservative media. Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby. But the fads should not be much of a surprise. A majority of Catholics voted for Obarna, despite the f a d that his pro-abortion record was well known, and when he was honored at Notre Dame, the premier Catholic University in the U.S., only about one-third of U.S. Catholic Bishops publicly objected.

The Nobel Committee's award to Obama has been viewed by many, on the left and right, as a surprise. But it makes perfect sense. The committee noted that Obama "has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the rote that the United Nations and other international institutions can play." All of this is true. Obama has built up the power of global institutions at the expense of the United States. While the Vatican statement congratulating Obama was also seen by some as a surprise, it too makes sense. The Vatican expressed the hope that "this most important recognition will ultimately encourage such a difficult but fundamental commitment for the future of humanity, so that it might bring the expected results." The "expected results" are evident when one considers that Pope Benedid, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, had endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of wortd government, in his recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." This world political authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to "manage the economy," bring about "timely disarmament," and ensure "food, security and peace." However, researcher Carl Teichrib points out in a new study (PDF) that some Catholic writers are reluctant to face up to the Vatican's embrace of global government. ---.

EXHIBIT N

On domestic matters, it is frequently reported that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the U.S. oppose the Obama health care plan. In fact, the bishops believe that "health care is a basic human right," which is the premise of the Obama plan and it is driving the campaign to have the federal government take over the health care sector. The Bishops disagree with Obama on tax-funding of abortion, but on other matters-such as health care for immigrants and the poor-the Bishops are to the left of the plans introduced by Congressional Democrats. The Bishops also agree with the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats on what is euphemistically called "immigration reform." On October 8, Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told the Senate that a new bill should help bring illegal aliens "out of the shadows" and give them permanent residency and citizenship. Such a bill figures to be one of the next major Obama initiatives. On the matter of a cap-and-trade energy bill, which would raise energy prices supposedly to combat global warming, the Catholic Bishops believe that the U.S. should adopt "mitigation and adaptation" approaches that mean "shifting behavior now to adjust to the near-term impacts of climate change." The Bishops explain that "Mitigation means cutting back on the emissions of harmful global warming pollutants and taking action to prevent further harm to the atmosphere." Again, this is the Obama Administration position. The Bishops have launched a "Climate Change Justice and Health Initiative" that promotes "legislative action," including "the transfer of such technologies and technical assistance that may be appropriate and helpful to developing countries in meeting the challenges of global climate change." This, too, is accepted and being promoted by the Obama Administration. On the controversial matter of what to do in Afghanistan, left-wing pressure is being applied on the Obama Administration by Pax Christi, a Catholic group which insists that the U.S. military presence has "fueled the spiral of violence and further destabilized the region." It says that the solution lies in "reducing the U.S. military footprint" and favors ending the use of air strikes and drones on terrorist targets. Its "solution" is more diplomacy and foreign aid. On an equally serious matter, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Dave Robinson, executive director of PaxChristi USA, recently signed a letter endorsing "the administration's intent to engage Iran diplomatically..." Robinson favors more talking with Iran, not more sanctions and certainly not military action against the fanatical regime. What's interesting is that you find the same Catholic personnel working on domestic and foreign policy issues. For example, the executive committee on the Pax Christi national council includes figures such as Donna Toliver Grimes, a "Poverty Education and Outreach Manager" for the bishops who also serves on the staff of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). This is the entity that has poured millions of dollars into ACORN and related organizations over the years. Funding of ACORN was recently suspended

because of corruption allegations. In an October 2 memorandum (PDF), Bishop Roger P. Morin acknowledged that the CCHD had also been funding several groups promoting public policy positions in violation of Catholic moral teaching. These were groups promoting homosexual rights and abortion. Morin claimed that the funding had been cut off. However, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, which uncovered the scandal, says that Morin's response is unsatisfactory and "factually deficient in several areas." In response to one of my previous columns on the Catholic connection to ACORN, a conservative Catholic blog called CatholicCulture.org agreed with my point that some in the media are reluctant to raise the issue because they fear being accused of having an antiCatholic bias. The blog said, however, that the matter must be thoroughly probed because while funding for ACORN has been suspended, the ties that CCHD has to other radical groups remain. My column also noted evidence that Obama's community organizing days in Chicago began in an organization funded by the Catholic Church. This has been confirmed by several sources. Obama "worked in several Catholic parishes, supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, helping to address severe joblessness and housing needs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Chicago," noted the group calling itself Catholic Democrats. Another group, Catholics for Obama, says that "President Barack Obama reflects core values of Catholic Social Teaching, which informs how we live our faith in the world." The president of Catholic Democrats, Patrick Whelan, serves on the board of Catholics for Obama and as co-director of Pax Christi in Massachusetts. In the newsletter (PDF) of Pax Christi Massachusetts, Whelan writes about flying to Chicago in May of this year, "where I attended a reunion of Catholic Priests and community activists who hired a young Barack Obama in 1985." Whelan says that Obama, in his book, Dreams from My Father, "created a character named Marty Kaufmann, based on two real-life community organizers who attended this gathering on May 16, 2009." Whelan also writes about Obama's meeting with the Pope. "Overall," he says, "it was clear that the common ground between the US Government and the Holy See-on poverty, the environment, international armed conflict and peace in the Middle East-far outweighed their differences." z

Read our special report: Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: the Vatican’s Quest for World Political Authority

Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax

Printed from America's Survival, Inc.

Page 1 o f 3

- http://www.usasurival.org/

Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax BY CLIFF KINCAID

I OCTOBER 6,2009

While policymakers debate a few million dollars for ACORN and a few hundred billion dotlars more for health care reform, those committed to one-world government are moving ahead with plans for a global tax that could extract trillions of dollars out of Americans' already depleted IRAs and stock holdings. One can't exclude the possibility of such a tax being slipped into a health care or cap-andtrade bill that the Congress or the public could not have time to read before passage. Bob Davis of the Wall Street Journal deserves a journalism prize for taking the time to read the recent communique issued by the G-20 countries meeting in Pittsburgh. He found they had assigned the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the job of studying how to implement a global tax on America and the rest of the world. "The IMF assignment from the G-20 has been widely overlooked," Davis noted. His article ran under the headline, "IMF Mulls Global Bank Tax." For a history of global taxation efforts, please go to our web site www.stovaloba~taxes.orq

The "Leader's Statement" endorsed by President Obama and released at the event declares on page 10 that "We task the IMF to prepare a report for our next meeting with regard to the range of options countries have adopted or are considering as to how the financial sector could make a fair and substantial contribution toward paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the banking system." The term "fair and substantial contribution" is code for a global tax. Other misleading terms for global taxes include "innovative sources of financen and "Solidarity Levies." While the global tax would affect the savings of ordinary Americans and be passed on to consumers, it is being packaged by the international left and its progressive allies in the U.S. as an assault on Wall Street and the big banks. One proposal, popular at the United Nations for decades and long-advocated by Fidel Castro, is the Tobin Tax, named after Yale University economist James Tobin. Such a tax, which could affect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Indeed, Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, says in his book, The Confidence Game, that such a proposal "might net some $13 trillion a year..." because it is

hr>:llwww.usasurviva1.or~ck100609.htmI

EXHIBIT 0

1012 112009

Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax

Page 2 of 3

based on taking a percentage of money from the trillions of dollars exchanged daily in global financial markets. Such transactions are commonplace on behalf of Americans who have stock in mutual funds or companies that invest or operate overseas. Meanwhile, President Obama used his recent speech to the United Nations to declare, "We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals." He left unsaid what this means. It has been calculated that this will cost the U.S. $845 billion to meet U.N. demands for a certain percentage of Gross National Product to go for official foreign aid to the rest of the world. Compliance with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was incorporated into the Global Poverty Act that Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator but which never passed. A global tax of the kind envisioned in the G-20 document could help provide the revenue to fulfill Obama's promise to comply with the MDGs. One of the leading cheerleaders for the global tax is economist Joseph Stiglitz, an Obama supporter and former Clinton official who has been working with the Socialist International Commission on Global Financial Issues. We analyzed his key behind-the-scenes role in the June United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis. He was selected as a U.N. adviser by the then-president of the U.N. General Assembly, Communist Catholic Priest Miguel D'Escoto. Over at the Huffington Post, a voice of the Obama-supporting left, Kyle G. Brown advises that such a tax is doable and that "a modest fee on every stock, every bond-in short, every financial transaction" could generate $100 billion a year at a rate of just 0.5 percent. He explains, "That would defray health care costs, and help struggling states restore social services that have been axed over the past two years." Brown is not a policy maker but rather a self-described writer and broadcast journalist at the BBC and CBC. The progressives know that such a rate could be ratcheted up quickly, bringing in hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars. The AFL-CIO, the giant labor federation backing Obama, has already endorsed the Tobin Tax, as has Robert Kuttner, a leading liberal thinker who serves as co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. This is a pro-Democratic Party think tank that still includes ousted Obama green jobs czar Van Jones on its board. As reported by The Hill newspaper, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the Highways and Transit Transportation Subcommittee, has "seized on the idea as a way to help pay for a new massive surface transportation reauthorization bill, estimated to cost $450 billion over six years," but wants to tax oil-based derivatives rather than stock transactions. DeFazio had previously introduced a House resolution to pass a Tobin Tax. What is driving the global taxation agenda is a Marxist view that the U.S. is exploiting the people and natural resources of the world. According to this perspective, international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even the U.N. must be restructured and provided with new financial resources to supervise and manage the redistribution of the world's wealth. The United States, being the leading capitalist state, has to pay the largest price.

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck100609.html

10/21/2009

Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax

Page 3 of 3

Their attitude was expressed at a non-governmental organization forum in Monterrey, Mexico, associated with the U.N.'s International Conference on Financing for Development, that Christopher Columbus "invaded, destroyed and pillaged" the hemisphere and that a global tax was necessary to pay for the damage. In his 2001 speech to the U.N. World Conference on Racism, Castro advocated the Tobin Tax specifically in order to generate U.S. financial reparations to the rest of the world. He declared, "May the tax suggested by Nobel Prize Laureate James Tobin be imposed in a reasonable and effective way on the current speculative operations accounting for trillions of US dollars every 24 hours, then the United Nations, which cannot go on depending on meager, inadequate, and belated donations and charities, will have one trillion US dollars annually to save and develop the world." The only thing that has changed is that the U.S. now has a president who agrees with Castro, and he and his progressive backers believe that they can obtain a slice of the revenue for their socialist projects here as well. Please go to www.stopglobaltaxes.org Read Cliff Kincaid’s book for free “Global Taxes for World Government”

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck100609.html

10/21/2009

News :: Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, California, 8th District

Page 1 of 1

February 2007 Press Releases Pelosi Denounces Hateful Views in AsianWeek Column; Wednesday, February 28,2007 Pelosi Statement on British Troop Withdrawal; Wednesday, February 21,2007 Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi hosts a Climate Change and Eneray Independence Roundtable; February 21,2007 Pelosi Statement on the Lunar New Year; Friday, February 16, 2007 Pelosi: Iraq Resolution Will Signal a Change in Direction and Bring Our Troops Home Safely and Soon; Friday, February 16, 2007 Pelosi: Vote Against Escalation in Iraq is a Messaqe to President Bush - No More Blank Checks on Iraq; Tuesday, February 13,2007 Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi accepts the lnstituto Laboral de la Raza 2007 Congressional Leadership Award; February 9,2007 Pelosi Remarks at Service Last Night for Leo McCarthy; Friday, February 9, 2007 Pelosi: w e Will Work Toaether to Tackle Global Waning. One of Humanity's Greatest Challenges; Thursday, February 8, 2007 Pelosi: President's Budget Is More of the Same ~ i s c aIrresponsibility l and Misplaced Priorities; Monday, February 5, 2007 Pelosi Statement on Black History Month; Thursday, February I,2007 More 8th District Press Releases and Statements: 2007: Januarv Februarv March April Mav June Julv Aunust September October November December

get email ~ ~ d a t (ebiosra~hy s I constituent services I work in connress ( about San Francisco I news I photos I contact I vouth op~ortunitiesI home

-

-

-

District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave. 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 5564862 Washington, D.C. Office 2371 Raybum HOB Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-4965

-

-

EXHIBIT P

-

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON

August 26,2009

Mr.Christopher Stnmk Unit 281 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn,New York 11238

Dear Mr.Stnmk:

Thank you far antactingthe office ofP r e s i i t Barack Obama The President appreciates your taking the time to voice your coacernsand opinions. however, due to the sepamtb W e would like to be of mktaace to of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You must resolve this issue thmugh the judicial system Please be aware that you am visit www.usa.gov or call 1-800-FEDINPO for infannation about Federal Govrmment assistance.

We hupe your concerns are resolved to your satisfactian. Again, thank you far your correspondence.

...

F. Michael Kelleher Special Assistant to the Resident and Director of Presidential Comqxmdence

EXHIBIT Q

Case 1:06-cv-00080-

Document 97

Filed 0711812006

a

Page 1 of 47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

O&v-80

Case:

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

mfms)

In the False Claims Act xnatter of relators: JOHNdOSEPH F O R J O ~&A. ,

Plaimta)

US. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS WILKEY, et.aL Defendants. X

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MAKIE A CONSOLIDATED =PLY

OF EXPANDED LEN-

WITH EXHIBITS

MOTION BY: Christopher Earl S t d pm se without being an attonrey RELEF SOUGHT:Permission to submit a cmsolidakd Reply of expmded length with exhibits to Defimdants Reqwases shown at Docket Items 76 thru 96 as provided pursuant to the Court Stay Order and Text Orders shown Docket items 24,27 and 75 respectively. \KHEN RETURNABLE: On papers and without v c e , or at a date and time to be set by thecourt.

WHERE WTURNABLE: 6th Floor, U.S. Courthouse, 68 Court Street, Buffitlo, New York 14202

SUPPORTING PAPERS: Moving Intervenor's Declmtim in support, along with the proposed Consolidaced Reply of 33 pages with 9 pages of Exlv'b'i A-1 thru D-4.

Dated: July 14,2006 Brooklyn New York 593 Vandmbilt Avenue #281

Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 339-0774 [email protected] See the following parties list attached:

EXHIBIT R

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 2 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 3 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 4 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 5 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 6 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 7 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 8 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 9 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 10 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 11 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 12 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 13 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 14 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 15 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 16 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 17 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 18 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 19 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 20 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 21 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 22 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 23 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 24 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 25 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 26 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 27 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 28 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 29 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 30 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 31 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 32 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 33 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 34 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 35 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 36 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 37 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 38 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 39 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 40 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 41 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 42 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 43 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 44 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 45 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 46 of 47

Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

Document 97

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 47 of 47

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK

....................................................................

RICO CASE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5.l(h)

x

JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, DAN DEL PLAT0 J R GABRIEL RAZZANO, EDWARD M. PERSON JR., And CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.

O~-CV-OOSOA(SC)

V. The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General ALBERT0 GONZALEZ; The States of CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS each by Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively; THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; New York State A'TTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR 4 1012; THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et.al. Defendants. -------------------------------------------------*---------------------

X

TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED OF

ALL ISSUES

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is a Civil RICO Statement by Plaintiffs John Joseph Fojone and Christopher Earl Strunk, each pro se and neither being an attorney under 18 USC

9 1964(c), in addition to the relators matter under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 USC 93729 thru 93733. This Civil RTCO Statement ("Statement") is submitted pursuant to WDNY Local Rule 5.1 and 9.2 in conjunction with the Amended Complaint to be duly filed by May 1,2006 in compliance with the Order of the Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara. The Amended Complaint has 221 paragraphs and merefore relief section that will be referenced in this Statement. As alleged in paragraph 57, Plaintiffs pursuant to the background facts in paragraphs 19 thru 56 have injuries to (i .) Plaintiffs' individual sufiage proprietary property by dilution, devaluation, and RICO Statement Page 1 of 50

EXHIBIT S

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

offset as a jus tertii class (1) additionally effected by long-term gerrymandering since the 1972 reapportionment, (ii.) those Plaintiffs with real property are especially affected by takings injury caused by multiple schemes to defraud facilitated by local governments acting in conjunction with state(s) of the several states and territories and federal malfeasance and both sets of Plaintiffs suffer (iii.) theft of individual liberty. That Plaintiffs complain of injury done by Defendants, their agents statewide, and those yet named nationally and internationally conducting an enterprise through patterns of racketeering activity defined 18 USC §1961 thru §1968 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries. The enterprise in New York, centers the New York State BOE and its agents, including every Municipal BOE and its agents, including Thomas Wilkey as its Democratic Party co-director and member of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), are a legally mandated “ bi-partisan”configuration dependent upon appointed members of two different political faiths (the same parties for more than one hundred years) are all defendants as a class herein too numerous to name. By operation of law Defendants preclude non-partisan and or non-majoritarian citizens. As such all “ bi-partisan”Defendants and their agents have an express fiduciary duty to check and verify the actions of each other, as 1

“ Jus tertii“third party standing created by non/mis/malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty. RICO Statement Page 2 of 50

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

well as to detect, prevent and punish misrepresentation and fraud in provision of suffrage for the benefit of each Plaintiff individually and class similarly situated precluded from the process under color of law. Plaintiffs allege Defendants on a state, multi-state, national and international level are part of a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with exploiting vagaries, loopholes and questionable devices associated with the “ Voting Age Population” (VAP) Formula created by Congress and the enterprise itself as if by operation of law under color of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 2002 Help America to Vote Act (HAVA). That the enterprise reaps unjust enrichment by taking intangible and tangible property by fraudulent concealment, extortion, theft and robbery benefiting from mail and wire fraud while operating under color of the 1993 NVRA, 2002 HAVA incorporated into the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA); and by operation of the Racketeering Enterprise among enticements it harbors aliens defined per the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), uses the “ Great Society Program” provision of Medicaid (SSA), education, housing, employment and provides mailin registration and voting without oversight to Plaintiffs proprietary property and business detriment.

RICO Statement Page 3 of 50

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

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

2

18 USC § 1341. Frauds and swindles - Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 3

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

RICO Statement Page 4 of 50

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

liberty; and notwithstanding the myth of good government appearing long abandoned in New York, corruption is a “ bi-partisan”endeavor, expectation of effective voting remains the right that safeguards all other rights. That NYS BOE is at the center of the enterprise with respect to various New York state subdivision municipal boards of election who are each either coconspirators willfully acting or unwitting participants in the scheme to facilitate registration, voting, and with use of the U.S. Mail funding the scheme by a pattern of real property tax levy taking property differently outside NYC and other states than within. That participants act under color of the VRA and related laws to aid and abet illegal alien sanctuary per 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.), obstruct INA process in the matter of facilitating illegal aliens to pose as US Citizens (4), to obtain fraudulent documents (5), and then on the prime voters list used tangentially every tens years to gerrymander as was done April 22, 2002. That the criminal activity of the enterprise involves mail and wire fraud defined under 18 USC §1341 and 18 USC §1343, and that for no less than fourteen years has been aided 4

18 USC § 1425. Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully- (a) Whoever knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship 18 USC § 1546. Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents –(a.) Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained 5

RICO Statement Page 5 of 50

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

and abetted by DOJ, FEC and now EAC, its agents in “ bi-partisan” administrations. That anyone who is not a citizen, or is a citizen multiply registered at two different locations with intent to vote, or is a U.S. Citizen declared civilly dead by due process of law including but not limited to felons who have not regained civil rights as well as those declared incompetent under supervision of the state, who engages in use of suffrage documents and or votes, participates in the scheme to defraud with such documents (6). That any document associated with use of the social security number or other official means of identification that may be used with intent to defraud the government, by passing as a US Citizen or legally

6

18 USC 1028 Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information –(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section— (1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; (4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; (7) knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; (c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that— (1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or the documentmaking implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document; (2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or (3) either—(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or (B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section. (d) In this section— (1) the term “ authentication feature”means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified; (f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

RICO Statement Page 6 of 50

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

documented alien, are document matters that DOJ absolutely has authority and jurisdiction over. That DOJ and its agents inaction absent reasonable standard of care is dereliction of duty, that appears politically motivated, is consistently done as a pattern of dereliction while under the Clinton and current Bush administrations to both conceal and facilitate the scheme to defraud. That the scheme to defraud US Citizens that registers illegal aliens to vote as if done by US Citizens under color of NVRA and HAVA involves solicitation of foreign owned vendors to acquire, operate and manipulate votes cast on electronic voting machines mandated by Congress, and that such schemes not only statewide have an impact nationally and internationally as a matter of commerce under North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) whose agents promote open borders and predatory trade practice with use of chattel indenture and peonage. The schemes use the weakness of the VRA, whose safeguards apply only for protected minorities in which DOJ has jurisdiction; however, does not afford equal protection to those who are not protected minorities, operates as a reverse discrimination facilitating the crime defined(7)

7

18 USC § 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to— (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform— (b) As used in this section (i) “ unlawful activity”means (2) extortion, bribery, … in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act

RICO Statement Page 7 of 50

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

That by reason of not having a central database, by reason of Don’ t ASK Don’ t Tell harboring policies, by reason of non-compliance in application and administration of the respective state constitution and related laws, by reason of enticement and common purposes with federal funds certified without checks and balances; by reason of the proximate cause of the commonality of criminal activity plaintiffs are sufficiently directly injured by the unlawful expansion of the registration pool, and by reason of harboring deprives Plaintiffs individual and collective suffrage bargaining power, depresses suffrage power outside of the enterprise. That each Plaintiff whose proprietary property is affected associate together in an ad hoc group to protect proprietary voting property, personal property, real property, and intangible liberty, against defendants perversity in participating knowingly and unknowingly as outlined above in a statewide scheme to defraud, a nationwide scheme to defraud and international scheme to defraud under color of the NVRA and HAVA, and as such Plaintiffs require protection relief against interference in this action accordingly (8)

which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this title… 8

18 USC § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant- (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to— (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’ s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent

RICO Statement Page 8 of 50

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

According to Local Rules Plaintiffs submit this RICO Case Statement that includes facts upon which we are relying and which were obtained as a result of the reasonable inquiry required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In particular, the statement uses the numbers and letters as set forth by local rules, and states in detail and with specificity the following information. (1) State whether the alleged unlawful conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d). RESPONSE: This civil action alleges violation of 18 USC §§ 1962 (a), (b), (c), and (d).

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

RICO Statement Page 9 of 50

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

state and national elections without Article 5 amendment; b) THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director, having previously been the a Democratic Party co-director of NYS BOE, pursuant to the Third Cause of Action aids and abets illegal aliens to register and vote in Arizona and other states of the several states as per paragraph 137.; c) THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION co-authority of the EAC in the matter of involvement in the implementation of the “ unofficial”definition of VAP for broad rather than narrow use as referenced by the Amended Complaint footnote #11 referenced by paragraph 122 and in the First Cause of Action Paragraphs 58 thru 122. d) THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Voting Rights Section per (VRA) under direction of Joseph Rich who retired in 2005, and now John K. Tanner with assistant Wan J. Kim, all have failed to duly certify HAVA each state compliance plan submission by measure of state law in the matter of VAP, admitted such for New York on the record of USA v NYS BOE on March 23, 2006, referenced in Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207; e) Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ preceded by John Ashcroft in the Bush Administration, and Janet Reno under the Clinton Administration, together have been politically motivated in the arbitrary enforcement of the VRA, and especially the NVRA and HAVA to the detriment of Plaintiffs and RICO Statement Page 10 of 50

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

those similarly situated. Alberto Gonzalez first acted from 2000 thru 2004 as counsel to President Bush and after the 2004 Elections as referenced in the Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207; f) Each State of the several states and territories by each Secretary of State with authority and Fiduciary control over the respective State Board of Elections responsible for compliance with the NVRA and HAVA as each similarly devises a different interpretation of VAP and billing as referenced in the Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207; and g) Each state of the several states’Attorney General responsible for protecting US Citizen suffrage. Plaintiffs allege that CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS have falsely billed for HAVA funds and have received an amount greater than each is entitled by using a broad interpretation of the VAP rather than a narrow definition of CVAP in keeping with state law referenced in paragraphs 58 thru 207. h) THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (SOS) first with Alexander Treadwell (who left to become chairman of the Republican Party and now being filled by Stephen Minarik), replaced by sportscaster Randy Daniels, now with an unnamed substitute with authority, jurisdiction and responsibility to protect the civil rights of every citizen of the state of New York and to keep the “ bi-partisan”function of the State Board of Election and related boards RICO Statement Page 11 of 50

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

operating as such have failed to enforce oversight of the NYS BOE improperly operating under Election law per EL §3-100, as well as non-enforcement of open meetings law, has aided and abetted concealment of the enterprise that by public disclosure of the “ bi-partisan”decisions that have been degenerated in a star chamber, would have been exposed; i) New York State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER per CPLR §1012, like the SOS in the matter of enforcement of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A, Eliot Spitzer and Dennis Vacco before him are “ bi-partisan”operatives who are politically motivated to enforce law in a capricious manner for the benefit of the “ bi-partisan”enterprise, and that just as the Attorney General has been found wanting in a pattern of lack of enforcement of fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program, he is similarly exudes willful neglect in election matters, j) THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, past and present two “ bi-partisan”co-commissioners and two co chairmen, two Counsels, two coDirectors, one NVRA Officer, agents at the Office of General Services securing equipment and services, and per the Fourth Cause of Action in the Amended Complaint paragraphs 166 thru 182 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of Action 183 thru 193 of the Fifth Cause of Action are at the Hub of the Racketeering Enterprise billing for HAVA funds yearly since 2002 enactment. k) That as per the Fifth Cause of Action in the Amended Complaint paragraphs RICO Statement Page 12 of 50

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

183 thru 193 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of Action 166 thru 182, the New York State municipal subdivisions entitled a municipal board within whose officers to numerous to name herein for the purposes of brevity in the matter of the fiduciary duty to comply with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 along with interrelated “ bi-partisan”safeguard and oversight of elections, especially since mere existence of a legal county party committee under EL §2-100 in most municipalities is questionable, would detail plaintiffs contentions of wrongdoing; and to the extent that the 1894 state constitutional mandated firewall of municipal control over the original database has been breeched by the operation of NVRA, HAVA and districting after the case WMCA v. Lomenzo, 377 US 633 (1964), the need for safeguard and compliance becomes that more urgent as a fiduciary duty to protect plaintiffs and those similarly situated. (3) List the alleged wrongdoers, other than the defendants listed above, and state the alleged misconduct of each wrongdoer. RESPONSE: For the reasons and occurrences cited in the Amended Complaint in paragraphs 1 thru 221: William J. Clinton, Albert Gore, Douglas Farbrother, George W. Bush, Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Joseph Rich, John Turner, Wan J. Kim, The Department of Homeland Security including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), George E. Pataki, Alexander Treadwell, Carroll Berman, RICO Statement Page 13 of 50

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

Edward I. Koch, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, National Association of Secretaries of State, New York State Association of Counties, Lee Daghlian, Diane Haslett Rudiano, Kathleen McFarland, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, The League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the American Civil Liberties Union, The Brennan Center for Justice. the city of New York borough party committees, Defendant Municipal party committees, NYS Party Committees. (4) List the alleged victims and state how each victim was allegedly injured. RESPONSE: a) JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Orleans County; a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor; owns real property in Orleans County used in the transaction of business, affected in the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real property tax levy, has a related action in WDNY 05-cv-395 with a decision pending in various motions since October 7, 2005 and Default Judgment since the return date of February 28, 2006; has been directly affected by Defendants breech of fiduciary duty at the center of the “ bi-partisan”racketeering enterprise, whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, RICO Statement Page 14 of 50

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

prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside and outside the state is combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, that effects elections outcome within Orleans County and statewide, as both involved in harboring illegal aliens, with aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL §4-138 (unlike NYC) impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Orleans county reports 10.42% Inactive Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however, acts in conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters. b) DAN DEL PLATO JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Genesee County, is employed as a Hospital worker, owns real property in Genesee that is protected under a five year U.S. Bankruptcy Court mandated plan in WDNY that is affected by the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in RICO Statement Page 15 of 50

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

the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the center of the “ bi-partisan”racketeering enterprise whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside and outside the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, effects election outcome within Genesee County and statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New York and in turn the County of Genesee who under EL §4-138 impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Genesee county with 7.30% Inactive Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however, acts in conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters. c) GABRIEL RAZZANO is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Nassau County, a RICO Statement Page 16 of 50

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

sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real property in Nassau County used in the transaction of business, affected in the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the center of the “ bi-partisan”racketeering enterprise whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside and outside the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, effects election outcome within Nassau County and statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New York and in turn the County of Nassau who under EL §4-138 impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Nassau county has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database and with only 3.13% Inactive Voters, the county is due proper reapportionment of interstate HAVA funds reimbursement which is RICO Statement Page 17 of 50

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

effected by the conspiracy by the racketeering enterprise in other municipalities in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate the number of inactive voters breech the fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters. d) EDWARD M. PERSON JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Suffolk County, a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real property in Farmingville Suffolk County used in the transaction of business, that has been adversely affected by local government extortion in matter of the harbor of illegal aliens as well as the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the center of the “ bi-partisan” racketeering enterprise whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside and outside the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, effects election outcome within Suffolk County and statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if RICO Statement Page 18 of 50

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

reapportioned to New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL §4-138 impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Suffolk county has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database and with only 6.11% Inactive Voters, the county is due proper reapportionment of interstate HAVA funds reimbursement which is effected by the conspiracy by the racketeering enterprise in other municipalities in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate the number of inactive voters breech the fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters. e) CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote in the city of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn (NYC), a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, no longer owns real property in NYC used in the transaction of business, suffers such loss as an extortion matter in a similar pattern that should reopen the case in EDNY 99-cv-6480 as a racketeering matter associated with a corrupt state judiciary as seen in Orleans County, that also involves the unequal matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by NYC in the annual real property tax levy; that NYC is a national sanctuary for illegal aliens; wherein elections are paid for by general revenue from excise tax and user fees, and that Strunk has been effected by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the center of the “ bi-partisan”racketeering enterprise whose RICO Statement Page 19 of 50

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

control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and misrepresentation, includes multiple registrations and voting inside and outside the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, whose effects affects election outcome within NYC and statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting; and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New York in turn NYC being is exempt under EL §4-138 imposes election costs by excise to general revenue as with Medicaid, notwithstanding a local government empowered real property tax levy; that NYC has 10.28% Inactive Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however, acts in conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5213 for detecting inactive voters. f) That Plaintiffs jus tertii fairly represent a class of U.S. Citizens similarly situated inside and outside of NYC, have standing under the FCA as whistleblowers beyond 18 USC 1964(c). RICO Statement Page 20 of 50

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

(5) Describe in detail the pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debts alleged for each RICO claim. A description of the pattern of racketeering shall include the following information: (A) List the alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes which were allegedly violated; RESPONSE: 18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents) 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens) 18 USC §1341 (mail fraud) 18 USC §1343 (wire fraud) 18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully) 18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim ) 18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents) 18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) –(interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering Enterprise) 18 USC §1957 –(engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from specific unlawful activity) (B) Provide the dates of the predicate acts, the participants in the predicate acts, and a description of the facts surrounding the predicate acts; RESPONSE: Subsequent to the 1993 enactment of the NVRA continuously every year before the enactment of the 2002 HAVA and now concurrently both are involved in annual filing for HAVA reimbursement using the overly vague VAP formula. That by operation of New York state election law and believed of other states of the several states, that the system of bottom-up and or top-down registration and voting compliance as determines requirements for the number and placement of existing voting machines as RICO Statement Page 21 of 50

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

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

RICO Statement Page 22 of 50

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

would act politically and invest their vote for candidates promising Election cost burden relief on owners per EL §4-138. c) The NVRA mail-in registration Form found by those who would register at all state and private agencies doing business with the state of each state of the several states as well as with political committees acquiring ballot access for candidates in the process of petitioning and building state party organization. d) That absentee ballot voting as an accessory associated with NVRA and HAVA registration has been adopted by each state of the several states and territories facilitates the pattern and scheme to defraud Plaintiffs. e) Use of the U.S. Postal Service to bill EAC for falsified HAVA Compliance figures using broad rather than narrow definition of VAP per respective state laws, that the amended complaint paragraphs 194 thru 207 give detail in the case of how California, Texas and New York are affected by a broad to narrow interpretation of VAP based upon rigorous use of the respective state laws. 2. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY WIRE FRAUD: a) Use of phones and communications by campaign workers and non-profit organizations to notify illegal aliens and or illegal registered voters to vote and or cast an absentee ballot. RICO Statement Page 23 of 50

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

b) Use of the news media by the beneficiary of illegal votes and registration to intentionally tell lies in order to directly assist illegal aliens and those not entitled to register to in fact register and vote illegally. c) Use of the media to promote myths of the Florida election debacle in conjunction with OSCE and other international intentions to interfere with state and national elections. 3. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD IN EXTORTION USED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS: a) State Subdivisions taking of real property owners who question Medicaid and HAVA false billings on both the tax levy by concealment and subterfuge b) By government officials acting under color of authority with force of law (D) State whether there has been a criminal conviction for violation of each predicate act; RESPONSE: None that Plaintiffs are aware of. (E) State whether civil litigation has resulted in a judgment in regard to each predicate act: RESPONSE: That on March 1, 2006 the DOJ filed a civil complaint in Northern District of New York against the NYS BOE and associated entities in the case USA v. NYS BOE 06-cv-263 is seen as prohibited friendly suit by glaring disparities between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on RICO Statement Page 24 of 50

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

March 23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ – without proper parties and proper jurisdiction over subject matter appears as a friendly suit. (F) Describe how the predicate acts form a “pattern of racketeering activity”; RESPONSE: 1. Malicious refusal of NYS BOE to create a real-time voter registration database: a) That NYS BOE and “ bi-partisan”agents in regards to 1962 (a)(b)(c)(d) have since 1993 passage of NVRA until the present have intentionally failed to developed a real time central voter database as then under NVRA and now required by HAVA to be done by January 1, 2006 – intentionally was not done. b) That NYS BOE and its agents are in conspiracy with the Pataki Executive as evidenced by 237 pages of Correspondence disclosed by executive chambers in which 230 of 237 pages of correspondence are alleged exempt from FOIL - requires release by court order, c) That NYS BOE delay creates plausible denial to avoid any EL Article 17 enforcement or prevention of registration and voting fraud, in expectation of Federal reimbursement now available under HAVA. 2. Inflated Registrations used for HAVA Billing RICO Statement Page 25 of 50

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

a) That NYS BOE delay intentionally inflated registrations for the purposes of receiving greater HAVA reimbursement from EAC. b) That NYS BOE coordinated the intentional inflated registrations with various municipal sub-division boards of election “ bi-partisan”agents. c) That NYS BOE filed false HAVA compliance billings with EAC, the DOJ has rubber stamped the submission and certified for EAC for payment totaling about $221 million that was received by NYS BOE and placed under the control of the State Controller and Commissioner of Finance in a commercial Bank accruing interest, 3. Expenditure of Interest on HAVA Principal on Deposit a) That according to public reports NYS BOE is expending the interest on the principal held in escrow pending litigation in USA v. NYS BOE NDNY 06-cv-263, b) That 06-cv-263 is seen as a prohibited friendly suit by glaring disparities between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on March 23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ –appears as a friendly suit. 4. Rigged insiders list of Electronic Voting Machines Vendors a) That NYS BOE requires Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) from ES&S, Sequoia, and Liberty international corporations with securities held by RICO Statement Page 26 of 50

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

foreign governments and or foreign citizens, were chosen even though the same companies have been found lacking by Florida and other states of the several states in meeting compliance, and in the home country of origin Ireland as well refuses to use Liberty EVMs. b) That NYS BOE in conjunction with agents of the various Municipal Defendants, seemingly with the exception of Niagara and Cayuga Counties, are involved in transactions with the foreign held electronic voting machine vendors, under rules devised by NYS BOE, to secure unjust enrichment, and autocratic control over patronage policy and purse.

(G) State whether the alleged predicate acts relate to each other as part of a common plan. If so, describe in detail. RESPONSE: Yes, the above predicates relate to each other as part of a common plan: 1. in New York have two stages first to secure as much money from the Federal Treasury as possible and in stage two to tighten “ bi-partisan”control over patronage policy and purse for the purposes of taking Real property by extorting owners and at the same time secure top down control over individual expectation of suffrage at every election using prime voter lists as a crib sheet and notwithstanding the absolute myth of a secret vote does in RICO Statement Page 27 of 50

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

fact not exist as a matter of voting record from every election by paper tape coordinated with voter number “ bi-partisan”gerrymandering every tens years by packing racking or stacking total person without regard to actual eligible voters guarantee by consent not competition re-election of party sinecures who in super majority like gangster run protection operations to maintain the non-profit organizations a the local government level to loot the Medicaid system and every line item on the cooked book budget, spread walk-around-money buying votes and favors to fix and predetermine elections. 2. At the National Level there is no accountability for what each state does within or without and the “ Bi-partisan nature of the DOJ acting in a totally politically motivated fashion in effect run protection for each of fifty enterprises which are now coordinated for maximum bills of pain and penalties generated by the Congress who also with the consent nature of conducting elections in New York state and Plaintiffs are sure exists nearly as corruptly in the other state of the several state especially California and Texas feature in comparison in the sixth Cause of Action in paragraphs 194 thru 207. 3. At the International level through the auspice of the U.S. State Department and Central Intelligence Agency as with the OSCE / ODIHR and other RICO Statement Page 28 of 50

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

organizations interfering in other sovereign countries, like the Council for Hemispheric Affairs is overseeing and interfering in Central American elections, and that somehow Hugo Chavez of Venezuela with copious oil reserves, the new Fidel Castro of the hemisphere, has acquired interest in Sequoia Industries whose employees in March counted the Chicago Election Votes (9).

9

“ CHICAGO BALLOT CHAOS - NEW COMPUTER VOTE MACHINES MALFUNCTION, UNVERIFIABLE” By Christopher Bollyn –American Free press Published March 27, 2006 - COOK COUNTY, Illinois—Chicago’ s use of a flawed computerized voting system operated by a privately held foreign company reveals how meaningless and absurd the “ democratic”process in America has become. Having observed voting systems across Europe, from Serbia, Germany and Estonia to Holland and France, this reporter has noted that the most honest and transparent elections are also the most simple. The more complicated methods of voting, such as the unverifiable computerized voting systems widely used across the United States, lack the most essential element of democratic elections—transparency. The $50 million touch-screen and optical-scan voting system provided by Sequoia Voting Systems failed across Chicago and suburban Cook County during the March 21 Illinois primary. However, the leading corporatecontrolled newspapers merely lamented the failures of the system without addressing its fundamental flaws or even reporting that the company running the election is foreign-owned. The “ high-tech”computerized voting system was “ cumbersome”and “ slow,”one mainstream Chicago newspaper reported. The machines failed across the county causing “ plenty of frustration and confusion for voters,” the paper reported. The ballots and votes from more than 400 precincts were still uncounted two days after the election due to machine malfunctions and lost memory cartridges which contain the results. Reports from other dailies noted that as of noon Wednesday, Chicago was missing memory cartridges from 252 polling stations while Cook County officials “ couldn’ t find”the results from 162 suburban precincts. Election officials tried to assure the public that although nobody knew where all the ballots and computerized memory cartridges were, they were “ most assuredly not lost.” “ I don’ t trust that,”U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said. “ This is Chicago. This is Cook County. We created vote fraud, vote scandal and stealing votes. We created that mechanism. It became an art form.” “ Ballot chaos”is how another large Chicago newspaper described the situation in which the votes from hundreds of precincts could not be found or counted on Election Night. “ We have accounted for the votes,”Langdon Neal, city election chairman told the publication. “ What we haven’ t been able to do is count them.” In one precinct on the Near South Side, for example, the Sequoia optical scanner failed to register anything but Republican ballots. Although “ election officials”tried to repair the machine four times, by the end of the day it had failed to register a single Democratic ballot in a precinct in which some 86 percent of the voters are Democrats. When this reporter went to vote, the touch-screen machine went completely dead as the voter in front of me pressed the button to print. When the poll workers were asked if other voters had had similar problems with the equipment they said it had happened all day and showed me an unplugged machine that had broken down earlier. When the polls closed at 7 p.m., American Free Press was at the Cook County Clerk’ s office to see how the votes were tallied. Citizens in Chicago, as in most American cities, are, however, forbidden from viewing or participating in the any aspect of the vote-counting process. RICO Statement Page 29 of 50

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

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

RICO Statement Page 30 of 50

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

(6) Describe in detail the alleged enterprise for each RICO claim. A description of the enterprise shall include the following information: (A) State the names of the individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations, or other legal entities, which allegedly constitute the enterprise; RESPONSE: Liberty- each set of Board of Directors, as well as the entity affiliates of the National Association of Secretaries of States : CT Corporation System, Dun & Bradstreet, Saber Consulting, West, Covansys, Hart InterCivic, IBM Government Industry, InfoSENTRY, ManTech International, NIC, PCC Technology Group, Saber Consulting, UNISYS, X.Systems, 3M Touch Systems, Accenture eDemocracy Services, AccuPoll, Inc., Alpha Data Services, Diebold Election Systems, Inc., Election Data Services, Inc., Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Indra Systems, Perfect Voting System, Sequoia Voting Systems (Sequoia), UniLect Corporation, Caliper Corporation, ESRI, Inc., n-Tier Technology, Quest Information Systems, VOTEC Corporation, VoteHere, Inc., Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., CCH, Inc., Altria Corporate Services, Inc., CPS Human Resource Services, ESRI, Inc. , Alpha Data Services, and the Board of Directors of each.

(B) Describe the structure, purpose, function and course of conduct of the enterprise;

RICO Statement Page 31 of 50

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

RESPONSE: To control the outcome of elections on a state and national level, and unjust enrichment; in the matter of EVM state laws are delivering too much control of a constitutionally protected right in the hands of private companies and have weakened the vote verification process. (C) State whether any defendants are employees, officers or directors of the alleged enterprise; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs believe there is an overlap among state officials through the NASS however have not coordinated the overlap between Defendants and above entities (D) State whether any defendants are associated with the alleged enterprise; RESPONSE: Defendants are associated by the nature of the mandate of Congress to purchase EVM and central database under the vague broad definition of VAP. (E) State whether you are alleging that the defendants are individuals or entities separate from the alleged enterprise, or that the defendants are the enterprise itself, or members of the enterprise; and RESPONSE: there is a commercial relationship between the Defendants and entities. (F) If any defendants are alleged to be the enterprise itself, or members of the enterprise, explain whether such defendants are perpetrators, passive instruments, or victims of the alleged racketeering activity. RESPONSE: The various Secretaries of states, Commissioners of the various Boards are absolutely members of the enterprise, and especially RICO Statement Page 32 of 50

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

when acting on a “ bi-partisan”basis by consent which omits the general public notice and makes decisions in a star chamber.

(7) State and describe in detail whether you are alleging that the pattern of racketeering activity and the enterprise are separate or have merged into one entity. RESPONSE: Once the EVM are acquired there will not be a difference between the entities and the public and private side of state and national government; however at present plaintiffs do not know if the EVM entities are interdigitated with New York State defendants, and are not informed of the relationship elsewhere except by press reports as with Chicago’ s March 2006 Election, that is an important example in footnote #9. (8) Describe the alleged relationship between the activities of the enterprise and the pattern of racketeering activity. Discuss how the racketeering activity differs from the usual and daily activities of the enterprise, if at all. RESPONSE: In New York unlike in other states of the several states, that the compliance process is tightly control by unelected “ bi-partisan”insiders as opposed to being done by “ non-partisan”professional manner, or those elected officials without an appearance of impropriety. (9) Describe what benefits, if any the alleged enterprise receives from the alleged pattern of racketeering. RESPONSE: Defendant natural persons as a matter of public employment operate in a quid pro quo within the “ bi-partisan”structure in New York, plaintiffs are not RICO Statement Page 33 of 50

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

familiar with the public officials of the other states of the several states and territories, but note that if not operating in a non-partisan fashion lack the necessary “ sunshine”to escape the appearance of impropriety. (10) Describe the effect of the activities of the enterprise on interstate or foreign commerce. RESPONSE: The sale of EVM by agents of a foreign government especially that of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, by active investment, empowers such foreign government(s) with the capability to effect the outcome of state and national elections, and creates the basis for every state of the several states to become subject to the manufacturing requirements of countries and government not under the authority and jurisdiction of the state and or United States of America.

(11) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), provide the following information: (A) State who received the income derived from the pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt; and RESPONSE: 1. In the state of New York, it is believed that only the State has received the $221 million in HAVA dollars as yet, however since the 1993 implementation of NVRA the costs for conversion to a central database on a yearly tax levy basis have been levied paid and dispensed not only to “ biRICO Statement Page 34 of 50

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

partisan”employees of the various Municipal Boards and State Board but to many private consultants and contractors as well whose names not known at this time. 2. As for the other states of the several states, who have received compliance money a long time before New York, money has flowed for purchase of equipment and compliance software and database outsourcing- however exact amounts are not known at this time. 3. That NYS BOE has received payment from EAC approximately totaling $221 million and placed under the control of the State Controller and Commissioner of Finance in a commercial Bank account now accruing interest 4. That Plaintiffs are not aware of the exact total received by the other states of the several states and territories, however in fact is part of the public record having been published in the Federal Register, and are not aware of the how the individual sums are being utilized to date. 5. The NYS Sub-division local governments since implementation of the NVRA in 1993 and since HAVA in 2002 have been on an annual basis pursuant to EL §4-138 levying the costs of NVRA, HAVA compliance along with other election costs upon real property within the respective municipality. RICO Statement Page 35 of 50

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

6. That private EVM entities, associated with NASS have received HAVA $$$ from other states of the several states and territories.

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

RICO Statement Page 36 of 50

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

(12) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), describe in detail the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in or control of the alleged enterprise. RESPONSE: a) That in New York, the “ bi-partisan”nature of the Board of Elections both at the State and Municipal level, in which 47 municipalities by operation of law are a nullity under application and administration of the state constitution; however, appear to be maintained by partisanship much like appears in a plantation system rather than Homerule autonomous entities serving the people within, b) That such a contorted configuration of municipalities shown by the New York Municipal Subdivision History 1683 thru 2006 Chart in paragraph 175 of the Amended Complaint compared with total population and persons eligible to vote within each municipality since 1964, and by operation of law New York absolutely precludes participation by nearly 40% of those Registered and or those entitled to register and vote, and c) That in New York there is an absolute blur in the difference between public and private interests in the operation of elections conducted by local government similarly overlaps state control over ballot access that circumvents municipal authority under the state constitution, and very much resembles the blur of authority in the management of the biggest RICO Statement Page 37 of 50

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

State Budget line item Medicaid that in 2005 spent $45.5 billion, and in that regard January 2006 DOJ has been impelled to act, only after being put through shear embarrassment to find that New York publicly and privately have committed fraud abuse and profiteering that should be characterized as racketeering as well as false filings with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Treasury, which is the subject of the WDNY case 05-cv-395. (13) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), provide the following information: (A) State who is employed by or associated with the enterprise; and RESPONSE: 1. From the NYS BOE for two tears alone Peter Kosinski and now since late 2005 Stanley Zalen are active members of the NASS promoting NVRA and HAVA, traveling nationally and associating with international efforts around oversight and control of election done by OSCE / ODIHR associated with equipment manufactures. 2. That outsourcing of database and election management privatizes otherwise public fiduciary functions; 3. That without creating an actual cause of action under HAVA creates a firewall protecting the enterprise fraud from normal 42 USC 1983 litigation requires RICO investigation methods. RICO Statement Page 38 of 50

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

4. That according to 18 USC §1961(1)(F) 5. That in regards to patterns of fraud: a.) 18 USC 1961(1) multiple acts in violation of a single statute, and or b.) multiple acts in violation of more than one statute (i.)Any RICO pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering, and as such the patterns existence may turn on the meaning of the term, and (ii.)

Beyond individual real and personal property used in transaction of proprietary business, whether individual suffrage is proprietary property that as with any business may not be passed-on to another, and the investment of such capital is spent at a primary and general election that empowers the winning candidate with authority to fulfill promises made during the campaign that absolutely effect the individuals liberty and effectiveness of a citizen in association with like minded individual citizens similarly invested.

(iii.) In New York the prima facie evidence of multiple and or false registrations under the NVRA and HAVA having destroyed the protective firewall afforded in the 1894 State Constitution with exclusive municipal control over the original database has been RICO Statement Page 39 of 50

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

eliminated as exampled in the Amended Complaint Background examples in paragraphs 54 & 55, indicates the fiduciary duty of NYS BOE to maintain a central database to check for and prevent fraud and misrepresentation, would be similarly evidenced in every state of the several states and territories. 6. Under the Hobbs Act –18 USC 1961(1) (b) applies when: (A) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs delays or effects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by extortion or conspiracy to do. (B) (1) the term (Robbery) means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person under color of official right. (B) State whether the same entity is both the liable “person”and the “enterprise”under § 1962(c). RESPONSE: a) There is a quasi-public side of state entity persons in the form of Election Board(s), Bureau(s) and Department(s) of Secretary of State, along with the patronage structure created under Government control that enables private participation by corporate entities whose employees and directors collaborate both publicly by public request for proposals (RFP) and privately at private lobby events generally not open to the public - as evidenced by the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest RICO Statement Page 40 of 50

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

regarding the January 17 thru 20, 2006 Cooperstown New York meeting in Otsego County of the Organization of County Boards of Commissioners sponsored by the voting machine manufacturers and vendors http://www.ntsdata.com/nyseca/index.htm using questionable lobbying of municipalities, was witnessed by Dennis Karius, while at the request of the EVM Vendors for example the Women’ s League were disinvited. b) That in the matter of public disclosure regarding the state responsibility to detect and prevent misrepresentation and fraud, is exampled by the Florida Leon County elections supervisor who had determined that Diebold had fraudulently maintained proprietary software which allowed for fraudulent modification of vote results without detection, when actually hacked was discovered, the software provider refused disclosure, withdrew, and upon issuing new Request for Proposal (RFP) Sequoia and ES&S when learning of the disclosure in the specification also withdrew refusing to allow review of proprietary programs that would allow fraud to occur undetected- just within the last two weeks Diebold has had second thought and has in fact complied and provided machines to Leon, but neither Sequoia nor ES&S have done so in New York under the star chamber process, as they refused in Florida. RICO Statement Page 41 of 50

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

(14) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), describe in detail the alleged conspiracy. RESPONSE: a) So-called “ Bi-partisanship”by consent not competition barring participation by nearly 40% of the electorate establishes an inherent conspiracy for control, especially when not done without sunshine, as referenced by the SOS about “ Executive sessions”in the Amended Complaint on paragraph 181, in which star chamber control over patronage policy and purse in New York that since the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in WMCA has created the basis for backroom government by consent rather not competition - must require strict scrutiny review of patterns and product of fraud under color of NVRA / HAVA; b) At the national level the private National Association of Secretaries of State under its chairwoman, the duly elected SOS of New Mexico herein joined herein by due service, with private corporate entities, coordinates public private interstate / international partnerships on basis that applies the glue for the deals necessary for NVRA, OSCE/ODIHR and HAVA imposition to work outside of elected representation and effective public oversight in the sunshine. (15) Describe the alleged injury to business or property. RESPONSE:

RICO Statement Page 42 of 50

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

a) Disproportionate Dilution Diminished expectation of Vote effectiveness and strength of plaintiffs suffrage capital affected differently on a municipal by municipal basis, statewide and nationally; b) The scheme to defraud absolutely offsets of votes imposed by citizen(s) multiple voting, the civilly dead voting and any alien voting and or registering; c) loss or diminishment of real property and personal property value as a result of concealment and extortion involved in the local tax levy as under both EL §4138 and Medicaid cost imposition, without earmark and segregation; (16) Describe the direct causal relationship between the alleged injury and the violation of the RICO statute. RESPONSE: a) Congress has used a vague broad use of VAP rather than the narrow CVAP that would expressly be dependent upon a respective state constitution and related laws. b) The Florida 2000 Election process was rigged to produce the end result of HAVA starting in 1994 by the Clinton administration whose intent with use of OSCE / ODIHR personnel was to probe the weaknesses and opportunities to use the media to propagandize for passage HAVA to effect further top-down control over elections. c) That Congress intended to circumvent the Federal Constitution Article I section 4 provision of equal time place and manner provision under State plenary RICO Statement Page 43 of 50

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

control starting no later than 1991 when the New Europe Charter was entered, circumvented doing an Article 5 constitutional amendment with NVRA, next combined with bogus issues using the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) strawman, that with the Dayton Accords new borders provisional voting scam now being used in New Orleans following major population relocation due to the Katrina Hurricane. d) The EVM industry ongoing coordination with the “ bi-partisan”nature of the conduct of elections which in many states especially New York bars nonpartisan participation are working together to corner the permanent cash flow for the annual bottom-line made available at each and every local to national election as a captive profit center for private industry, even if nothing else as a matter the appearance of impropriety undermining public confidence in elections are none the less intent on controlling the substantive outcome as vendors with an inside political track. e) Absolute refusal of the State BOE and NYSAG to prevent harboring of illegal aliens, illegal registration and vote fraud associated without a real time central database. (17) List the damages sustained for which each defendant is allegedly liable. RESPONSE: a) As a matter of civil rights injuries under color of the NVRA and HAVA related state law the amended complaint covers both the 14th amendment violation of RICO Statement Page 44 of 50

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

US Citizen rights unequally protect and treating plaintiffs and those similarly situated by New York State Defendants and would also cover U.S. Citizen treatment interstate by those state Defendants of the several states to numerous to name and that Federal Defendants per the Bivens(10) ruling violate 4th 5th 8th 9th 10th 13th and 15th as are all alleged in the Amended Complaint twelve injuries paragraph 208 thru 221, b) That in New York under NVRA and HAVA there is a conflict of interest with “ bi-partisan”provision of Elections which bar non-partisan participation that involves denial of equal treatment; that on its face requires strict scrutiny in review of a product of fraud. c) That each Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a jus tertii class in 47 of 58 municipalities with a board of elections within have no dedicated representative voice in the state assembly for the Homerule interests of the people within; until merged and or consolidated the municipalities are to be deemed a nullity by proper administration and application of the state constitution related laws. d) That the unjust enrichment of New York Defendants in willful violation of fiduciary duty in the matter of need to verify citizenship and cross check for 10

Federal civil rights violation - BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388 th th th (1971) is a 4 and 5 amendment violation of civil rights by Federal officials as opposed to a 14 Amendment violation by State officials, - differentiated from the RICO matter of Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Banks of Fla., Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 908 (11 Cir. 1998); see at 496-97 Sedima,

S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3285 (1985)

RICO Statement Page 45 of 50

–as both apply differently herein.

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

multiple residency registration with a central database, that since no later than implementation of the NVRA, the state of New York has promulgated dilution and offset of Plaintiffs suffrage capital; and e) As a simple compensable amount, as if the dollar figure were to be applied to say equal the total spent on campaign finance matters, both public and private expenditures for any general election by all candidate committees appearing on the ballot, is not at all a nominal amount place upon plaintiffs and those similarly situated as part of total damages, and would have to be offset by a commensurate amount for alternative results for competitive expectation of plaintiffs vote effectiveness; f) In New York actual financial injury must be factored into long-term neglect of the “ bi-partisan”to correct and implement not only the need for an economy of scale that economic merger and consolidation of municipalities, but for reform of the Judiciary to provide equal plain speedy and efficient remedy in the various Judicial Districts pertaining to real property but in the 20 year neglect of budgetary reform and cost of government is a burden passed down to real property owners differently on a municipal by municipal basis; g) Easily, the loss of Plaintiffs vote investment capital without free and fair elections under New York “ bi-partisan”autocracy as a parallel compared to the Medicaid fraud proof established, is believed to impose no less than an annual RICO Statement Page 46 of 50

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

10% surcharge over above the rate of inflation upon plaintiffs’revenue and cost of living so that a person with a mean per capita income of say $24,000.00 per annum has a rate of loss of capital worth imposed at say $2,400.00 per year compounded annually, pro-rated and accruing increasingly since 1996 that would total an a significant sum; h) Variation in the intrastate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138 differently than in NYC; i) Variation in the interstate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138 differently than in NYC, however is alleged to be increased overall to the state of New York; j) The transfer of HAVA funds in the purchase of EVM effects the trade balance; (18) List all other federal causes of action, if any, and provide the relevant statute numbers. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs are not aware of any other than those six causes presented here, which involves 42 USC 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 (1988); 31 USC 3729 thru 3733, and under the INA the Logan Act applies when aliens are enticed with social services, education, housing employment and citizenship privilege and harbored, given sanctuary without permission of Congress, violates 18 USC 953. (19) List all pendent state claims, if any. RESPONSE: We are not aware of any in the State of New York Supreme Court; however, In California, paper voting is making a comeback. The Associated Press RICO Statement Page 47 of 50

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

reports in the Monterey Herald that seven California counties sued for using disputed Diebold touch-screen machines have removed themselves from the lawsuit by promising to use paper ballots in their next election. Alameda County, on the other hand, has chosen on its own to return to paper, as noted in The Contra Costa Times. In 2004, Alameda's previous vendor, Diebold, paid over two million dollars to settle a lawsuit involving false claims made when the machines were sold. The county hopes these problems "are behind them" as Election Day approaches.

(20) Provide any additional information that you feel would be helpful to the Court in processing your RICO claim. RESPONSE: a) In regards to illegal provision of Medicaid to any illegal alien the state has recently had $32.5 million offset by the HHS; although the same state agencies are not involved, nevertheless the sub-division municipalities are presenting exhibiting a similar pattern of tax levy as with the EL §4-138 whose ongoing predicates are expected in provision of HAVA false billing. b) That the city of New York in City of New York v. United States in SDNY Case 96-cv-7758 (JGK), and U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit 97-6162 (closed), has been admonished by the Federal courts for its “ don’ t ask don’ t tell”policy as an unwarranted obstruction of INA in harboring illegal aliens; RICO Statement Page 48 of 50

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

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

RICO Statement Page 49 of 50

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

of Election with the Fiduciary Duty to maintain an original registration database for Bottom-up suffrage shown in paragraph 169,

2) The Census Table 1.1 in Amended Complaint Paragraph 197; 3) The California, Texas and New York state comparison chart of "eligibles" in Amended Complaint paragraph 200; 1

4) The comparison of HAVA b d i n g difficulty between California, Texas and New York when different interpretations of VAP are used in depicted in paragraph 206, of the Amended Complaint; and

5) That a schedule of claims has yet to be produced and awaits discovery of the actual use of the VAP formula of each state of the several states must be ordered by the DOJ and EAC to comply, then only to be compared with that which has been actually billed to EAC for reimbursement.

w,

Dated: ~ ~ r i l 2006 Clarendon New York

Clarendon New York 14429 585-721 -7673 1 [email protected]

Dated: A p r i l g o , 2006 Brooklyn New York without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -28 1 Brooklyn New York 1 1238 845-389-0774 / [email protected]

RICO Statement Page 50 of 50

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK .......................................................................

case: 06-ev-0080 A(Sc) x

The 42 USC 1983/ Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People's equity in Bottom-up suffrage, Homeruie autonomy and effecting real property tax levy: JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, DAN DEL PLAT0 JR. GABRIEL RAZZANO, EDWARD M. PERSON JR., And CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, plaintiffs:

v.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMAS R WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the Attorney General ALBERT0 GONZALEZ; The States of CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively; THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR $1012; THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS by its counsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities; The New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of ERIE, MONROE, ONONDAGA, ALBANY, DUTCHESS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND, WESTCHESTER, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NASSAU, SUFFOLK, NLAGARA, ORLEANS, GENESEE, WYOMING, ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CA'ITARAUGUS, CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, CORTLAND, CHENANGO, COLUMBIA, TIOGA, TOMPKINS, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, BROOME, LIVINGSTON, ONTARIO, YATES, SENECA, WAYNE, OSWEGO, JEFFERSON, LEWIS, MADISON, HERKIMER, OTSEGO, ST. LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA, WASHINGTON, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER, DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON, FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN; and the duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn MARTY MARKOWITZ, Defendants.

JURISDICTION 1.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Article I, Article III, Article IV,

Article V, Article VI,and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth, Fifteenth U.S. Constitution amendments; 28 U.S.C.A. $$ 1331, $1343(3) and $52201-02; 42 U.S.C.A. $1981,

9 1982, $1983, $1985,$1986,§1988

and 42 U.S.C.A $1973gg as relates to the 1993 National

Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the October 29,2002 Help America to Vote Act ("HAVA"), P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 and as relates to Article 1 Sections 2 and 4 compliance with the State of New York Constitution and Laws as a sovereign state among several sovereign states' Amended Complaint Page 1 of 62

---

EXHIBIT T

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 constitutions and related laws, and as a matter of any state and or subdivision / person, territory that makes a false claim, as defined under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 USC §3729 thru §3733, as well as Racketeering provisions of 18 USC §1961 thru §1968 as done under color of HAVA for Federal Treasury reimbursement certification review by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for the United States Election Assistance Corporation (EAC).

VENUE 2. Venue is properly found in this District and this Division under 28 U.S.C.A. §§1391(b) and §1393(a) and 18 USC §1965 as a statewide HAVA funds distribution matter to be heard by a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel in that this Court comprises the District and Division in which Erie county among other State Subdivision Defendants that maintain their official residence and in which the claims arose under color of the 1993 NVRA in the 42 USC §1973gg, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 with available remedy as of right adopted by the New York State Election Law (“ EL” ) §2-100, §4100, §4-138, §5-210, §5-211, §5-213, §6-134, §6-138, §6-147, §6-154, §6-156.

That additional State and Federal Defendants are necessary parties arising after the enactment of the 2002 HAVA, with significant occurrences and transactions with supplemental injuries arising first on January 1, 2006 by failure of the State Board of Elections to maintain a virtual real-time duplicate central data base to verify the actual active voter registration in any and all municipalities with control over the Bottom-up original voter registration data base; and by failure of the EAC to also maintain a duplicate certified central national data base capable of checking the legitimacy of actual active voters nationwide in each and every state and territory totaling FIFTY-FIVE (55).

Amended Complaint Page 2 of 62

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

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

Amended Complaint Page 3 of 62

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

PARTIES 3. At all times relevant to the instant action of all PLAINTIFFS, hereinafter known as “ Plaintiffs” ,“ Eligible Voters” ,“ PEOPLE”(1) “ U.S. Citizens” ,“ whistleblowers” ,“ relators”are U.S. Citizens entitled and or duly registered voters as “ active voters”per Election Law §5-213 organized under EL §4-100 within a legitimate NYS municipality of the State of New York, by individual “ relator”affidavit of verification attached, are part of a class of state U.S. Citizens jus tertii of the PEOPLE without any control over patronage, policy, and purse, who are pro se without an attorney, per 18 USC §1964(c) hereby complain of Defendants as persons defined by 31 USC §3729 thru §3733 under the False Claims Act (FCA) and 18 USC §1962(a)(b)(c)(d). 4. John Joseph Forjone, 5367 Upper Holley Road mailing address POB 28 Clarendon NY 14429 Phone: 585-721-7673, injured in County of Orleans with George D. Maziarz 62nd SD and Charles Nesbitt 139th AD 5. a.) Dan Del Plato Jr., 50 Chandler Avenue, Batavia, N.Y. 14202, Phone: 585.343.5283 e-mail [email protected] injured in County of Genesee; 5. b.) PENDING DISMISSAL Wayne Alan Mack, 1178 Indian Church Rd. West Seneca NY, 14224 Phone: 716.675.5285, Cell 566.0056 e-mail [email protected], County of Erie. (That Plaintiffs received a copy of a letter to Mr. Mack dated March 27, 2006 from Magavern Magavern & Grimm, and as such we also understand that the firm does not represent him expressing his desire not to be a plaintiff. Plaintiffs are all aware that Mr. Mack had been employed by Erie County, has considerable first hand experience with government in the Medicaid program compliance, and Mr. Mack desires his job back without complication.) 6. Gabriel Razzano, 135 Gordon Place Freeport, New York 11520, Phone 516-2236883, injured in County of Nassau, with Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. in the 8th SD and David G. McDonough in the 19th AD

New York State Constitution Article IX “ Local Government”definition of the “ PEOPLE”(d) Whenever used in this Article the following terms shall mean or include… (3) “ PEOPLE.”Persons entitled to vote as provided in section one of Article two of this constitution. 1

Amended Complaint Page 4 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 7. Edward M. Person, Jr., 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon N.Y. 11703 Phone 631-667-7316, injured in County of Suffolk, Owen H. Johnson in 4th SD & Andrew P. Raia 9th AD with real property in the 6th AD. 8. Christopher Earl Strunk, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238 Phone 845-389-0774, injured in City of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn, Velmanette Montgomery in 18th SD and Roger L. Green in the 57th AD. 9. Plaintiffs are associated with The AD HOC NYS People’ s Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide (“ AD HOC U.S. Citizens” ) for this suit as of right seeking remedy individually jus tertii (third party status created by malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty) within a respective municipality of residence as an unincorporated association that would be granted recognition by the NYS Civil Rights Consolidated Law Chapter 6 Article 5A (CRL) with twenty or more members. 10. The United States ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (“EAC“), Address United States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202) 566-3127 E-mail Address [email protected] by the THOMAS R. WILKEY as the EAC Executive Director Address, that operates under the auspice of the Voting Rights Act , United States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite - 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202) 566-3127 E-mail Address [email protected]. 11. The United States Department of Justice by ALBERTO GONZALEZ is the Honorable United States of America Attorney General, is a statutory party herein under 28 USC 2403 takes orders from the chief law enforcement officer of the United States President George W. Bush (“ Respondent” ,“ U.S. Attorney General” ,“ DOJ” , collectively as “ Defendants”or “ Respondents” ), serves at the pleasure of the President with advice and consent of Congress has Amended Complaint Page 5 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 offices other than Washington D.C. in every State and here in this venue such ancillary office is located at the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, 138 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202; The United States Attorney General has the duty and authority to defend the Federal Constitution, Congressional Law, Civil Rights Law, the Voting Rights Act Immigration and Nationality Act, HAVA, and Public Officers with duties during good behavior; 12. At all times relevant to the instant action of all STATE DEFENDANTS, hereinafter known as “ State Defendants” , and Collectively as “ Defendants”each state of the several states to numerous to name each by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively: a) the state of CALIFORNIA, the Secretary of State at 1500 11th Street Sacramento, California 95814, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 (916) 445-9555 b) the state of OREGON, the Secretary of State at Room 136 State Capitol Salem, OR 97301 Fax: (503) 986-1616, and the Attorney General at the Department of Justice 1162 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Fax: (503) 378-4017 TTY: (503) 378-5938 c) the state of NEVADA, the Secretary of State at 101 North Carson Street, Suite 3 Carson City, NV 89701-3714, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney General Nevada Department of Justice Carson City Office 100 North Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 (775) 684-1100 Fax - (775) 684-1108 d) the state of ARIZONA, the Secretary of State at Capitol Executive Tower 7th Floor 1700 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888, and Attorney General at Office of the Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 602.542.5025 Fax 602.542.4085, 800.352.8431 (outside Phoenix and Tucson) e) the state of NEW MEXICO, the Secretary of State at Office of the New Mexico Secretary of State, State Capitol North Annex, Suite 300 , Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503, Phone: (505) 827-3600, FAX: (505) 827-3634 Toll Free 1-800-477-3632, and Attorney General at 407 Galisteo Street Bataan Memorial Building, Room 260, Santa Fe, NM 87501, Phone:(505) 827-6000, Fax: (505) 827-5826

Amended Complaint Page 6 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 f) the state of TEXAS by the Secretary of State at Executive Offices State Capitol Room 1E.8 Austin Texas 78701, (512) 463-5770 Fax (512) 475-2761 E-mail; [email protected] , and Attorney General at By U.S. Mail: Office of the Attorney General PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548- Physical Address: Office of the Attorney General 300 W. 15th Street Austin, TX 78701 13. THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL in the person of ELIOT SPITZER, individually and as public officer is the State of New York Attorney General duly elected Democratic Party chief law enforcement officer (“ Respondent” ,“ Defendant” ,“ Attorney General” , collectively as “ Respondents” ,“ Defendants” ), with offices located at the State of New York Capitol Albany New York 12224 and per CPLR 1012 is vested with the authority to defend the State Constitution, Civil Rights Law and Public Officers with duties during good behavior; 14. THE NEW YORK SECRETARY OF STATE individually and as a public officer, is the Secretary of the State of New York is a Republican Party member duly appointed and serves at the pleasure of Governor (“ Defendant” ,“ Secretary of State” ,“ SOS” , collectively as “ Defendants” ), with offices located at The New York State Department of State 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231, is a member of NASS and by law is the Public Officer charged with responsibility to safeguard civil rights under CRL to review for compliance and repository for all, incorporated and unincorporated association due process including 58 municipalities with Boards of Elections within, safeguards all records for New York; 15. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, created under EL §3-100 two “ bi-partisan”co-chairman and two “ bipartisan”commissioners with jurisdiction and authority over every one of the 58 Municipal Boards of Elections, along with every Corporation Counsel of every Municipality including the Board of Elections, of the city of New York, by their special counsel Todd Valentine Esq. with place of business located at 40 Steuben Street Albany, New York 12207-2109.

Amended Complaint Page 7 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 16. At all times relevant to the instant action all MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS, hereinafter known as “ Municipality” ,“ Municipalities” ,“ County(s)” ,“ Municipal Defendant(s)” , “ State Subdivision(s)” ,“ person(s)” ,“ HAVA claim filers” , collectively as “ Defendants” , are to maintain an elected local government legislative body per NYSC Article IX and maintain a Bottom-up data base of real property owners subject to real property tax levy under EL §4-138 and as such use a municipal board of elections per Election Law to maintain original records database of real property owners and qualified voter registrations and voting records of duly registered voters as “ active voters”per Election Law §5-213 organized under EL §4-100 resident within a NYS municipality of the State of New York; and that each exists with a state constitution Article III suffrage and Homerule autonomy conformance mandate of the State Legislature for protection of the People’ s speech and association by a dedicated representative in the Assembly by no less than two (2) ADs coterminous and compact within each such municipality and 17. That Eleven (11) Municipal Defendants, including the city of New York and the People resident in the NYC Boro of Brooklyn represented by natural Person of the Brooklyn Borough President, are entitled to a municipal Board of Elections a municipal entity created by the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX and Article II accordingly for the People within ERIE, MONROE, ONONDAGA, ALBANY, DUTCHESS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND, WESTCHESTER, NASSAU, SUFFOLK:

a. Erie County Attorney Frederick A. Wolf, Esq. 69 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, New York 14202 phone - 858-2200, fax - 858-2281 b. Monroe County Attorney Daniel M. DeLaus, Jr., Esq. Law Department Room 307 Monroe County Office Building 39 West Main Street Rochester, New York 14614 Phone: (585) 753-1380 Fax: 753-1331 [email protected] c. Onondaga County Attorney Anthony P. Rivizzigno Onondaga County Department of Law John H. Mulroy Civic Center 10th FL. 421 Montgomery Street Syracuse, New York 13202 [email protected] Amended Complaint Page 8 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 d. Albany County Attorney c/o Department of Law Office of the County Attorney 112 State St- Room 900 Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 447-7110 Fax: 5564 e. Dutchess County Attorney, Ronald Wozniak, 22 Market Street Poughkeepsie NY 12601 (845) 486-2110 Fax 486-2002 mailto:[email protected] f. Orange County Attorney, David Darwin, Esq., Orange County Government Center 255 Main Street Goshen, NY 10924 Law Department Municipal: (845) 291-3150 g. Rockland County Attorney, Patricia Zugibe, 11 New Hempstead Road, New City, NY 10956 (845) 638-5180, (845) 638-5676 h. Westchester County Attorney, Charlene M. Indelicato Law Department 148 Martine Avenue Michaelian Office Building White Plains, NY 10601-3311 Phone: (914) 995-2000 Fax: (914) 285-3884 i. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity created by the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX and Article II accordingly for the People within, which as a corporate entity subsumes pre existing Counties, without Homerule since 1964 are now boroughs of the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, that NYC exists at State Legislature pleasure; (“ Defendant” ,“ NYC” ,“ Person” ) with place of service at the NYC Corporation Counsel. Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0995 j. Nassau County Attorney, Lorna Goodman, Esq. 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501 (516) 571-3056 k. Suffolk County Attorney, Christine Malafi, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Hwy PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 (631)8534049 FAX 853-5169 17. Each of Forty-seven (47) Municipalities without sufficient total persons excluding the civilly dead resident within for the People therein to have Homerule with at least two (2) Assembly Districts coterminous within as such are null municipal entities historically created by the neglect of the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX, Article II and Article III accordingly for the People with a nullity municipal Board of Elections including NIAGARA, ORLEANS, GENESEE, WYOMING, ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CATTARAUGUS, CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, CORTLAND, CHENANGO, COLUMBIA, TIOGA, TOMPKINS, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, BROOME, LIVINGSTON, ONTARIO, YATES, SENECA, WAYNE, OSWEGO, JEFFERSON, LEWIS, MADISON, HERKIMER, OTSEGO, ST. LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA,

Amended Complaint Page 9 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 WASHINGTON, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER, DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON, FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN:

l. Niagara County Attorney Claude A Joerg, Esq. Courthouse, 175 Hawley Street, Lockport NY 14094-2740 [email protected] m. Allegany County Attorney, Daniel J Guiney, Esq. County Office Building, 7 Court Street; Belmont, New York 14813, Telephone: (585) 268-9410 Email: [email protected] n. Broome County Attorney, c/o the County Clerk Broome County Office Building 44 Hawley Street, 6th Floor PO Box 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902-1766 Phone: 607.778.2117 [email protected] o. Chautauqua County Attorney, Frederick Larson, Esq. Chautauqua County Law Department Gerace Office Building Mayville, New York 14757 (716) 7534247 email: [email protected] p. Cattaraugus County Attorney, Dennis Tobolski, Esq. 303 Court Street - Little Valley 14755 Extension: 2390 Phone: 716- 938-9111 Fax: 938-9438 [email protected] q. Cayuga County Attorney, Fredrick Westphal, Esq. 160 Genesee St., 6th FL (315) 253-1274 Fax #: 253-1098 r. Chemung County Attorney, c/o Law Department 203 Lake St. Elmira, NY 14901 607-737-2982 s. Oneida County Attorney, Randal B. Caldwell, Esq. Oneida County Office Building 800 Park Avenue Utica, New York 13501 Phone : (315) 798-5910 Fax 798-5603 Email: [email protected] t. Cortland County Attorney, John Bardsley, Esq. County Office Building, 3rd Floor 60 Central Avenue Cortland, NY 13045 Phone: (607) 753-5095 E-mail: [email protected] u. Chenango County Attorney, Richard W. Breslin, Esq. 5 Court Street Norwich, New York 13815 Phone: (607) - 337-1405 v. Columbia County Attorney, Daniel J. Tuczinski, Esq. 401 State Street, Hudson, NY 12534 (518) 828-3303 Fax (518) 828-9535 w. Tioga County Attorney, David Dutko, Esq. 56 Main Street Owego, New York 13827 Tel. (607) 687-8253, Fax. 223-7003 x. Tompkins County Attorney, Jonathan Wood, Esq. 125 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-5546 [email protected] y. Schuyler County Attorney, c/o The Schuyler County Attorney's Office 105 Ninth Street, Watkins Glen, NY 14891 Tele: (607) 535-8100 Fax: (607) 535-8109 z. Steuben County Attorney, Frederick H. Ahrens, Esq. Attorney's Office 3 East Pulteney Square, Bath, New York 14810 Telephone: (607) 776-9631 Ext. 2355 aa. Livingston County Attorney, David J. Morris, Esq. Government Center 6 Court Street, Geneseo, NY 14020 [email protected] (585) 243-7033 bb. Ontario County Attorney, John W. Park, Esq. Ontario County Courthouse 27 North Main Street Canandaigua, N.Y. 14424 Voice: (585) 396-4411; Fax 4481. cc. Yates County Attorney, Bernetta A. Bourcy, Esq. Yates County Courthouse 415 Liberty Street, Suite 204 Penn Yan, NY 14527 Amended Complaint Page 10 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 dd. Seneca County Attorney, Steven Getman, Esq. Seneca County Office Building 1 DiPronio Drive, Waterloo, NY 13165 Phone: 315-539-1833, Fax: 315-539-3789 E-mail: [email protected] ee. Wayne County Attorney, Daniel M. Wyner, Esq. Court House -26 Church Street, Lyons, New York 14489 315-946-7442, E-mail: [email protected] ff. Oswego County Attorney, Richard Mitchell, Interim 46 E. Bridge St., Oswego, NY 13126 Telephone 349-8296 349-8290 Telefax 349-8298 gg. Orleans County Attorney, David C. Schubel, Esq. P.O. Box 606, Medina, NY 14103 (585) 798-2250 FAX: 798-0776 E-mail: [email protected]. hh. Genesee County Attorney, c/o the County Clerk the County Courthouse, 7 West Main Street, Batavia, NY 14020 (585)344-2550 ext 2205. [email protected] ii. Wyoming County Attorney, Eric T. Dadd, Esq. 11 Exchange Street, Attica, New York 14011 Phone 585-591-1724 [email protected] jj. Jefferson County Attorney, John Hartzell, Esq. 175 Arsenal Street Watertown, New York 13601 Phone: (315)785-3088, FAX (315)785-5178 kk. Lewis County Attorney, Richard Graham, Esq. 7606 N. State Street Lowville, NY 13367 Phone: 315-376-5282, Fax: 3857 Email: [email protected] ll. Madison County Attorney, S. John Campanie, Esq., Box 635 Wampsville, NY 13163 (315) 366-2203 / fax (315) 366-2502 mm. Herkimer County Attorney, Robert J. Malone, Esq. Suite 1320 County Office Building: 109 Mary Street, Herkimer, NY 13350 Phone: 867-1123 Fax: 1109 nn. Otsego County Attorney, James Konstanty, Esq. 197 Main Street Cooperstown, NY 13326-1129 Phone: 607-547-4208 FAX: 547-7572; [email protected] [email protected], oo. St. Lawrence County Attorney, Andrew W. Silver, Esq. Building #8 County Attorney 48 Court Street, Canton, New York 13617 Phone: 315-379-2269 Fax: 379-2254 [email protected] pp. Franklin County Attorney, c/o County Manager James N. Feeley 355 West Main Street, Malone, New York 12953 Phone: 518/481-1693 Fax: 483-0141 [email protected] qq. Clinton County Attorney, Dennis D. Curtin, Esq. 1 Cumberland Avenue P.O. Box 2947 Plattsburgh, NY 12901 Phone: (518) 561-4400 FAX 561-4848 rr. Essex County Attorney, Jill Drummond, Esq. 7551 Court Street P.O. Box 217 Elizabethtown, New York 12932 518-873-3380 FAX 518-873-3894 ss. Montgomery County Attorney, Douglas E. Landon, Esq. 155 2nd Avenue, Fonda, NY 12068 Phone: (518) 829-5067 tt. Warren County Attorney, Paul B. Dusek, Esq. Warren County Municipal Center 1340 State Rt. 9 Lake George, NY 12845 518-761-6463 Fax 518-761-6377 uu. Saratoga County Attorney, Sara Caty, Esq. 40 McMaster Street Building #1 Second Floor, Ballston Spa, New York 12020 518-884-4770 E-mail: [email protected] vv. Washington County Attorney, Roger Wickes, Esq. County Municipal Center, Fort Edward, NY 12828. Phone (518) 746-2216 ww. Rensselaer County Attorney, Robert A. Smith, Esq. Rensselaer County Office Building - 4th Floor NY 1600 7th Ave Troy, NY 12180-3410 (518) 270-2950 Amended Complaint Page 11 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 xx. Greene County Attorney, Carol D. Stevens, Esq. 411 Main Street Catskill, NY 12414 Phone: 518 719-3540 Fax: 518 719-3790 [email protected] yy. Ulster County Attorney, Joshua Koplovich, Esq. County Office Building, 6th Floor 244 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Phone: (845) 340-3685 Fax: 340-3691 zz. Delaware County Attorney, c/o Gary L. Cady, County Clerk 11 Main Street PO Box 426 Delhi, NY 13753 (607) 746-2123 Fax (607) 746-6924. aaa. Putnam County Attorney, phone 845225-3641 ext. 260, c/o County Executive Robert J. Bondi County Executive Putnam County Office Building 40 Gleneida Avenue, 3rd Floor Carmel, N. Y. 10512 (845) 225-3641, ext. 200 FAX 225-0294 bbb. Hamilton County Attorney, c/o of County Clerk at Hamilton County, New York County Office Building Box 771 Indian Lake, NY •12842-0771 518-648-5239 [email protected] ccc. Fulton County Attorney, Arthur Spring, Esq., County Office Building 223 West Main Street Johnstown, NY 12095, Phone; 518-736-5803 FAX 762-4504 ddd. Schenectady County Attorney, c/o John J. Woodward Schenectady County Clerk’ s Office 620 State Street, Schenectady, NY 12305 Phone: (518) 388-4220, 388-4493 eee. Schoharie County Attorney, Michael West, Esq. 2668 State Route 7, Suite 34, Cobleskill, NY 12043 Phone: 518-296-8844 Fax: 518-296-8855 fff. Sullivan County Attorney, Sam Yasgur, Esq. Sullivan County Government Center 100 North Street P.O. Box 5012 Monticello, NY 12701-5192 845-794-3000 FAX: 845-794-3459 E-Mail: [email protected] Phone: (845)-794-3000 ext. 3565 Fax: (845)-794-4924 18. MARTY MARKOWITZ, the natural person Borough President of Brooklyn, Democrat out of the Brooklyn Democratic machine associated with the State Democratic Committee, duly elected by the People of Brooklyn, is a powerless figurehead that has a ceremonial staff, picks some members of the city planning board, however has no authority over the City of New York Board of Elections or any other policy regarding bottom-up suffrage and autonomy for US Citizens resident within Brooklyn; (“ Defendant” ,“ Boro President” , collectively as “ Defendants” , “ State Defendants” ,“ State Public Officer” ,“ Public Officer” ) with place for service at Brooklyn Borough Hall, Brooklyn New York 11201;

BACKGROUND FACTS 19. The 1973 / 1975 Helsinki Accords under the auspices of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in combination with the 1966 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Amended Complaint Page 12 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 issued by the United Nations, is being utilized to modify suffrage here in New York and each state of the several states and territories of the United States. 20. The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was adopted by a summit meeting of most European governments in addition to those of Canada, the United States and the Asian countries of the former Soviet Union, in Paris on 21 November 1990. 21. The Charter of Paris was established on the foundation of the Helsinki Accords, and was further amended in the 1999 Charter for European Security. Together, these documents form the agreed basis for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. 22. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is an international organization for security; in its region, OSCE is concerned with early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. 23. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has 55 participating states from Europe, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Central Asia and North America, with agents operating with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and whose Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is the oldest OSCE institution, established in 1990. 24. OSCE is based in Warsaw, Poland, and is active throughout the OSCE area in the fields of election observation, democratic development, human rights, tolerance and nondiscrimination, and rule of law. 25. OSCE/ODIHR has observed over 150 elections and referenda since 1995, sending more than 15,000 observers. 26. OSCE/ODIHR has operated outside its own area more than once. Notably a 43member OSCE team offered technical support for the October 9, 2004 presidential election in Afghanistan, as well as with multiple inspection teams inside the United States.

Amended Complaint Page 13 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 27. The 1991 “ Copenhagen Declaration”on International Standards of Elections associated with the OSCE created after the so-called collapse of the USSR (actually seen as a shift in war by alternative means) follows the script of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe that adopts the Helsinki Accords’human rights goals ratified by the U.S. Senate except for those Copenhagen Declaration articles that are not self actuating and unenforceable unless adopted by each of the several states in suffrage matters. 28. The unenforceability of the Copenhagen Declaration entered by President George H.W. Bush and the Federal Executive in 1990 requires that of 53 Articles the first 27 Articles are not self-actuating, because nearly exclusively the 50 States who are not party to the treaty per se individually in each state legislatures in the name of the people within control suffrage. 29. Under the Federal Constitution Article I Sections 1, 4, 8-18, Article II Section 1-4, Article IV, Article V, Article VI, Article VII limits the power of Congress in keeping with the spirit of the Copenhagen Declaration as an Extension of the CSCE Helsinki Accords with the OSCE / ODIHR overtly interfering with elections under the NVRA and HAVA empowers the Federal Judiciary to hear specific grievance under 42 USC 1973gg. 30. In 1993 the National Voter Registration Act “ Motor Voter”“ Registration by Mail” was enacted as a self-fulfilling design by Congress to circumvent state sovereign control over suffrage and create a central voter registration data base for those states maintaining such and nationally supposedly to prevent the ongoing interstate and intrastate abuse of “ One Person One vote” , and thereby a “ real time”state central data base, done nationally breaks the status quo. 31. Enactment of NVRA is adopted from the language of the Copenhagen Declaration despite the non-self actuating aspects, nevertheless mandates state compliance without an amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Amended Complaint Page 14 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 32. The Nov. 21, 1995 Dayton Accords were created as an extension of the Helsinki Accords and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, that brought forth Copenhagen and NVRA; 33. That the Dayton Accords are an social engineering experiment intended to afford suffrage to otherwise questionable transient persons deemed resident in the New state (Bosnia Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia) therein requiring provisional voting at a general election, which has since been adopted by HAVA; 34. And Furthermore like boiling a frog the provisional voting experiments by the OSCE / ODIHR in Bosnia under the Dayton accords, are now being used to further impose top-down control over the outcome of elections in every state of the several states, that as of October 29, 2002 Congress enacted Help America to Vote Act (“ HAVA” ), P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 as a questionable mandate under Article 1 Section 4 to carry forward the state by state requirement for a central voter databases that was to be done by January 1, 2006 for the November 2006 national elections, with final system operations due in 2008. 35. As enticement for cooperation of the southwest border states Congress created an overly broad HAVA reimbursement formula based upon “ Voting Age Population”(VAP); and by vagueness and cynical interpretation would include all persons enumerated in the 2000 Census who are 18 years of age and older whether citizens or not, rather than “ Citizens Voting Age Population”(CVAP) that does not include non-citizens, the civilly dead and those U.S. Citizens otherwise not entitled to register to vote. 36. Nowhere in the United States does a non-citizen have a civil right to vote in any Federal Election at the state level and therefore VAP must only be defined as CVAP. 37. New York only uses those U.S. Citizens who are registered to vote, and is not interested in those citizens who aren’ t registered- e.g. no non-citizen is of voting age.

Amended Complaint Page 15 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 38. the States of CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, OREGON all require that only US Citizens be allowed to vote would violate their own state constitutions and election laws by using VAP under the broad definition used by Congress to raid the US Treasury of HAVA Funds disproportionately from New York and other states with less non-citizens or otherwise more honest in filing for HAVA certification and funds. 39. The September 2005 report by the American University Commission on Federal Election Reform and Center for Democracy & Election Management whose Co-Chairmen James E Carte and James Baker III report on the public confidence in the election system in Section II for Voter Registration and Identification state quote that “ under the National Voter Registration Act, names are often added to the list, but counties and municipalities often do not delete the names of those who moved.. Inflated voter lists are also caused by phony registrations and efforts to register individuals who are ineligible…. At the same time, inaccurate purges of voter lists have removed citizens who are eligible and are properly registered. …[T]he quality of voter registration lists probably varies widely by state. Without quality assurance, however, crossstate transfers of voter data may suffer from the problem of ’ garbage in, garbage out’ …” 40. In New York we have bottom-up suffrage in supposedly Homerule municipalities with a BOE within that is to maintain the original voting records, and each such municipality outside the city of New York provide funds for expense of all elections by a real property tax levy under EL §4-138. 41. In New York 47 municipalities of 58 by mis application and administration of the State Constitution and Elections Laws do not have at least two (2) Assembly Districts coterminous within as required by the State Constitution Article III Section 5, as such are a legal nullity and do not even qualify for having a municipal board of Elections within.

Amended Complaint Page 16 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 42. As a top-down matter, the New York state Election Law §4-100 requires that each “ Election District”as a single polling place with at least one voting machine have 950 Active Voters per EL §5-213 each for equal time place and manner of suffrage- the status quo in New York as a rule fails to provide equity as such. 43. As a result of the April 22, 2002 redistricting using the 2000 Census by the State Legislature, Governor, Secretary of State, have continued since the WMCA v. Lomenzo , 377

U.S. 633 (1964) US Supreme Court case to mis administer and apply the State Constitution and related laws as applies to Municipal boundaries, Election Districts, Assembly Districts, Senate Districts, Congressional Districts and Judicial Districts statewide using total population without giving deference for actual citizens eligible to vote and there by gerrymander vote effectiveness. 44. That each legitimate state subdivision municipality with a legislative body and board of elections within, in which there are eleven legitimately formed, had until March 1, 2006 to declare its intention to redraw their own Senate, Assembly, Legislative and Election Districts within in order to comply with administration and application of equal time place and manner for bottom-up suffrage within in a fight for more HAVA funding. 45. Despite adequate notification to each and every one of the 58 state subdivision municipalities named as defendants herein, not one of the municipalities has expressed intent to reconfigure any districts coterminous within. 46. That NYC is too large in population size by proper application and administration of the State Constitution and Laws shall not have 1/3 and or ½ of all the State Senators- does; 47. That the State BOE and the State of New York failed to meet the HAVA deadline of January 1, 2006 to create a central data base which is the subject of a case before the Honorable Amended Complaint Page 17 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Gary L. Sharpe in NDNY 06-cv-263. 48. the State BOE knows an active ongoing central data base, as opposed to the present once every two years as a snapshot, would entail detecting Election Law Article 17 illegal interstate / intrastate multiple voting, domicile residency and uncovering the civilly dead and thereby greatly reduce the number of both active and inactive voters on the registration roles and thereby decrease the amount of HAVA money due the state. 49. The HAVA penalty, and lack of interstate and intrastate HAVA funding equity means that real property owners are not equally treated on a municipal by municipal basis and some of which will lose real property in smaller municipalities as a result of the increased burden imposed by the HAVA mandate of as much as a 500% Tax Levy increase. 50. Plaintiffs in the Western part of the state as in the Eastern part, on an intrastate basis want equity with all other parts of the state in HAVA funding missing since 1994, and 51.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that New York suffers interstate injury is caused by

loss of HAVA funds when California etcetera use a broad interpretation of VAP versus CVAP contrary to its own election laws and constitutions in seek HAVA funding; New York gets less funds than it should be entitled to. 52.

An Erie County BOE audit as with the other municipalities with a BOE to numerous

to name, report that Erie County is unable to pay for compliance with the HAVA without raising real property taxes or getting more of a share of HAVA money now going to California and other states making false claims under HAVA, and in that regard the 27 January 2006 Erie Board Of Elections Audit Released Written by Press Release at Cost, Free!! http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=898

Erie County, NY - Our review determined that the Boards staffing structure of 36 full-time employees is sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate parttime and seasonal employees, said Poloncarz. However, our auditors determined that the Board does not have sufficient funding for part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities

Amended Complaint Page 18 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 and that additional funding will likely be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Erie County Comptroller Mark C. Poloncarz today issued an audit of the Erie County Board of Elections (Board) for the period starting October 1, 2004 and ending September 30, 2005. The review was initiated by Comptroller, Poloncarz's predecessor in October 2005 at the request of the Erie County Legislature and Executive. The audit examined staffing and operational issues relating to the conduct of elections. "Our review determined that the Board's staffing structure of 36 full-time employees is sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate part-time and seasonal employees” , said Poloncarz. "However, our auditors determined that the Board does not have sufficient funding for part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities and that additional funding will likely be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)." Poloncarz expressed concerns over the Board's ability to conduct, within its current appropriation, the February 28th Special Election for the New York State Senate, September Primary Election, and November General Election. Poloncarz stated, "The Board's 2006 Budget appropriation is not sufficient to meet the new expenses incurred by the County under HAVA, and additional funding will be necessary." The audit reports that HAVA costs to Erie County in 2006 will be at least $1.4 million, and likely higher. HAVA is the federal legislation passed in the wake of the 2000 Presidential Election requiring state and local elections officials to implement certain procedures to safeguard elections. In New York State, this includes transferring election responsibilities and those respective expenses from cities and towns to the County.

53. In the September 2005 GAO Report 05-956 on ELECTIONS it found that: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed While electronic voting systems hold promise for improving the election process, numerous entities have raised concerns about their security and reliability, citing instances of weak security controls, system design flaws, inadequate system version control, inadequate security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor security management, and vague or incomplete voting system standards (see below for examples). It is important to note that many of these concerns were based on specific system makes and models or a specific jurisdiction’ s election, and there is no consensus among election officials and other experts on their pervasiveness. Nevertheless, some have caused problems in elections and therefore merit attention. Federal organizations and nongovernmental groups have issued both election-specific recommended practices for improving the voting process and more general guidance intended to help organizations manage information systems’security and reliability. These recommended practices and guidelines (applicable throughout the voting system life cycle) include having vendors build security controls and audit trails into their systems during development, and having election officials specify security requirements when acquiring systems. Other suggested practices include testing and certifying systems against national voting system standards. The federal government has begun efforts intended to improve life cycle management of electronic voting systems and thereby improve their security and reliability. Specifically, EAC has led efforts to (1) draft changes to existing federal voluntary standards for voting systems, including provisions addressing security and reliability; (2) develop a process for certifying voting systems; (3) establish a program to accredit independent laboratories to test electronic voting systems; and (4) develop a library and clearinghouse for information on state and local elections and systems. However, these actions are unlikely to have a significant effect in the 2006 federal election cycle because important changes to the voting standards have not yet been completed, the system certification and laboratory accreditation programs are still in development, and a system software library has not been updated or improved since the 2004 election. Further, EAC has not consistently defined specific tasks, processes, and time frames for completing these activities; as a result, it is unclear when their results will be available to assist state and local election officials.

Amended Complaint Page 19 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 54.

An example in the matter of impropriety and the failure of the city of New York to

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

On March 15, 2006 –an EXCLUSIVE New York Post article entitled “ Hill Foe Registers

Often, Votes Rarely”By FREDRIC U. DICKER http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/65274.htm Amended Complaint Page 20 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 “ ALBANY - Just-announced Republican Senate hopeful Kathleen McFarland has repeatedly failed to vote in some elections and is registered at two addresses - a possible violation of state law, The Post has found. McFarland, a wealthy Park Avenue matron who announced last week that she'll seek the GOP nomination to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, didn't vote in nearly half of the state elections since 1991, records show. She skipped six of the past 14 elections - starting from the time she registered as a Republican in late 1991, Board of Election records for New York City and Suffolk County show. McFarland, a Reagan administration official in the early 1980s, has maintained two voting addresses since 1996: at her posh Park Avenue home and at her family's stunning second home on a small island near Southampton, according to the records. She pingponged her vote from Manhattan to Southampton in various years, casting her ballot from the Ram Island address in 1998 and 1999, but voting from Park Avenue in 2000 and 2001. She skipped the 2002 and 2003 elections, and then it was back to voting in Southampton in 2004, according to the records. State law makes it a felony to be registered at two addresses during the same election cycle, according to state Board of Elections spokesman Lee Daghlian. "When you change the place you've been voting, a new registration has to be filed, showing that you've changed your address," Daghlian said. Her spokesman, William O'Reilly, said, "We don't know the circumstances around the missed votes, but we will make no excuses for them." McFarland's newly hired election lawyer, Josh Ehrlich of Albany, insisted there was "no criminal intent, no venality here," but conceded the law does not allow dual registrations. "This is a case of the boards of elections not doing their jobs . . . She should have been turned away," Ehrlich insisted. Records at the two boards show McFarland registered as a Republican in Manhattan in late 1991 and then registered again as a GOPer in Southampton in 1996. State Republican Chairman Stephen Minarik said yesterday it would "probably make more sense" for the GOP to give its nod to McFarland's opponent, ex-Yonkers Mayor John Spencer.

56. Based upon Plaintiff Strunk’ s phone call with the Office of Representative Hyde of Illinois April 18 2006 there is broad failure in any attempt to enact “ The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2004,”or H.R. 4530 or any other associated bill to ensure voting integrity that Amended Complaint Page 21 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 would specifically amend the NVRA of 1993, would require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for federal office to provide the state election official with proof of citizenship to prevent illegal aliens from voting in federal elections. 57. Plaintiffs pursuant to the foregoing background facts have injuries to plaintiffs’ individual proprietary suffrage property by dilution, devaluation as a targeted jus tertii class also effected by long-term gerrymandering since the 1972 reapportionment; and that those Plaintiffs with real property are effected by takings injury by multiple schemes to defraud facilitated by local governments acting in conjunction with state and federal malfeasance, therefore Plaintiffs complain such is done by defendants illegally as a if by a complex racketeering enterprise under 18 USC 1961 thru 1964 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries as follows: 58. As and for a First Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants DOJ and its agents and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 57 have improperly enforced the 1993 NVRA to prevent mail-fraud by those persons ineligible to register to vote in a respective state of the several states and or territories. 59. A report issued by the Justice Dept. in 2000 detailed a program run under auspices of Vice President Gore's "Reinventing Government" project to streamline government services. 60. In a successful effort to clear a backlog of 1.2 million applicants, the INS engaged in this crash program called "Citizenship USA" to naturalize the immigrants between October 1995 and September 1996, not coincidentally, just in time for the presidential election. 61. Douglas Farbrother, an official on Gore's team, is quoted in the report saying he "believed that the (citizenship) program had a deadline that was directly connected to the upcoming election." 62. The Clinton administration bypassed the customary FBI background check for these

Amended Complaint Page 22 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 new citizens demonstrating that creating new Democrat voters was a much higher priority than national security. 63. It is estimated that tens of thousands of applications approved without FBI review. 64. The Justice Dept. report documented 1,000 cases in Miami; 1,300 cases in Chicago; and an astonishing 2,500 cases in Los Angeles. 65. The politicization of the INS continued in the 2000 election. As documented by journalist Joseph Farah, on Nov. 6, 2000, (one day before the national election) the California Democratic Party sent thousands (upwards of 4 million by some estimates) of mailers out to immigrants who had citizenship requests before the INS. 66. These non-citizens were informed, in both English and Spanish, they were registered to vote as a Democrat and given special identification card to "help...voting go more smoothly." 67. Follow up investigations by the press pointed to the possible use of INS records to commit this massive voter fraud. 68. How many of the recipients took advantage of the generous offer made by the Democrats is unknown, but based on the estimates it is quite possible that Gore's much touted popular vote win (by just under a million votes) could all be attributed to this scam alone 69. A Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report reveals that "The Matricula card is accepted as a valid form of identification by police departments, banks and 12 states for driver's license applications." 70. This disregard for immigration law has no positive impact for Americans except those who seek to grant Democrats and Republicans additional power. 71. Moreover, this aberration of constitutional law is tantamount to mailing absentee ballots for any future election to Iran, Syria, France, Germany, North Korea, or anywhere else.

Amended Complaint Page 23 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 72. Under the Motor Voter law, anyone [Motor Vehicle Department employees included] who "knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote" violates federal law. 73. Hence, the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, visa overstayers and others classified as "refugees" who were granted amnesty or asylum by the Clinton Administration and or borderless philosophy of Texacan George W. Bush, under the NVRA and seditious lack of enforcement could all have been illegal voters in the 1996 thru 2004 election thereafter. 74. The DOJ has not done enforcement under NVRA to prevent those ineligible to vote to take advantage of the Motor Voter law by registering to vote. In Florida, according to the Florida Secretary of State's numbers, between 1994 and 1998 (the most recent data available), the number of registered Hispanic voters skyrocketed by an astonishing 557%, from 99,000 to 655,000 while the number of White and Black registered voters increased by a reasonable 15%. 75. The number of registered Hispanic voters has grown even more dramatically in south Florida. For example, in Dade County, from 1994 to 1998 the number of Hispanic voters grew by 1996%, a nearly 20-fold increase! And in now-famous Palm Beach County, the four year increase was completely off the charts, a 7,220% jump! 76. In 1996 the Clinton administration's documented immigrant fast-track citizenship programs, which have granted citizenship to known criminals, freed to prey on innocent Americans who "worked hard and played by the rules." ; has not skipped a beat with transition to the Bush Administration rush to placate and entice illegal immigration and vote fraud. 77. NVRA use by applicants who had no business even visiting this country, let alone living here, were rushed by the Clinton Administration through the citizenship maze based on the

Amended Complaint Page 24 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 theory they would, out of gratitude, vote for the Democratic Party. 78. While unhinged seditious Democrats and Republicans spread fear about the alleged discriminatory disenfranchisement of American citizens, they have supported the indiscriminate enfranchisement of untold numbers of foreign outlaws -- including suspected al Qaeda operatives and terrorist sympathizers. 79. The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported that illegal alien Nuradin Abdi -- the suspected shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia -- was registered to vote in the battleground state of Ohio by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). 80. Also on the Ohio voting rolls: convicted al Qaeda agent Lyman Faris, who planned to sabotage the Brooklyn Bridge and had entered the country fraudulently from Pakistan on a student visa. 81. In the battleground state of Florida, indicted terror suspect Sami Al-Arian illegally cast his ballot in a Tampa referendum in 1994 while his citizenship application was pending. He claimed the unlawful vote was a "misunderstanding." State officials declined to prosecute. 82. John Fund, author of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy," reports that at least eight of the nineteen Sept. 11 2001 hijackers were eligible to vote in Virginia or Florida while they plotted to kill Americans. 83. According to Ohio’ s Franklin County Board of Elections, the Dispatch reports, the office simply "takes a person's word, that they're (sic) a U.S. citizen." The Democratic Party revealed its hand when it crafted the "motor-voter" bill, which made registration so easy that NVRA stopped authorities from asking for proof of citizenship. 84. Another method in use by seditious state officials is the unwillingness to require an ID at the polling place, in New York merely requires recognition by a person’ s signature.

Amended Complaint Page 25 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 85. In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal election (or state election, unless authorized by state law). 86. It is up to the state officials to ensure that those voting in federal, state and local contests are citizens. 87. A vote by an illegal immigrant brings in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a newly formed arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 88. It would be ICE's job to deport any non-citizen discovered casting a vote, whether they are legal or illegal. Marc Raimondi, an ICE spokesman, said the penalty for being in the country illegally would be deportation anyway. 89. Additionally, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in violation of the IIRIRA law. 90. There are many documented reports of non-citizen voting, (2) and there is no evidence of prosecution of the aliens for their action by DOJ or state authority. 91. With nearly 19 million foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens in the country in the 2000 Census and an estimated 9-11 million illegal residents (many of them were also counted in the Census by intentional refusal to ascertain actual citizenship status for fear of decreasing responses) and now in 2006 estimated to be approaching 20 million, the potential is enormous for non-citizens to affect the outcome of elections.

2

“ Fraud Roundup,”United Press International, January 26, 2001.

“ Putnam Opposed Voting Reform Act,”Lakeland, Florida Ledger, December 17, 2001. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) is quoted: “ Now we find that one of the guys that flew into the buildings in New York had voted in Florida,”(referring to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers). “ Think about it,”he said. “ You are told you are entitled to public assistance and then almost in the same breath asked if you want to register to vote. Now, if you think that registering to vote is tied to getting assistance or to getting your driver’ s license, you are going to say, ‘ Yes.’ ”

Amended Complaint Page 26 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 92. Charges were made in at least three federal elections in California (3) and twice in Florida (4) that voting by ineligible aliens determined the outcome of the election; for instance:  In Florida, election observers say a “ sizable number”of Florida votes in the 2000 election may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens. (5)  In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens. (6) 93. Investigation of the allegations established that aliens had illegally voted in those elections, but not in sufficient numbers to have changed the result. Authorities appear not to have prosecuted any of the aliens who voted illegally. 94. The enactment of NVRA made the process of registering to vote nearly automatic for people applying for a state driver’ s license or ID card, and called for distributing registration applications in state welfare offices. (7) 95. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she does not want to be

3

Samuel Francis, “ Voters—the Democrats Seek Them Everywhere,”Washington Times, February 17, 1995. “ Fraudulent voting by illegal aliens or legal immigrants not yet citizens has been documented in a number of elections in the past — in Florida in 1989, in Los Angeles in 1988, and in some nine California counties in 1982, to mention only a few — and Republican Michael Huffington claims alien voting helped him lose last year’ s California Senate race to Diane Feinstein.” “ Ineligible Voters May Have Cast a Number of Florida Ballots,”Washington Times, November 29, 2000. 4

Ibid Ibid 6 Ibid 5

7

“ Illegal Voters,”Honolulu Advertiser, September 9, 2000. Election officials found 543 Oahu residents who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote. The officials speculated a number of factors may have resulted in the voter irregularities, including language barriers and the ease of voter registration.

Amended Complaint Page 27 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 registered to vote. (8) 96. With driver’ s licenses made available by several states to aliens (both legal and illegal), it seems likely that voter rolls now contain large numbers of non-c i t i z e n s― e noug hi n close elections to change the outcome if those aliens illegally vote.(9) 97. An effort in Congress in 1998 to preclude the registration of non-citizens was narrowly defeated. (10) 98. Among the reforms included was a provision that required ID for first time voters. The bill passed 92-2 in the Senate. The two standouts: N.Y. Democrats Clinton and Schumer. 99. Explaining her vote, Clinton said the ID provision would "disproportionately affect ethnic and racial minorities, recently naturalized American citizens, language minorities, the poor, the homeless, the millions of eligible New York voters who do not have a driver's license, and those individuals who otherwise would have exercised their right to vote without these new provisions." 100. Considering the bill allowed for the use of Social Security numbers, pay stubs (including government issued checks), utility bills and other forms of verification, Senator Clinton’ s real concern seems to be placed squarely on opposition to the prevention of voter fraud by the large illegal population in her state. Forty five percent of Democratic primary voters in

8

John Fund's Political Diary, Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2000. “ Voter fraud has become a bigger problem since the 1993 federal Motor Voter law required states to allow people to register to vote when they get a driver’ s licenses; 47 states don't require any proof of U.S. residence for enrollment.” 9

On September 26, 1996, California’ s Secretary of State ordered county voter registrars not to permit non-citizens to vote in the November 1996 elections, after it was revealed that 727 non-citizens in Los Angeles County had filled out the voter registration form attached to the driver’ s license application under the new “ motor voter”law. 10

Rep. Steve Horn (R-CA-38), observing a rapid increase in non-citizen voting, introduced the Voter Eligibility Verification Act that would have given voter registrars the ability to eliminate non-citizen voting. Although the bill received a majority of the votes cast, the Rules under which it was brought to the House floor required a two-thirds majority and so it failed to pass. (H.R. 1428, 105th Congress) (Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot Program Act of 1998, H.R. 3485, 105th Congress)

Amended Complaint Page 28 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 New York were minorities, a group Clinton clearly pandered to in making her decision. 101. Among the special interest groups that oppose requiring ID to vote: The League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 102. The Clinton and now the Bush Administration contribute to the opening for mass voter disenfranchisement. 103. Recently the Treasury Department handed down a decision allowing banks to accept Matriculas under the Patriot Act, legislation enacted in part to make tracing money to terrorist organizations easier. 104. In Congressional testimony spokesmen for both the FBI and Department of Homeland Security backed off previously asserted national security concerns with issuing Matricula cards to illegals. Granting legitimacy to these flawed ID's opens the door wider to massive voter fraud in states granting driver’ s licenses to non-citizens, further undermining an already besieged franchise. 105. Flaws in the system continue to be used and expanded upon to give the Left an unfair advantage in elections and to undermine the legitimacy of our most fundamental American right. 106. In 2002 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, designed to correct some of the irregularities found in the 2000 election. 107. A report filed in Washington D.C. Nov. 21, 2003 by United Press International declared that the nation's election boards have few controls that would prevent illegal immigrants from voting in federal, state or local elections, with many of them saying they operate under a

Amended Complaint Page 29 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 patriotic cloak of trust that individuals casting ballots will conform to U.S. law. 108. Federal immigration officials’estimate in 2002 between 8 million and 11 million illegal immigrants live in the United States and with the limited restrictions on voting policies, some say that raises serious questions about the integrity of the U.S. voting system. 109. Three years after the country's most contentious presidential election -- inundated with hanging chad and butterfly ballots -- the sweeping reforms promised for the voting process in the 50 states and the District of Columbia had not been realized. 110. Moreover, with few exceptions including those instituted in Arizona and Missouri, no security measures have been put in place to protect the veracity of elections from illegal, legal aliens and or citizen multiply registered within a state and without a single state. 111. The U.S. Constitution details how elections in the United States are to work. To hold office in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, it requires an individual to reach at least age 25 or age 30, respectively, and be a citizen for at least seven years. 112. The Federal Election Commission, which oversees the financing of federal elections, does not have jurisdiction over how elections are carried out in the individual states. "That's not the role of the FEC. It's probably enforced by the Department of Justice," said Peggy Sims, an FEC research specialist. 113. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in Washington, is an organization that advocates reform of U.S. immigration policy. Dan Stein, FAIR's executive director, says the federal government and political parties have little interest in ensuring that illegal immigrants do not cast votes. 114. "It is one more factor that causes illegal immigration to jeopardize the integrity of the electoral process. (If) we count illegal aliens in the census and reapportion districts to include

Amended Complaint Page 30 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 them and we allow people to vote illegally, we have dual nationality," Stein said. 115. "In a sense, it winds up diluting the votes. (But) it's not just a matter of diluting the votes. If a person's vote is offset by someone voting illegally, you also have this problem of entire states losing congressional seats. It jeopardizes the legitimacy of the whole system of representation in this country, potentially." 116. Stein contends that efforts to match names on voter registration lists with immigration lists have been confounded by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which threaten lawsuits about information sharing. Democrats, he said, insist it would chill voter participation. 117. FAIR’ s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal aliens vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations. He pointed to the 1996 California race between former Rep. Robert Dornan and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, who defeated him by 985 votes. 118. In that race Stein said that Dornan challenged the election results and set up a yearlong battle over the validity of more than 700 votes, allegedly by illegal immigrants. A House committee voted to drop the investigation of Dornan's accusations, saying that while they had found evidence of illegal votes by non-citizens, it wasn't enough to affect the race. 119. Stein pointed to state driver’ s licenses as a problem. The so-called motor-voter program that allows individuals to register to vote when they obtain or renew their drivers licenses also opens the process to fraud. Some states do not require applicants to prove they are legal residents of the United States or citizens before they obtain a drivers license 120. Since enactment of the 1993 NVRA a pattern of illegal registration use by mail fraud by illegal aliens has been aided and abetted by partisan political figures wire and media

Amended Complaint Page 31 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 fraud intent on vote fraud necessary for maintaining control over patronage policy and purse, 121. There is an ubiquitous scheme to defraud elections with use of NVRA with impunity due to lack of “ bi-partisan”will to prosecute offenders at the state and federal DOJ law enforcement level, under the guise that somehow illegal registration and voting is a victimless crime and law enforcement would undermine confidence in elections and impact partisan gains. 122. That the FEC uses an arbitrary and capricious “ unofficial”definition of VAP based upon internal consideration separate and apart from state law (11).

11

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

Amended Complaint Page 32 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 123.As and for a Second Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants the EAC and DOJ and its agents yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 122 have improperly certified state HAVA submissions of the several states without reviewing the submissions in the context of the respective state law and constitution; 124. EAC has improperly distributed HAVA funds to each state of the several states and territories under color of HAVA on the basis of DOJ and EAC staff application review 125. That DOJ has admitted to improper review and certification of the applications from New York in the case USA v the State of New York et.al. NDNY 06-cv-263 126. DOJ has admitted it has improperly certified for EAC to make premature funds distribution to defendant New York without being in compliance with HAVA and or state Law 127. That DOJ admits that it has improperly certified the application for payment and EAC has improperly disbursed funds to New York, and are without authority under HAVA to retrieve the sums improperly paid 128. However, DOJ and EAC are empowered to retrieve HAVA funds under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733, but refuse to do so. 129. That DOJ and in turn EAC as per above paragraphs 19 thru 128 have similarly reviewed the applications of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas as well as the other state of the several states and territories to numerous name without using state law in

utility to government agencies like the FEC who must use them, especially in Presidential election years, for certain financial purposes. Current Population Survey numbers are generated by Census each month based on extrapolations from the previous years estimates. In contrast, these figures do not include military or institutionalized persons, but are adjusted for the 4 million undercount. For statistical purposes, the Federal Election Commission has opted to use the Current Population Survey figures for its report to Congress on the NVRA largely out of professional convention. These are the figures employed by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress as well as by Election Data Services, Inc.. Moreover, these are the most frequently cited sources in other private publications such as those from the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate and Congressional Quarterly.

Amended Complaint Page 33 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 regards to an accurate definition of VAP commensurate with the use of the respective state election law and constitution in regards to what voting population actually is for the respective state, i.e. any US citizen 18 years or older being a qualified to register to vote. 130.As and for a Third Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants EAC, Thomas Wilkey and its agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 129 intentionally promote facilitate aid and abet illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona and in other state of the several states. 131. In ARIZONA when vote fraud was suspected in the 1996 Arizona Primary (the one that ended Pat Buchanan's winning streak after New Hampshire), the Arizona legislature passed a special law forbidding a recount for that one primary election only! 132. Jeff Flake R-Ariz., introduced a bill that would bar federal agencies from accepting a state-issued driver’ s license unless the state has in effect a policy requiring presentation of acceptable forms of identification prior to issuance of the license. 133. "Acceptable forms of identification" would include a birth certificate, U.S. passport, a U.S. certificate of naturalization or U.S. certificate of citizenship. 134. Matthew Specht, an aide to Flake, said that Flake wanted to close the loophole opened when Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002. That law states that a voter should present to "the appropriate state or local election official current and valid photo identification." 135. "There are some states like California that issue drivers licenses to undocumented citizens. That would be a case where you have a legal form of identification according to federal law ... for somebody who is not a citizen and should not be allowed to vote," Specht said. In

Amended Complaint Page 34 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 2004 Arizona Voters approved Proposition 200 that requires all registrants and voters to show an idea when voting. 136. That the EAC and DOJ are working at cross purposes under HAVA as is properly framed nationwide by the March 11, 2006 press report By C.J. Karamargin ARIZONA DAILY STAR Tucson, Arizona entitled “ U.S. panel says voters don't have to prove citizenship Decision appears to run counter to state's Proposition 200” . 137. That EAC and Director Wilkey treatment of the State of Arizona in the matter of it’ s plenary right to ascertain who is or is not a citizen for the purposes of voting as a conflict to be resolved general is further elaborated by the January 24, 2005 Letter from Joseph Rich then chief of the DOJ Voting Rights Section to the Attorney General of Arizona in the matter of constitutionality of Arizona proposition 200. 138. Furthermore, on February 7, 2005 the Arizona Attorney General duly notified Missouri State Senator Larry Taylor of Jefferson City of the constitutionality of proposition 200 and as such Missouri enacted a similar law requiring certification that only U.S. Citizens are permitted to vote in Missouri. United Press International surveyed several states with large immigrant populations to determine their policies for ensuring voters are legal citizens. 139. FAIR estimates there are as many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the state's board of elections told UPI that it has an "inherent assumption" that individuals who sign their names on voter registration cards are doing so legally. 140. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding that they provide registration cards in seven different languages.

Amended Complaint Page 35 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 141. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or passports to verify citizenship or when voters show up at the polls. 142. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law," Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred. 143. Lee Daghlian, spokesman for the New York Board of Elections, alleges that their voter registration card is an affidavit that has an individual swear that they are a U.S. citizen and at least 18 years of age, or face felony charges; in fact the voter registration card is an unwitnessed declaration unenforceable as an affidavit. 144. "Is there room for someone to lie and get by, sure," Daghlian said. However, he pointed out that the new rules for the next general election will require potential voters who register by mail to provide their drivers license number and the last four digits of their Social Security number. 145. A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney, Hans Von Spakovsky, charged with determining whether to pre-clear Georgia's voter identification law penned a law review article advocating polling-place photo ID from all voters last spring, angering critics who say the staffer had made up his mind on the issue before reviewing it. 146. The Washington Post reported that Hans Von Spakovsky, now at the Federal Election Commission, published the article under a pseudonym in a 2005 issue of the Texas Review of Law & Politics - before issuing the decision to Georgia - and later added a link to his page at the FEC. It has since been removed from the agency's site but is available here. 147. In the CALIFORNIA 1996 election that unseated Bob Dornan following his efforts to investigate the Clinton White House, canvassers discovered that nearly half of the names

Amended Complaint Page 36 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 registered to vote in the GOP election from 7 precincts simply did not exist. 148. The California Attorney General's office was informed by the precinct worker, but again nothing was done. 149. In 1998, almost 20,000 fraudulent voter registrations were discovered on the voting rolls, but were allowed to remain on the excuse that their removal in time for the election would cost too much! 150. California State Senator BILL MORROW of the 38th Senatorial District in a letter to the state Attorney General Bill Lockyer on April 7, 2006 challenged him to enforce state law in regards to illegal aliens registering to vote. 151. Morrow Alleges the registrars of voters in all of California’ s 58 counties are not ensuring that they have procedures in place for identifying valid voters so that illegal aliens are prevented from casting illegal ballots 152. United Press International surveyed several states with large immigrant populations to determine their policies and controls for ensuring voters are legal citizens. 153. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates there are as many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the state's board of elections told UPI that it has an "inherent assumption" that individuals who sign their names on voter registration cards are doing so legally. 154. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding they provide registration cards in seven languages. 155. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or passports to verify citizenship or when voters show up at the polls. 156. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have

Amended Complaint Page 37 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law," Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred. 157. The evidence for massive vote fraud in the United States uncovered by the Voting Integrity Project and organizations like it are ignored by the government, which has obviously been the beneficiary of such chicanery, and by the media, which is complicit in the fraud. 158. FAIR’ s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal immigrants vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations. 159. Election On Line. Org reported April 13, 2006 Thousands of registration applications were rejected in California where, since January 1, nearly 25 percent of voter registration forms submitted for verification have been rejected by the statewide database. In Los Angeles County, 43 percent of voter registrations have been rejected. 160. In a letter to Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (R), Conny McCormack, L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk cited several examples of some of the thousands of applications rejected by the "CalVoter" system including forms being rejected because a last name has a space in it such as De Leon, or a last name that is actually two last names with no hyphen, such as Weaver Cardona, or even new residents to California being rejected because the DMV file the CalVoter system uses is only six months old. 161. "The challenge of setting up a statewide voter registration database that complies with HAVA requirements has been well-known to election administrators and activists for years," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "This particular problem that California is experiencing is a result of the terms of an agreement made between the Secretary of State and the Department of Justice that is unique to California and a handful of other states. This form rejection problem itself is a surprise that I don't think anyone anticipated."

Amended Complaint Page 38 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 162. Nevada has announced that it is to use a voter registration back up system because of problems with its vendor Covansys Inc., Nevada will be employing a similar system to California's whereby counties will send voter registration information to a state computer every 24 hours for comparisons to DMV and Social Security records. 163. In February 2006, Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller (R) suspended a contract with Covansys claiming there were too many problems with the system the company was creating for the state. 164. According to published reports, in addition to suspending the contract with Covansys, Heller requested that the company return more than $1 million the state paid for the creation of a new database as well as reimbursement of monies the state is now spending to implement the replacement system. 165. Heller told The Associated Press that the back up system is not ideal and that he prefers a top-down system, but with no vendor contract and an election just about four months away, the back up system is the only option for compliance with HAVA. 166. As and for a Fourth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants New York

State Board of Elections and its agents yet named as Defendants as per above paragraphs 19 thru 165 intentionally and maliciously for partisan gain fail to maintain statewide central data base to enable municipalities to reduce and verify actual inactive voters per EL §5-213 as displayed below:

§ 5-213. Inactive status.

1. When a voter is sent a confirmation notice pursuant to the provisions of this article, the voter’ s name shall be placed in inactive status. 2. The registration poll records of all such voters shall be removed from the poll ledgers and maintained at the offices of the board of elections in a file arranged alphabetically by election district. If such board uses computer generated registration lists, the names of such voters shall not be placed on such lists at subsequent elections other than lists prepared pursuant to the provisions of section 5-612 of this article but shall be kept as a computer record at the offices of such board.

Amended Complaint Page 39 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 3. The board of elections shall restore the registration of any such voter to active status if such voter notifies the board of elections that he resides at the address from which he is registered, or the board finds that such voter has validly signed a designating or nominating petition which states that he resides at such address, or if such voter casts a ballot in an affidavit envelope which states that he resides at such address, or if the board receives notice that such voter has voted in an election conducted with registration lists prepared pursuant to the provisions of section 5-612 of this article. If any such notification or information is received twenty days or more before a primary, special or general election, the voter’ s name must be restored to active status for such election. 4. As soon as practicable, after it restores a voter’ s registration to active status, the board of elections shall send the voter, by first class forwardable mail, a notice advising him of the restoration in a form which is similar to the notice sent to new registrants pursuant to the provisions of section 5-210 of this title and which has been approved by the state board of elections. 5. If the board of elections receives notice, which complies with the requirements of this article, that a voter in inactive status is residing at another address within the jurisdiction of such board, it shall transfer the registration and enrollment of such voter to such other address pursuant to the provisions of section 5-208 of this title.

167. That using the flawed 31 December 2004 statewide database done as a snapshot every two years yields a statewide average number of inactive registrations of 9.74%, includes a 10.08% of inactive registrations within NYC shown in the below Chart on Line #58, and outside NYC, the mean number of inactive registrants is 9.39% shown below as Chart line #59. 168. Outside NYC the EL §5-213 determined number of inactive registrations by municipality varies from 2.95% in Chenango county shown on the Chart below on Chart Line #1 to Sullivan County with 22.93% shown on Chart Line 57. 169.That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE individual municipal boards responsible for maintaining the original registration records in each municipality separate from the so-called state database, the NYS BOE does not impose rigorous of uniformity of EL §5-213 compliance to be done by each municipality as evidenced by the below chart:

Amended Complaint Page 40 of 62

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

Amended Complaint Page 41 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 170. That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE and the obvious facts of active voters multiply registered in one and more municipalities outside of the NYC, 171. In more than one borough within illegal aliens having been given sanctuary “ with the don’ t ask don’ t tell “policy promulgated by the Koch Administration before the 1980 Census 172.The NYC Board of Elections has no viable excuse for not rigorously enforcing EL §5-213 in the Boroughs marked in the above Chart Line Item 58A thru 58E have inactive registrants that vary from 9.77% to 11.89% ; 173. That NYC will wrongly receive no less than $394,075 shown on the chart above that should rightly go to municipalities to relieve real property taxpayers therein a municipality otherwise doing its fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 and otherwise getting less than the people within are en titled for reimbursing costs of implementation of the NVRA and HAVA.

174.That theoretically based upon use of the state mean inactive voters calculated in the above Chart there are 23 municipalities shown on Chart Line items 1 thru 23, that are not only entitled to receive the $394,075.45 that would otherwise be wrongly disbursed to NYC, but are additionally entitled to greater amounts from the municipalities outside of NYC shown as Chart Line item 24 thru 57 that would otherwise be wrongly reimbursed HAVA funds instead.

175. That the New York state legislature controlled by the permanent oligarchy despite absolute need for merger and consolidation of municipalities in order to afford US citizens within equal protection and treatment under the law according to the state constitution and related laws, instead the so-called “ bi-partisan”autocracy maintains municipalities as if merely plantations to extract bounty with impunity from the non-majoritarian People left without a dedicated voice within in the state legislature as they were devised in the 19th century as the map of municipalities and New York Municipal subdivisions History depicts as follows:

Amended Complaint Page 42 of 62

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

New York Municipal Subdivision History 1683 thru 2006

Amended Complaint Page 43 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 176. That NYC like other municipalities in expectation of increase HAVA funds malfeasance is rewarded with expectation of increased dollars by maintaining fraudulent registrations with plausible denial by the State refusal to setup a real time statewide database, 177. That each individual municipality with implementation of NVRA has lost control of the accuracy of the original registration database, as was intentionally done to create plausible denial to effect a scheme to defraud the election process by Defendant BOE and those yet named based upon the pattern shown since implementation of NVRA nationally and since its adoption by New York’ s Pataki Administration and “ bi-partisan”legislature. 178. On March 23, 2006 the special counsel to the BOE inferred that the State Board may have to sue each municipal board of elections to implement HAVA requirements and in effect is not representing the municipalities per se in the Case USA v NYS NDNY 06-cv-263. 179. Notably both Niagara and Cayuga Counties refuse the dictates of the NYS BOE. 180. On March 23, 2006 the Assistant Attorney general of the State of New York appearing for the entities of New York State in USA v NYS stated that the NYS Ag in the matter of NVRA and HAVA can not adequately represent the interests of the People of New York. 181. On April 20, 2006 the Executive Director Robert Freeman of the Committee for Open Government of the Office of the New York Secretary of State held in a written opinion that the DOJ advisary to the NYS BOE and New York State has repeatedly improperly attended the Executive Session of the Board of Election closed sessions without public access or record there by violates the state of open meetings law. 182. There is a body of evidence that the Defendant State Board has NOT enforced the requirement of EL §5-213 be done by each Municipal Board, enforcement is non existent when compared to aggressive enforcement of Election Law Article 14 finance provisions.

Amended Complaint Page 44 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 183. As and for a Fifth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendant New York State Municipal subdivisions and agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 182 intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and New York State Election Law; 184. That Municipal defendants under EL §4-138 pass-on the expense of administering elections to the real property owners by tax levy outside of NYC and by users fees and other excises within the city:

185. That Defendant Municipalities depicted in Chart Line Item 24 thru 58 have a fiduciary duty required of each respective “ bi-partisan”municipal board of elections as part of the partisan control over patronage policy, purse and especially the real property tax levy empowered under local government Homerule law, pass on the all unfunded expenses for Medicaid, Elections, and other unfunded mandates required by the State. 186. Municipal Defendants over the years based upon public records display a pattern of intentional concealment and cover-up in regards to accurately noticing and segregating the actual Medicaid costs required under Social Service Law related to the Social Security Act, as Amended Complaint Page 45 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 well as election costs required under EL §4-138 and now NVRA and HAVA to be levied upon real property outside NYC, as excise users fees within NYC whose tax burdens are staggering. 187. That were the other states of the several states to honestly and legally to make reimbursement claims for HAVA funds using the narrow interpretation of VAP based upon rigorous use and enforcement of the respective state constitution and laws less HAVA funds would be disbursed to those states, and 188. Accordingly based upon the narrow interpretation of the HAVA VAP reimbursement formula, rather than the intentionally over broad use of VAP as unconstitutionally vague, when in fact in all state law non-citizens, and the civilly dead are NOT part of the voting age population, and 189. Therefore, the state of New York and the respective municipalities subdivisions would receive a significantly greater HAVA reimbursement, thereby relieving the real property owners as a jus tertii class including plaintiffs with property along with those people within NYC, would not be burdened with unreasonable higher taxes as a result of such legal narrow interpretation of VAP. 190. That Plaintiffs are not legally represented in the state legislature with a dedicated voice or other recourse other than Federal court and that State Defendants, State Municipalities and rubber stamp by DOJ of the April 22, 2002 gerrymander of state and federal districts 191. Gerrymander per se is done by mis application and administration of the state constitution and laws, contradicts the express required total number and allotment of State Senate Districts (“ SDs” ) location, and ratio of Assembly Districts (“ ADs” ) seats within; 192. Statewide allocation, size, number of State Senate and Assembly seats for the people resident within each existing municipality entitled to no less than two (2) ADs and a

Amended Complaint Page 46 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 municipal Board of Elections within is dictated by the state constitution and related laws; 193. The intra-municipal equity in distribution of EDs is necessary within each AD to prevent Disproportionate Diminished Dilution (“ DDD” ) of a vote strength and effectiveness is dictated by the state constitution and related laws, however is not complied with. 194. As and for a Sixth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants State of California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states of several states to numerous to name whose agents yet named as Defendants, pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 193, intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and N.Y.S. Election Law. 195. That the Chart on the next page entitled “ 2000 Census Table 1.1 Total Population by Age and Citizenship: March 2000”is from the 2000 Census enumeration, and is highlighted to show all persons of any sex 18 years or older equals 204,523k or 73.9% of the Total Persons, or “ Voting Age Population”(“ VAP” ) therein containing the civilly dead within. Of that total 177,515k are native born citizens, 10,683k naturalized citizens totaling 188 mil. And when the civilly dead are subtracted by say 3 mil. equals say 185 mil. Eligible voters nationally therein include both registered and un-registered citizens entitled to suffrage. 196. The 2000 Census Table 1.1 for total combined persons by Sex and Age in the category of 18 Years and over totals say 204 mil. VAP as opposed to Citizens both Native and Naturalized including the civilly dead, or say 188 mil. minus the civilly dead equals CVAP 197. The “ Projected 2000 percent of Total State EV per total National EV”the total 185,208,072; and further shows the “ 2004 Estimated Active Voters per state using New York” 10,540,535 AV or 81.51% of the total registered persons in NY and each state as first approximation equal to say 150,964,221 Active Voters nationally as the figure to be used to

Amended Complaint Page 47 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 disburse HAVA funds.

198. The set of Census numbers when compared to the total VAP used by the EAC will validate whether VAP of CVAP is used. 199. That the basis for determining the accuracy of the projection of the national total of say 185,208,072 mil. Citizens 18 years or older, whether registered or not excluding the civilly dead, approximates “ Citizen Voting Age Persons”New York has say 12,931,489 with the actual 10,540,535 AV recorded as of 31 December 2004 in the flawed central database, and 200. That based upon the December 31, 2004 New York voting rolls, 10,540,535

Amended Complaint Page 48 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 Active Voters is compared for accuracy with the actual number of those persons alleged “ Eligible”to register to vote as claimed by the Secretary of State of both California, Texas, in each State Compliance Plan filed with the Department of Justice and the Election Assistance Commission for HAVA funds reimbursement, and that the SOS of California alleges it has 26.08% unregistered and Texas alleges it has 12.47% unregistered; and compares such figures to an estimated 9.79% for New York state as of December 31, 2004, as follows:

State ======= California Texas New York

2000 Census Total

ALLEGED Eligible

Percent of ALLEGED Eligible

Actual Total Registered

Total Active Voters

Total Alleged Eligible unregistered

Percent unregistered

======= 33,930,798 20,903,994

======= 22,495,914 14,965,061

======= 66.30% 71.59%

======= 16,628,673 13,098,329

======= 15,587,358 9,971,374

======= 5,867,241 1,866,732

======= 26.08% 12.47%

19,004,973

12,931,489

68.04%

11,666,103

10,540,535

1,265,386

9.79%

201. That as of February 10, 2005 a California compliance submission to the DOJ and EAC in the matter of use of the term “ Eligible”notes that “the figures under the heading ‘ Eligible’in these sections represent our estimate of the number of people in California who are eligible to register to vote as of February 10, 2005” ; and quote that the “ Population estimate data from the Population Research Unit of the Department of Finance were used to estimate each county’ s total population. Subtracted from this total was the estimated number of persons ineligible for registration because of age, felony convictions, and citizenship status. The figures given are unofficial but represent a reasonable estimate of the eligible population.” 202. Like the California Constitution portion shown below only US Citizens may vote and as in Texas Election Law §11.001 and §11.002 that defines Eligibility to Vote and “ Qualified Voter”using only US Citizen eliminates non-citizens and the civilly dead in keeping with Article 6 –SUFFRAGE Section 2 - QUALIFIED ELECTOR; REGISTRATION; ABSENTEE VOTING – Texas Constitution Article 6 Section 2 Subsection (a) Every person subject to none of the disqualifications provided by Section 1 of this article or by a law enacted under that section who is a citizen of the United States and who is a

Amended Complaint Page 49 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 resident of this State shall be deemed a qualified voter; provided, however, that before offering to vote at an election a voter shall have registered, but such requirement for registration shall not be considered a qualification of a voter within the meaning of the term "qualified voter" as used in any other Article of this Constitution in respect to any matter except qualification and eligibility to vote at an election.

The CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 2. A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

203. That the Texas compliance submission to the DOJ and EAC in the matter of use of the term “ Eligible”notes that its VAP according to the 2000 Census is 14,965,061; as follows:

Amended Complaint Page 50 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 204. That in the matter of national HAVA Funds distribution there is an inconsistency in the use of VAP versus CVAP, that a thorough review of the public records of each state of the several states and territories will reveal in comparison the 2000 Census enumeration for nativity and State Plans submissions to the Election Assistance Commission evidenced by the Federal Register record on the EAC website. 205. Federal Election Commission (FEC) basis for which VAP (shown in footnote #11) is used differently from state to state and would properly create an offset and resolution for equity; especially since as many as 18 states have not implemented the “ centralized”voter registration database- i.e. the underlying reason for HAVA and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in the first place. 206. The imperative to catch the rampant vote fraud and abuse nationally and statewide here in New York is essential and warrants fraud investigation statewide. 207. The Chart below compares the actual numbers used by New York with a $221,000,000 funds figure that is subject to HAVA funding variations caused by arbitrary use of VAP by California and Texas in the state compliance submissions to the DOJ and EAC:

the Chart shows that New York even with a large number of non-citizens like both Texas and California, however New York has relatively less aliens, and therefore is more significantly

Amended Complaint Page 51 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 injurious to the U.S. Citizens resident in New York with use of VAP instead of CVAP; accordingly New York Citizens are denied equal protection as a result of California and especially Texas gaming the system without proper Voting Rights Act compliance oversight and equal treatment afforded by DOJ review and certification for the EAC to equally disburse funds. 208. That Injury to Plaintiffs is significant and palpable by the very nature of the underlying causes of action stated above in paragraphs 58 thru 207, Petitioners / Plaintiffs individually and collectively as a class as those similarly situated are irreparably injured by Respondents / Defendant as a result as follows: 209. As and for a First Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 208 Respondents injure Petitioners by Denial of Substantive Due Process required of Defendants under proper administration and application of the NVRA, HAVA and NYSC and Laws . 210. Because of virtually no vote fraud enforcement, motor voter registration, driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesties and other factors, American's most precious liberty, voting, is being rapidly undermined by illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens. 211. As and for a Second Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 210 Respondents injure Petitioners by denial of equal treatment under Election Law, deny expectation of effective ballot access and voting., by disproportionate diminished dilution of plaintiffs vote strength as is related both to gerrymandering and arbitrary enforcement of law. 212. As and for a Third Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 211 Respondents infringe Petitioners’speech and association fundamental rights otherwise available for U.S. Citizens in the Federal 1st amendment as related to the 14th Amendment by denial of due process and equal treatment under Election Law and redistricting violation of the NYSC Art III, infringe speech in the Legislature.

Amended Complaint Page 52 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 213. As and for a Fourth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 212 Federal Respondents as a Bivens 1st, 4th 5th 8th 13th 14th 15th amendments injury disenfranchise Petitioner suffrage rights by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs proprietary tangible suffrage property. 214. As and for a Fifth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214 State Defendants by a pattern of malicious fiduciary neglect intentionally take Petitioners’suffrage rights as reverse discrimination prohibited by VRA under a scheme to defraud under color of the NVRA and HAVA. 215. As and for a Sixth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214 Respondents infringement of Petitioners’speech, association, bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy rights and unlawful takings by patterns of fraud under multiple schemes to defraud thereby deny a republican form of government. 216. As and for a Seventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 215 Respondents injures Petitioners’1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th Amendment Right as U.S. Citizens who as New York State Citizens with sovereignty granted in each state of the several states are to be protected against foreign interference with suffrage aren’ t by use of VAP instead of CVAP. 217. As and for a Eighth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 216 Respondents injure Petitioners’as jus tertii classes where they reside since April 22, 2002 having expended state available remedy are without a means to provide for reasonable amendment to the State Constitution. 218. As and for a Ninth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 217 in the matter of CVAP unequal treatment of the unfunded HAVA mandate on a municipal entityby-entity basis Defendants deny substantive due process for the EL §4-138 unfunded mandate as

Amended Complaint Page 53 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 is done under the Medicaid tax levy without notice and segregation of the election costs on real property tax levy, is a taking of property. 219. As and for a Tenth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 218 notwithstanding 28 USC 1341 does not apply herein, the EAC under HAVA absent equity relief would deprive Plaintiffs and the PEOPLE of NYS and of the several States by either Top-down or Bottom-up suffrage, with Homerule autonomy, must afford equal protection of the law against HAVA false claims, would otherwise qualify under the False Claims Act 31 USC 3729-3733. 220. As and for a Eleventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 219 that damages to individual plaintiffs jus tertii within each respective municipality entitled to a board of elections not in compliance with application and administration of the state constitution and laws who by ultra vires offense, not least of which impose unequal EDs non-conforming with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 and without elections conducted without “ bipartisan”election inspection, while maliciously requiring of real property tax per EL §4-138 as an unreasonable burden by excessive expense, Plaintiffs as a jus tertii class require reimbursement for suffering arbitrary and capricious taking of personal and real property. 221. As and for a Twelfth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 220 that were any claim against the HAVA reimbursement transacted with DOJ and EAC for the state of New York without bottom-up suffrage and Homerule compliance with the application and administration of the state constitution and related laws such would be a false claim as defined under 31 USC §3729 thru §3733 subject to treble damages and penalties against Defendants with payment due to Plaintiffs as whistleblower / relator jus tertii as U.S. Citizens in the name of the United State Government entitled to 15% to 30% of that recovered and a fee for each false claim filed by any municipality not conforming as well as any state effecting as a false

Amended Complaint Page 54 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 claim, and that the fee due relators per transaction is in the amount not to exceed $11,000 for each occurrence, and notwithstanding the False Claims Act (“ FCA” ) damages that financial injury to individual plaintiffs being denied expectation of effective suffrage participation date exceeds $75,000.00. WHEREFORE, Petitioners as “ whistleblower / relators”and those similarly situated as a Federal class of CVAP within the state of New York and in the several states and territories urge remedy from irreparable harm that warrants a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel for preliminary injunction suspending HAVA filing deadlines, permanent injunction for equal treatment of suffrage and autonomy for all New York State Citizens and CVAP nationwide entitled to suffrage separate from non-citizens, minors and those adjudged civilly dead, Petitioners and those similarly situated urge remedy and protection from irreparable harm that warrants permanent injunction for equal treatment of all real property owners with a the Court order: A. That there must be a 28 USC 2284 trial to hear the statewide municipal apportionment of HAVA funds based upon proper administration and application of the State Constitution and related laws B. That each legitimate municipality has until March 1, 2006 to initiate redistricting of its legislative, senate, assembly, congressional districts coterminous within including those of NYC and for HAVA certification and constitutional infringement issues. C. That the HAVA January 1, 2006 compliance deadline for each state of the several states be stayed nationwide until such time that the court determines the constitutionality of the use of VAP funding rather than CVAP without those adjudged civilly dead, and determines equity for reimbursement using CVAP nationwide accordingly. D. That each municipality entitled to a Board of Elections within must produce a compliance plan proving conformance with the administration and application of the State Constitution and laws in order to receive HAVA reimbursement for equity statewide in voting machine acquisition. E. That U.S. DOJ voting rights section must pre-clear municipal compliance plans before

Amended Complaint Page 55 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 certification is sent to the Election Assistance Commission for reimbursement offset. F. That the municipalities of Hamilton and Fulton must elect together conterminous within one single SD, AD and CD. G. That the US Supreme Court held in the WMCA case that the State Constitution Article III Section 4 formula for enlarging the number of SDs beyond the expressed provision of fifty (50) is unconstitutional, and as such until such time that the NYSC is amended accordingly with a new formula, there shall be fifty (50) SDs that shall each contain three ADs coterminous within a CD and JD by proper application and administration of the NYSC and laws to meet the requirements of the VRA, the U.S. Constitution and HAVA reimbursement for ED voting machines. H. That in the matter of EL §4-100 creation of Election Districts shall not to exceed 950 active voters (“ AV” ) each statewide, and further, every ED statewide shall be of equal size with the exception that for the convenience of the active voters any ED may be subdivided and additional voting machines provided and paid for by the EL §4-138 real property tax levy, and furthermore, at the direction of any municipal legislature to the board of elections within may decrease the number of EDs within such municipality to contain more active voters beyond 950 AV not to exceed 1150 active voters, with the convenience proviso of ED subdivision. I. That redistricting of the each SD, AD, CD and adjoining SDs ADs and CDs is moot were it effected before March 1, 2006 for the purposes of the 2006 election cycle based upon proper use of the New York State Constitution Article III and laws, is now dependent upon a Federal Court under 28 USC 2284. J. That the NYC entity must be subdivided to prevent continued disproportionate diminished dilution of EV / CVAP votes within NYC, excluding those adjudged civilly dead must be enumerated at the domicile of conviction within NYC, as well as effect it has outside NYC. K. That the NYC entity in the matter of the 1/3 rule and the ½ rule must be subdivided to prevent majoritarian control over the state senate and therefore the assembly exclusive of any other consideration involved when combined with either Westchester and or Nassau in the matter of a State constitutional amendment and convention. L. Certification by each municipality of Election District equity for equal time place and manner in regards to available machines and absentee ballots M. A trust fund for each municipality setup with HAVA funds to property real property owners over time to prevent real property taxes increase N. Restraint against HAVA funds from being disbursed to any and all states and or

Amended Complaint Page 56 of 62

Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 municipalities using VAP to include non-citizens, "illegal aliens", and or the civilly dead. 0. That there must be a hearing on all matters sufficient to issue a declaratory judgment on the intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity, P. That there must be a hearing on all matters sufficient to issue a declaratory judgment on the Federal, State, Municipal Corporation Equitable real time use of a central voters data base at the state level of each state of the several states and territories and that those central data bases shall be used in a real time national data base to guarantee the principle of "one person one vote" nationwide. Q. Stay of all real property foreclosures in New York State until there is resolution for the equitable disbursement of HAVA funds nationwide. R. The U.S. Justice Department should oversee any existing municipalities with a board of elections within that does not meet the requirements of the administration and application of the respective state constitution and related laws for bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy of the People within S. That there must be a jury trial in the matter of damages. T, That in the matter of the FCA under 3 1 USC 3729 thru 3733, Plaintiffs / Relators are entitled to relief &om false claims transacted to date by the Defendants and offending municipalities, and that all the records of transactions to date and into the future for any state shall be available for review and be subject to trial and penalty; and U. For such other and different relief deemed just and proper herein.

Respectfully submitted to the best of our bowledge according to the Order of the Court by:

GABRIEL RAZZANO.

EDWARD MJERSON JR..

Amended Complaint Page 57 of 62

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

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.:

COUNTY OF ORLEANS) Accordin~k,I, John-Joseph Forjone, being duly sworn, deposes and says under penalty of perjury:

Am resident for service at 5367 Upper Holley Road mailing address POB 28 Clarendon NY 14429 County of Orleans with Phone: 585-721-7673 County of Orleans&-mail:

medicaidtaxlevv~vahoo.com,and request electronic service. I have read the foregoing Amended COMPLAINT Six Causes of action and Twelve Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as applies to me here in Orleans County and as a member of Jus tertii class of those People Resident in a municipality with real property and or effected by false billing under imposition of HAVA nationally and on a municipal by municipal basis here in the state of New York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon

information and belief are as follows: 3d parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to before me tbis d J day of April 2006

DEBORAHJ. M A R W i NO 01MAW55647 ~ r y ~ ~ ~ . s t a t e o f ~ ~ Qurr)llkdin Orleans My Cwnm$atonExpires

Amended Complaint -- Page 58 of 62

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

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.:

COUNTY OF GENESEE) Accordinply, I, Dan Del Plato Jr., being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: Am resident for service at 50 Chandler Avenue, Batavia, NY in the county of Genesee with phone number 585.343.5283 e-mail dandel~latoir ahoo.com, and request electronic service; I have read the foregoing amended COMPLAINT Six Causes of action and Twelve Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as applies to me here in Genesee County and as a member of Jus tertii class of those People Resident in a municipality with real property and or effected by false billing under imposition of HAVA nationally and on a municipal by municipal basis here in the state ofNew York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon

information and belief are as follows: 3&parties, b H s and records, and personal knowledge.

bP&,b

DAN DEL PLAT0 JR. Swo & % Y a

to before me this uf April 2006

kWt3 L MSUGHEKf'Y

~ARVRWLIC-KEWYOFh

OENESEE COUNTY

-a==

Complaint -- Page 59 of 62

(

.

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

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) Accordin~ly,I, Gabriel Razzano, being duly sworn, depose and says under penalty of perjury: Am resident for service at 135 Gordon Place Freeport, New York 1 1520, County of Nassau, with Phone 5 16-223-6883, emil; [email protected] and request electronic service. I have read the foregoing Amended COMPLAINT Six Causes of action and Twelve

Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as applies to me here in Nassau County and as a member of Jus tertii class ofthose People Resident in a municipality with real property and or effected by false billing under imposition of HAVA nationally and on a municipal by municipal k q i s here

in the state of New York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own

knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. 'The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3&parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

this aL\,c- daybefore of April 2006 Swo

to

me

Complaint -- Page 60 of 62

C

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

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Aecordinek, I, Edward M. Person, Jr., being duly s\;orn, depose and says under penalty of perjury: Am resident for service at 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon N.Y. 1 1703 CounQ of Suffolk with Phone 63 1-667-73 16, email; ra~torwimo2004ad~~ahoo.com , and request electronic service.

I have read the foregoing Amended COMPLAINT Six Causes of action and Twelve Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as appiies to me here in Suffolk County and as a member of Jus tertii class of those People Resident in a municipality with real property and or effected by false billing under imposition of HAVA nationally and on a municipal by municipal basis here in the state of New York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon

informat ion and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

EDWARD M.PERSON, JR. to before me this -PEACOCK

NobyPllbllc,bya(~krr~ocir =mJEmt~

Ourll#hNmU~ounly

W--~av.29.#)gg

Complaint -- Page 61 of 62

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

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF KINGS

) ss.: )

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and says under penalty of

perjury:

Am resident for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 in the city of New York borough of Brooklyn with Phone # 845-389-0774,

email:~ncasvotes2@,~ahoo.com, and request electronic service. I have read the foregoing amended COMPLAINT Six Causes of action and Twelve

Injuries requiring remedy and equity relief as applies to me here in the city of New York borough of Brooklyn and as a member of Jus tertii class of those People Resident in a municipality with real property and or effected by false billing under imposition of HAVA nationally and on a municipal by municipal basis here in the state of New York, and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3"' parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. CHRISTOPHER EARL, STRUNK Sworn to before me this 7 day of April 2006

1

, A./-

tl,

-- 20.. 2 I

<

f

i

PAGNOTTA EUGENE V. NOTARY PUBLIC N.Y.S UEENS # lPA4931558 OMISSI N EXPIRES JUNE 20, 20L,!--

%

8

Amended Complaint Page 62 of 62

Census Becomes Point of Contention for Latinos Written by Alex Garcia, The San Fernando Valley Sun Contributing Writer Thursday, 08 October 2009 It's still six months away, but the U.S. Census 2010 has become a controversial issue in the Latino community, with some groups advocating for a boycott, while others are gearing up campaigns to push immigrants to get themselves counted. "If we cannot count on the government, why are we going to get counted?," asked Nativo Lopez, president of Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana who along with Rev. Miguel Rivera, chairman of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy, are asking undocumented immigrants to abstain from participating in the census as a way to pressure the Obama administration to pass an immigration reform. Lopez said Latino participation was very high in the past two censuses, in 1990 and 2000 because there was an incentive for immigrants to participate. "The success of the 1990 Census was based on the legalization that took place in 1986. There was a strong incentive because immigrants felt they had become accepted and were no longer fearful," he said. He added those gains carried into 2000, when those immigrants who were legalized in 1986 were becoming citizens and were starting to vote for Latino politicians and saw their representation grow. But today, there's no incentive. In turn, Lopez said we "have a government that hunts them". "Reports from DHS [Department of Homeland Security] show that the number have surpassed those under Bush," he said. At the same time, he noted the number of sanctions for employers suspected of hiring undocumented immigrants has also gone up, leading to massive firing of workers. "This doesn't give any incentive for migrants to participate in the census," he said. "Our message is that unless there's legalization we're not going to cooperate with the census." "If Congress is interested in having the information of Latinos and for us to participate, they're going to have to give us immigration reform," said Rivera. "As we are right now, they tell them, come out of darkness, give us the information and then go back to obscurity." Rivera said pastors who are members of his coalition "are telling undocumented members of our churches not to participate in the Census because there are no guarantees of a comprehensive immigration reform." "We're telling people that until Obama fulfills his campaign for immigration reform they shouldn't risk participating in the census," said Rivera. Lopez and Rivera's message seems to be breaking the law, as the full count of the U.S. population every 10 years is mandated by the Constitution. Data from the Census is used not only to draw district lines at local, state and national levels, but is also used to allocate more than $400 billion in federal funds annually to communities for a number of services and programs, including

EXHIBIT U

childcare, school lunches and health care. However, Lopez and Rivera say undocumented immigrants are often excluded from those programs and their participation in it doesn't translate into any benefits. They assert that Latino political representation has done very little to advance immigrant causes. "When president Obama excludes undocumented immigrants from his health reform and receives the endorsement of the congressional Latino caucus, then we don't need more of those legislators who are going to support a racist proposal," said Lopez. They also say lawmakers who have retained or gained their seats based on the growth of the Latino population have not come out in defense of immigrant communities or have pushed hard for immigration reform. The challenges against the Census comes while the Census Bureau is announcing that it will print 13 million bilingual census forms to encourage participation. Next year's census questionnaire will also be one of the shortest ever, asking only 10 questions, none of which deal with a person's immigration status. Census participation is required by law and the Census Bureau can impose a fine of $100 for failure to register. Last week, U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves joined NALEO, National Council of La Raza, Service Employees International Union and several other groups to begin a nationwide campaign highlighting the importance of participating in the Census and trying to squelch the calls for a boycott. "Ensuring our nation's second largest population group is fully counted is critical to recognizing our nation's diversity and to building future political strength," said Arturo Vargas, Executive Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund (NALEO). "The Census is the single most powerful indicator of who we are as a nation. It not only dictates the story we tell about our demographic makeup, but it also determines the allocation of federal funds and the seats of political power." The campaign, called "ya es hora! HAGASE CONTAR!" (It's Time, Make Yourself Count!) seeks to ensure the estimated 50 million Latinos living in the United States are accounted for, unlike the previous census when many experts concluded thousands were under counted. "We have the enormous challenge of convincing everyone in the country to participate in the national count - regardless of race, ethnicity or citizenship status. To reach the Latino community, we are counting on community-based initiatives like "ya es hora" to partner with us in spreading the word that the 2010 Census is easy, important and safe," said U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves. WHAT DO YOU THINK? E-mail your thoughts in a letter to the editor via the web at [email protected].

EXHIBIT U

United States District Court for the District of Columbia In Case - Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 29,2009, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certifjr under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746, That I caused the service of six (6) copies of Christopher-Earl: StrunkO in esse, PLAINTIFF'S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORMA AND STATE OF TEXAS DEFENDANTS in 09-cv-1295 with supporting affidavit and exhibits annexed affirmed October 27,2009, and each complete set was placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage for United States Postal Service Delivery by mail upon: Wynne P. Kelly Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

MS. Maria J. Rivera, Esq. TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 787 11

John Marcus McNichols, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

Seth E. Goldstein, Deputy Attorney General California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street - Suite 125 Sacramento, California 94244-2550

John Michael Bredehofi, Esq. KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. 150 West Main Street - P.O. Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 235 14

Dated: October

Stephen Kitzinger, Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department Office of Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007

'--;I-----

-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Case No. 09-cv-01295 (RJL) Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, defendant State of California, by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1)(2) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims. Dated: September 28, 2009

Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California DOUGLAS J. WOODS Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ Seth E. Goldstein SETH E. GOLDSTEIN Deputy Attorney General California Bar No. 238228 California Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 327-2364 Fax: (916) 324-8835 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant State of California

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Case No. 09-cv-01295 (RJL) Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS INTRODUCTION Defendant State of California moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on several grounds: (1) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1) because the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars claims against the State of California, because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claim, and because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the bizarre conspiracy theories alleged in the Complaint; (2) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over the State of California; and (3) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For any or all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s claims against the State of California should be dismissed.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 2 of 10

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS The Complaint names the State of California and numerous other municipal, state, and federal defendants, as well as some private Jesuit organizations. Although the allegations of the Complaint are vague and very difficult to discern, Plaintiff appears to allege a vast nationwide conspiracy to count tourists in the 2010 census, and conjectures that this may dilute his vote in Congress. Plaintiff asks for injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as five trillion dollars in damages. (Complaint, pages 29-30.) With respect to California, Plaintiff appears to allege that California will gain a representative in Congress if tourists are counted in the census, based on charts of unspecified origin. (Id., ¶¶ 57, 60; exhibits B-E.) However, in other parts of the Complaint Plaintiff appears to allege California will lose a representative. (Id., ¶¶ 67, 85.) Plaintiff also alleges that California is in a partnership with Texas “as a result of arbitrary and capricious disproportionately using tourists to enlarge its Aristocracy’s voice in Congress for which otherwise it is not reasonably entitled to under INA and the law of the land.” (Id., ¶ 68.) Plaintiff also mentions that the California Governor is in a similar arrangement with the President. (Id., ¶ 69.) Plaintiff alleges violations of numerous federal constitutional provisions (id., ¶ 1) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986. (Id., ¶ 2.)

2

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 3 of 10

STANDARDS OF REVIEW This motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(2) authorizes dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Under Rule 12(b)(1), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the court possesses jurisdiction. Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 59, 63 (D.D.C. 2002). “[I]n deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion . . . a court is not limited to the allegations in the complaint, but may also consider material outside of the pleadings in its effort to determine whether the court has jurisdiction in the case.” Alliance For Democracy v. Federal Election Com'n, 362 F. Supp. 2d 138, 142 (D.D.C. 2005). Under Rule 12(b)(2), “[p]laintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over each individual defendant.” Atlantigas Corp. v. Nisource, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 2d 34, 42 (D.D.C. 2003). “In order to meet its burden, plaintiff must allege specific facts on which personal jurisdiction can be based; it cannot rely on conclusory allegations.” Id. “Moreover, plaintiff cannot aggregate factual allegations concerning multiple defendants in order to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over any individual defendant.” Id.

3

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 4 of 10

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The complaint “is construed liberally in the plaintiffs' favor,” and the Court grants “plaintiffs the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir. 1994). “However, the court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiffs if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint. Nor must the court accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Id. ARGUMENT I.

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION A.

Plaintiff’s Claims Are Barred By The Eleventh Amendment

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which states that “[t]he judicial power . . . shall not . . . extend to any suit in law or equity . . . against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state or its instrumentalities for legal or equitable relief in the absence of consent by the state or an abrogation of that immunity by Congress. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, (1984). Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979); see also Cerrato v. San Francisco

4

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 5 of 10

Community College Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 975 (9th. Cir. 1994) (Eleventh Amendment also bars § 1985 and § 1986 claims against a state.) The State of California has not expressly or constructively waived immunity to Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and no federal or state statute requires waiver or abrogates immunity. Consequently, the Complaint must be dismissed as to the State of California with prejudice. B.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing

Plaintiff also lacks standing to bring his claim. The judicial power of the United States is restricted by the requirement found in Article III of the U.S. Constitution that confines federal courts’ jurisdiction “to the resolution of cases and controversies.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff’s standing is “an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). “As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-499 (1975) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A plaintiff’s standing is made of three separate elements: (1) he must allege an injury in fact; (2) he must be able to trace the causation of his injury to the named

5

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 6 of 10

defendant; and (3) the federal court must have the ability to redress the plaintiff’s grievance. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-561. In this case, Plaintiff cannot meet his heavy burden to show standing because, even assuming causation or redressabilty (which is not conceded), there is no injury in fact. To demonstrate an injury in fact, a plaintiff must show “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id., 504 U.S. at 560. Accordingly, a plaintiff who raises “only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Id., 504 U.S. at 573-574. Plaintiff’s claim here is clearly only a generalized grievance, and therefore Plaintiff lacks standing.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is alternatively subject to dismissal for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Pershing Park Villas Homeowners Ass’n v. United Pacific Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating standing is a jurisdictional issue).

1

Additionally, the memorandum of law submitted by the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown in support of their motion to dismiss, relying on Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564 (D.D.C 1980), and Sharrow v. Brown, 447 F.2d 94 (2d. Cir. 1971), provides further support as to how Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge and speculate on the future counting of persons in the census. (Docket #10, p. 4-6.) 6

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

C.

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 7 of 10

Plaintiff’s Complaint is Frivolous and Insubstantial

Plaintiff’s Complaint is also subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it is frivolous and absurd. The Supreme Court has stated that claims can be ‘“so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court.’” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666-667 (1974).) And, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has stated that fictitious claims that allege “bizarre conspiracy theories, any fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind, [or] any sort of supernatural intervention” can be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-331 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The allegations of California’s involvement in the bizarre conspiracy theory pled here, involving the state, Jesuit organizations, federal officials including the President, and others, would qualify for dismissal under these standards. II.

LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Plaintiff’s Complaint also fails to allege any facts to support the assertion of

jurisdiction over California. First, Plaintiff fails to cite to any provisions that would confer statutory jurisdiction. Also, any exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction must be consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a standard that Plaintiff fails to meet.

7

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 8 of 10

Modern principles of personal jurisdiction arise from International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and its progeny. The Due Process requirement “protects a person without meaningful ties to the forum state from being subjected to binding judgments within its jurisdiction.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. RobersonCeco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 1996). A sufficient nexus to the forum must be established in order for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants so that maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiffs must also show that the defendants “purposefully availed” themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum such that they could foresee being “haled into court” there. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that suggest that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the State of California. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). III.

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows dismissal of a

complaint if a plaintiff fails “to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Although “detailed factual allegations” are not necessary to withstand a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, to provide the “grounds” of “entitle[ment] to relief,” a plaintiff must furnish “more than labels and conclusions” or

8

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 9 of 10

“a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The facts alleged in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” id., 550 U.S. at 555, or must be sufficient “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id., 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Here, Plaintiff has failed to state sufficient and facially plausible factual matter against the State of California. Plaintiff has not alleged any specific actions by the State of California that deprived him of his rights, and relies only on conclusory allegations without any facts to support his theories. Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(6) provides an additional independent basis for dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint. /// /// ///

9

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-2

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 10 of 10

CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the claims against the State of California must be dismissed. Dated: September 28, 2009

Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California DOUGLAS J. WOODS Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Seth E. Goldstein SETH E. GOLDSTEIN Deputy Attorney General California Bar No. 238228 California Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 327-2364 Fax: (916) 324-8835 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant State of California

10

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-3

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Case No. 09-cv-01295 (RJL) Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., Defendants. PROPOSED ORDER The matter came before the Court on defendant State of California’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)(2) and (6). For the reasons stated in the motion and accompanying memorandum, and for good cause shown, It is hereby ORDERED that defendant State of California’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that all claims in this matter against the State of California are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

Richard J. Leon United States District Judge

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 22-4

Filed 09/28/2009

Page 1 of 1

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL Case Name:

No.:

Christopher Earl Strunk, et al. v. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, et al.

09-cv-01295 (RJL)

I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On September 28, 2009, I served the attached DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS; and PROPOSED ORDER by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 1300 I Street, Suite 125, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, addressed as follows: Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Apartment 281 Brooklyn, NY 11238 Phone: (845) 901-6767 Pro Se, Plaintiff

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 28, 2009, at Sacramento, California. Rowena Aquino Declarant SA2009102166

10494129.doc

/s/ Rowena Aquino Signature

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., Defendants

§ § § § § § § §

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 1:09-CV-01295(RJL)

DEFENDANT STATE OF TEXAS’ MOTION TO DISMISS For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, Defendant, the State of Texas, by and through is attorney, Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, and the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, move this Court pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims.

Respectfully submitted, GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas C. ANDREW WEBER First Assistant Attorney General DAVID S. MORALES Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation ROBERT B. O=KEEFE Chief, General Litigation Division

/s/ Maria J. Rivera MARIA J. RIVERA Texas Bar No. 24067843 Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 2 of 2

Post Office Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 463-2120 (Telephone) (512) 320-0667 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 20, 2009, my office electronically filed the foregoing Motion to Dismiss and accompanying Memorandum of Law and Proposed Order with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a Notification of Electronic Filing to the following: John M. Bredehoftobert Groover Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. 150 West Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 [email protected] John M. McNichols Williams & Connolly LLP 725 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 [email protected] And by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested and U.S. First Class Mail to the following: Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue 281 Brooklyn, NY 11238

Maria J. Rivera Maria J. Rivera Assistant Attorney General

1:09-CV-01295(RJL): Defendant State of Texas’ Motion to Dismiss

2

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-2

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., Defendants

§ § § § § § § §

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 1:09-CV-01295(RJL)

ORDER The matter came before the Court on Defendant State of Texas’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). For the reasons stated in the Motion and accompanying Memorandum, and for good cause shown, It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant State of Texas’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that all claims in this matter against the State of Texas are hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

____________________________ Richard J. Leon United States District Judge

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., Defendants

§ § § § § § § §

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 1:09-CV-01295(RJL)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STATE OF TEXAS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant, the State of Texas, by and through is attorney, Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, and the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, files this Brief in Support of Defendant the State of Texas’ Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant would respectfully show the court the following: I. INTRODUCTION Pro se Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the State of Texas (“the State”), along with numerous other municipal, state, and federal Defendants. Plaintiff’s narrative Complaint is vague and ambiguous and it is difficult to identify what acts Plaintiff alleges have been specifically committed by Defendants which would entitle Plaintiff to relief. Plaintiff appears to be arguing that Defendants are part of a nationwide conspiracy to have the Bureau of Census count tourists in the 2010 decennial Census. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory relief, and monetary damages in the trillions of dollars from Defendants. With respect to the State, Plaintiff makes broad and overgeneralized allegations that Texas is a partner in a conspiracy of the Census Bureau’s alleged practice to count tourists as if they were permanent residents in the 2010 Census so that the State may “enlarge its Aristocracy’s voice in

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 2 of 10

Congress for which otherwise it is not reasonably entitled to under INA and the law of the land.” Compl. ¶¶67-68, 72. Plaintiff alleges this purported practice will result in a loss of Congressional seats for the State of New York and a consequent dilution of the impact of Plaintiff’s vote. Compl. ¶¶14, 25, 72. Plaintiff alleges that if not for this purported practice of counting tourists, Texas would otherwise lose one or more seats in Congress. Compl. ¶67. Plaintiff appears to be making these arguments as against the State under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986, which he invokes in his Complaint. Compl. ¶2. Assuming this is the crux of Plaintiff’s argument as against the State, Plaintiff’s claims are without merit and should be dismissed. As the attorneys for Defendants New York Province of the Society of Jesus and Fr. Gerald Chojnacki, S.J. point out, Plaintiff is a habitual litigant who has filed numerous vague and overbroad complaints in federal courts. Defs.’ Mem., at 2, 4-7 [Docket No. 14]. Specifically, Plaintiff’s suit is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) because this Court is without jurisdiction as to Plaintiff’s suit, without jurisdiction over the State, and Plaintiff fails to articulate a legally cognizable claim. Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed below, this Court should grant the State’s motion to dismiss and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the State in their entirety. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) allows a party to file a motion asserting a number of defenses, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED . R. CIV . P. 12(b)(1), (2), and 6. The Court should dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. FED . R. CIV . P. 12(b)(1). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), “a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a

1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

2

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 3 of 10

preponderance of the evidence that the Court possesses jurisdiction.” Martens v. United States, No. 05-CV-1805, 2007 WL 2007580, at *1 (D.D.C. July 6, 2007). Similarly, when facing a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” See e.g., Behagen v. Amateur Baseball Ass’n of U.S.A., 744 F.2d 731, 733 (10th Cir. 1984); Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d. Cir. 1999). In this case, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction over his claims and jurisdiction over the State. The Court should dismiss the case when Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. FED . R. CIV . P. 12(b)(6). In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) “a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Atherton v. Dist. of Columbia Office of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681 (D.C.Cir.2009) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007)). A pro se complaint, like any other, must present a claim upon which relief can be granted by the court.” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C.Cir.1981); see also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”). “‘So long as the pleadings suggest a “plausible” scenario to show that the pleader is entitled to relief, a court may not dismiss.’ ” Id. (quoting Tooley v. Napolitano, 556 F.3d 836, 839 (D.C.Cir.2009) (edits omitted). However, [t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that

1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

3

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 4 of 10

a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007) (plaintiff must allege enough facts to state a claim for relief which is “plausible” on its face). And, “even a pro se complainant must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct.’ ” Atherton, 567 F.3d at 681-82 (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950). III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A.

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s suit and lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant the State of Texas. 1.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing.

This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the State because Plaintiff does not have standing to bring this suit. Standing is a jurisdictional question which must be resolved as a preliminary matter. Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Serv. (TOC) Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). A party’s lack of standing cannot be waived. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982). The “essence” of standing is “whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). To satisfy the standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must make a three-pronged showing: (1) injury in fact: a harm suffered by the plaintiff that is concrete and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) causation: a fairly traceable connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the complained of conduct of the defendant; and (3) redressability:

1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

4

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 5 of 10

a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 994 (2001). This triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case or controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence. Id. at 103-04. Failure to establish any one element deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to hear the suit. Id. at 103. The “prudential rules” articulated by the Supreme Court are intended to avoid judicial involvement in cases raising “abstract questions of wide public significance” that may be better left to other branches of government and in which “judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975). To satisfy these prudential rules of standing, a plaintiff must show that (1) the harm alleged is more than a “generalized grievance” shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, and (2) the plaintiff must generally assert his own legal rights and interest, and not rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Id. Here, Plaintiff’s allegations at best amount to a generalized grievance. Moreover, for the reasons stated by the attorneys for Defendants Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown and Defendants New York Province of the Society of Jesus and Fr. Gerald Chojnacki, S.J. in their memoranda of law in support of their motion to dismiss, the cases of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564 (D.D.C. 1980) and Sharrow v. Brown, 447 F.2d 94, (2d Cir. 1971) further elaborate how Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge and speculate on the future counting of particular persons in the Census. Defs.’ Mem. at 4-6 [Docket No. 10], Defs.’ Mem. at 8-9 [Docket No. 14]. Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter

1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

5

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 6 of 10

jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) as Plaintiff does not have standing to bring these claims. 2.

The State of Texas’s Eleventh Amendment Immunity Jurisdictionally Bars Plaintiff’s Claims.

A state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity shields it from suit in federal court. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001); Vogt v. Bd. of Comm’r of the Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir. 2002). Absent a valid waiver or abrogation, Eleventh Amendment immunity bars claims for any relief against a state or its agencies – whether monetary or injunctive, retrospective or prospective. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“This jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought.”) An Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity defense challenges a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Ussery v. Louisiana, 150 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1998). A federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims that are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; therefore, any claims that are barred by sovereign immunity should be dismissed without prejudice. Warnock v. Pecos County, 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir 1996); see also, Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “is not a determination of the merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction.”) Consequently, the Court must determine if an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies in this case. There are two limited circumstances in which a state, despite the Eleventh Amendment, may be required to answer in federal court for monetary damages. A state may be sued in federal court if (1) the state has waived its immunity or (2) Congress has clearly abrogated the state’s immunity with respect to a particular cause of action. See e.g., College Sav. Bank v. Florida

1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

6

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 7 of 10

Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675 (1991); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979). Neither situation applies here. First, the State has not consented to suit by Plaintiff in federal court and Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that support waiver of the State’s immunity. Secondly, it is well-settled that claims under Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 do not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. See e.g., Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Quern v. Jordan, 448 U.S. 332, 345 (1979); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Rodriguez v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, No. H-06-820, 2007 WL 2670054, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2007) (holding that plaintiff’s Section 1985(3) claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment against the state agency); Moss v. Columbus Bd. of Educ., 98 Fed. Appx. 393 (6th Cir. 2004) (Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to section 1986 claims). Accordingly, the State is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for all the claims made against it. The claims should therefore be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996) (because sovereign immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction, claims barred by sovereign immunity are to be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1)).

3.

Plaintiff Has Not Alleged Any Facts to Support that this Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant the State of Texas

In opposing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.” Bank Brussels Lambert, 171 F.3d at 784. A plaintiff must show that a defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with the state so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum 1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

7

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 8 of 10

state must be such that he would reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated to this Court that it has personal jurisdiction over the State. Accordingly, this case must likewise be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2).

B.

Plaintiff Has Failed to State a Claim under Sections 1983, 1985, 1986. Even if this Court had jurisdiction over this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially plausible when its factual content allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant(s) are liable for the misconduct alleged. See Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1954 (citing Twombly at 556). “Rule 8 does not empower respondent to plead the bare elements of his cause of action, affix the label ‘general allegation,’ and expect his complaint to survive a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 1954. Here, Plaintiff has not stated sufficient factual matter against the State to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. Further, Plaintiff does not allege any specific actions by the State, let alone any actions which caused a deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights, privileges, or immunities as secured by the Constitution and laws under §1983. Plaintiff has not pled what action was taken, when such action occurred, who took the action, where the action occurred, and how his rights were violated as a result. Plaintiff makes a number of conclusory allegations without any facts identified which support those allegations.

1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

8

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 9 of 10

Moreover, even if the State were not immune from suit under Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986, Plaintiff nevertheless has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. First, it is a settled matter of law that a State is not a “person” for the purposes of the first element of a proper Section 1983 action. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989). Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a legally cognizable claim under Section 1983 against the State. Second, to state a civil rights conspiracy under Section 1985, plaintiff must allege 1) conspiracy; 2) for the purpose of depriving any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and 3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; 4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. See United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102-03 (1971). Here, once again, Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of nothing but “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Accordingly, claims of conspiracy that are vague and provide no basis in fact must be dismissed. See e.g. Arsenaux v. Roberts, 726 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1982) (conspiracy under Section 1983); Boddie v. Shcneider, 105 F.3d 857, 862 (2d Cir. 1997) (dismissing in part because claims were “unsupported, speculative, and conclusory”). Plaintiff’s claims that the State is violating his constitutional rights as a result of participating in an alleged conspiracy to court tourists in the 2010 Census are vague, conclusory, and unsupported, and therefore must be dismissed. Third, because Plaintiff has failed to establish a colorable claim under Section 1985, he has likewise failed to state a claim under Section 1986. See Thomas v. News World Communications, 681 F. Supp. 55, 72 (D.D.C. 1988) (finding that a cognizable claim under Section 1985 is a prerequisite to stating an adequate claim for neglect under Section 1986).

1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

9

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL

Document 16-3

Filed 08/20/2009

Page 10 of 10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must also be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant the State of Texas respectfully requests that the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of personal jurisdiction over the State pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Respectfully submitted, GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas C. ANDREW WEBER First Assistant Attorney General DAVID S. MORALES Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation ROBERT B. O=KEEFE Chief, General Litigation Division /s/ Maria J. Rivera MARIA J. RIVERA Texas Bar No. 24067843 Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Post Office Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 463-2120 (Telephone)

Attorneys for Defendant State of Texas

1:09-CV-01295(RJL):Memorandum of Law

10