APPENDIX Forjone v California 10-822

Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 2:23:33 PM Subject: Court of Appeals Docket #: 10-822 Forjone v. The State of California

General Docket Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 10-822 Nature of Suit: 3440 CIVIL RIGHTS-Other

Docketed: 03/09/2010

Forjone v. The State of CaliforniaAppeal From: NDNY (SYRACUSE)Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information: 1) Civil 2) Private 3) -

Originating Court Information: District: 0206-5 : 06-cv-1002 Trial Judge: Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge Trial Judge: Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge Date Filed: 08/17/2006 Date Order/Judgment: Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA: 02/19/2010 03/08/2010 03/09/2010

07/16/2010 37 DISTRICT COURT ORDER, dated 07/14/2010, RECEIVED.[76980] [10-822]

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

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

07/16/2010 44 FORM D, on behalf of Appellant Christopher Earl Strunk, deemed FILED. Service date 07/27/2010 by CM/ECF.[77100] [10-822]

07/27/2010 42 CAPTION, to reflect Christopher Earl Strunk as Appellant, AMENDED.[77000] [10-822]

07/27/2010 45 ORDER, vacating dismissal order dated 06/09/2010, FILED.[77358] [10-822]

07/29/2010 50 NEW CASE MANAGER, Ahronda Crossman, ASSIGNED.[78534] [10-822]

07/29/2010 51 INSTRUCTIONAL FORMS, to Pro Se litigant, SENT.[78537] [10-822]

08/23/2010 52 UNDELIVERABLE MAIL, to USCA from USPS, RECEIVED.[93032] [10-822]

10/18/2010 55 SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellant John-Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk: Brief due on 11/29/2010, and Brief due on 11/17/2010, FILED.[125980] [10-822]

Case Query10-822 Forjone v. The State of California

Associated Case Short Title Type Start End Status

OriginatingCase

LeadCase Filed Execution

Date Judgment NOA OriginatingJudge

Court Reporter

06-cv-1002 08/17/2006 02/19/2010 03/08/2010 Kahn,Lawrence E.

Party Party Type Terminated from Case Attorney

Forjone, John-Joseph Plaintiff-Appellant

Mack, Wayne Plaintiff-

DelPlato, Dan Jr. Plaintiff-

Razzano, Gabriel Plaintiff-

Person, Edward M. Jr. Plaintiff-

Strunk, Christopher Earl Plaintiff-Appellant

AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate/Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide

Plaintiff-

The State of California Defendant-Appellee

The State of Oregon Defendant-Appellee

The State of Nevada Defendant-Appellee

The State of Arizona Defendant-Appellee

The State of New Mexico Defendant-Appellee Chavez,Francine A.

The State of Texas Defendant-Appellee

Cochran-McCall,Amanda

The United States Election Assistance Commission by Thomas R. Wilkey

Defendant-Appellee

The United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.

Defendant-Appellee

The Secretary of the State of New York Defendant-Appellee

Dvorin,Jeffrey M. Ayers,Andrew B.

New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012 Defendant-Appellee

Dvorin,Jeffrey M. Ayers,Andrew B.

The New York State Board of Elections Defendant-Appellee

County of Erie Defendant-Appellee Sleight,David J.

County of Monroe Defendant-Appellee

Stark,Corey S. Stark,Howard Alvin

County of Onondaga Defendant-Appellee McCarthy,Michael P.

County of Albany Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Dutchess Defendant-Appellee

County of Orange Defendant-Appellee

County of Rockland Defendant-Appellee

County of Westchester Defendant-Appellee

Gleeson,Martin Gerard

City of New York Defendant-Appellee

Kloss,David W. Ayers,Andrew B.

County of Nassau Defendant-Appellee

County of Suffolk Defendant-Appellee

County of Niagara Defendant-Appellee

County of Orleans Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Genesse Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Wyoming Defendant-Appellee

County of Allegany Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Chautauqua Defendant-Appellee

County of Cattaraugus Defendant-Appellee

County of Cayuga Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Chemung Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Oneida Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Cortland Defendant-Appellee

County of Columbia Defendant-Appellee Sorrels,Stephen M.

County of Tioga Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Tompkins Defendant-Appellee

County of Schuyler Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Steuben Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Broome Defendant-Appellee

Marcus,Aaron J. Gibson,William Lawrence Jr.

County of Livingston Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Ontario Defendant-Appellee

County of Yates Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Seneca Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Wayne Defendant-Appellee

County of Oswego Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Jefferson Defendant-Appellee Paulsen,David John

County of Lewis Defendant-Appellee

Peterman,AlanRobert

County of Madison Defendant-Appellee

Wayland-Smith,Tina M.Colby,Jeremy A

County of Herkimer Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Otsego Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of St. Lawrence Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Franklin Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Clinton Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Essex Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Montgomery Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Warren Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Saratoga Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Washington Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Rensselaer Defendant-Appellee

County of Greene Defendant-Appellee

County of Ulster Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Delaware Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Putnam Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Hamilton Defendant-Appellee

County of Fulton Defendant-Appellee Colby,Jeremy A

County of Schenectady Defendant-Appellee

County of Schoharie Defendant-Appellee

County of Sullivan Defendant-Appellee Cawley,Thomas J

Markowitz, Marty Defendant-Appellee

Kloss,David W. Ng,Fay Sue

Attorney Party Type(s) Represented Representation End

Stark, Corey S. Defendant-Appellee 04/02/2010

Ng, Fay Sue Defendant-Appellee

Gleeson, Martin Gerard Defendant-Appellee

Ayers, Andrew B. Defendant-Appellee

Colby, Jeremy A Defendant-Appellee

Peterman, Alan Robert Defendant-Appellee

Stark, Howard Alvin Defendant-Appellee

Cawley, Thomas J Defendant-Appellee

Dvorin, Jeffrey M. Defendant-Appellee 04/05/2010

Chavez, Francine A. Defendant-Appellee

McCarthy, Michael P. Defendant-Appellee

Kloss, David W. Defendant-Appellee 04/05/2010

Kloss, David W. Defendant-Appellee 04/21/2010

Sorrels, Stephen M. Defendant-Appellee

Marcus, Aaron J. Defendant-Appellee

Paulsen, David John Defendant-Appellee

Wayland-Smith, Tina M. Defendant-Appellee 04/19/2010

Gibson, William Lawrence Jr. Defendant-Appellee

Sleight, David J. Defendant-Appellee

Cochran-McCall, Amanda Defendant-Appellee

Case 1:06-cv-01002-LEK-RFT Document 139 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

DECISION AND ORDERv. 06-CV-080A

UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCECOMMISSION BY THOMAS R. WILKE, et al.,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs John Joseph Forjone, Wayne Mack, Dan Delplato, Jr., Gabriel

Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr., and Christopher Earl Strunk, all appearing pro se,

commenced the instant action on February 6, 2006. The original complaint named

approximately 70 defendants, including the United States Election Assistance

Commission, the United States Department of Justice, the States of New York,

California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the New York State

Secretary of State, the New York State Attorney General, the New York State Board of

Elections, 57 counties in the State of New York and their respective boards of elections,

the City of New York, and the Borough President of Brooklyn.

Although unintelligible, the original complaint appeared to complain about

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

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

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

2

U.S.C. § 15301). The complaint also appeared to allege that New York and its counties

have failed to meet the mandates of HAVA, and have unlawfully apportioned their

congressional, legislative and judicial districts.

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

complaint or, in the alternative, for transfer of venue to the Northern District of New

York, where there is pending a similar action previously filed by some of the same

plaintiffs in this case. See Loeber v. Spargo, 04-CV-1193 (N.D.N.Y.).

The Northern District initially granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the

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

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

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

complaint was filed on November 21, 2005, and to the Court's knowledge, is presently

pending.

On February 27, 2006, almost immediately after commencement of the

instant action, the Loeber plaintiffs moved in the Norther District for a change of venue

to this District. Plaintiffs’ motion was based, at least in part, on their dissatisfaction with

the progress in the Loeber action.

On March 28, 2006, this Court issued a Decision and Order which, inter

alia, ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed or, in the alternative, transferred to the Northern District of New

York. On May 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed their response to the Court's March 28 Order,th


The proposed amended complaint appears to assert the same or similar claims1

as those asserted in the original complaint, and names the same defendants. The amendedcomplaint did, however, drop Wayne Mack as a plaintiff.

3

which included a proposed amended complaint. Thereafter, various defendants1

moved to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, for transfer of venue.

After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court hereby grants

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

DISCUSSION

The Second Circuit has held that where two competing lawsuits have

been filed in different jurisdictions, the first action filed is given priority and the second

action may be suspended or transferred in the interests of judicial economy. First City

Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Simmons, 878 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1989). The Supreme Court

has articulated the test to be "wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation

of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation . . . ." Kerotest Mfg. Co.

v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952).

Although the original complaint and the amended complaint in the instant

action, and the complaint in the Loeber action, are all difficult if not impossible to

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

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

in the Loeber action, like the claims in this action, involve voting in New York and

HAVA. In fact, the twelve claims of injury contained in the complaint in this case are

identical to the twelve claims of injury in the Loeber amended complaint. Further,


4

although denominated differently in some instances, the defendants in the two actions

are virtually identical. The plaintiffs, at least impliedly, recognized the substantial

similarity between the two actions when they moved to transfer the Loeber case to this

District.

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

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

given priority. The Loeber case has been pending significantly longer and has already

been appealed to and remanded by the Second Circuit. The transfer of the instant

case to the Northern District will conserve judicial resources and reduce, if not

eliminate, the risk of inconsistent results. In addition, in their motion to transfer the

Loeber case to this District, the Loeber plaintiffs indicated that the instant action was

filed because they were dissatisfied with the progress of the Loeber case. Such an

attempt to forum shop cannot be countenanced. Plaintiffs chose the Northern District

as the venue in which to file their lawsuit. They cannot now seek a new venue simply

because they are unhappy with their first choice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court grants defendants’ motion to transfer

the instant action to the Northern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is hereby

ordered to take all steps necessary to transfer the case to the Northern District.


5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard J. ArcaraHONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATED: August 14 , 2006



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_________________________________________

JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 1:06-CV-1002 (LEK/RFT)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________

LAWRENCE E. KAHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DECISION and ORDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I BACKGROUND

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

Complaint:


can onlybe described as, inter alia, disjointed, unintelligible, convoluted, confusing and prolix.

It is presented in such a manner that the Court, and the defendants . . . simply cannot determine

what the plaintiffs are alleging. . . . The Complaint names approximately 70 defendants,

including what appears to be most of the counties in New York State and the States of New

York, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, . . . and Oregon, and, at its heart

appears to complain about the manner in which New York and other States are implementing

[HAVA] . . . . The complaint also appears to raise concerns about how New York and its

counties have failed to meet the mandates of HAVA and how the State has drawn its

congressional, legislative and judicial districts. . . . [B]ecause of the manner in which the

complaint is pled the Court can make little sense, if any, of what the defendants are alleged to

have done or what they have failed to do in relation to HAVA or how those actions or failures

to act are actionable.

Dkt. No. 24 at 1-2.

Plaintiffs were ordered to “show cause, in writing, no later than May 1, 2006, why this

action should not be dismissed or transferred . . . and why sanctions should not be imposed against

them. . . .” Id. at 7. The Order also directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that “simply and

concisely informs the Court and the defendants in plain terms what they are alleging the defendants did

or did not do . . . and how those actions or inactions are a violation of HAVA or some other federal or

state statute, law or constitutional provision.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs were warned that “failure to file an

amended complaint that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10 and sets forth in a comprehensible

manner claims upon which relief can be granted, will lead to the dismissal of this action.” Plaintiffs

also were instructed that, because they are proceeding pro se, they must delete references to any

associations or organizations on whose behalf they claimed to be suing. The Western District’s Order

further noted that:

at least five of the plaintiffs in this matter had filed in 2004 a very similar action in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of New York . . . Loeber v. Spargo, 04-cv-1193.

. . . [A] number of the plaintiffs filed declarations or affidavits which clearly intimate that the

two actions are similar and that a reason for filing the instant action and to seek a change of

- 2 -


venue for Loeber to this Court is because they are not pleased with the manner in which the

Loeber case is proceeding.1

Because the Loeber case was similar to, and filed prior to this case, the Western District transferred the

case to this Court. See Dkt. No. 100.

On August 17, 2006, Plaintiffs responded to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 26.

Attached thereto as Exhibit B was a proposed Amended Complaint. The proposed Amended

Complaint is 57 pages long (nearly twice as long as the original complaint) and continues to be

“disjointed, unintelligible, convoluted, confusing and prolix.” Plaintiffs did not file the proposed

Amended Complaint. It similarly appears that Plaintiffs did not serve the Amended Complaint on

Defendants. See, e.g., Mem. by N.Y. State Att’y General and NY State Sec’y of State in Supp. of Mot.

to Dismiss (Dkt. No 29) at 3.

The First Cause of Action of the proposed Amended Complaint alleges a failure to enforce the

National Voter Registration Act. In sum, this claim alleges that various states have failed to prevent

non-citizens from voting in elections. Plaintiffs contend that, by allowing non-citizens to vote, their

votes have been effectively diluted. The Second Cause of Action claims that the Election Assistance

Commission (“EAC”) and the Department of Justice have improperly certified false state HAVA

submissions. The Third Cause of Action contends that the EAC has intentionally promoted, facilitated,

aided and abetted illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona and certain other States.

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

maliciously failed to maintain a statewide central database that would enable municipalities to verify

inactive voters. According to Plaintiffs, this causes various municipalities to receive a disproportionate

By Orders dated January 8, 2008 and July 31, 2008, this Court dismissed the claims in the1

Loeber case. The matter is currently on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

- 3 -


share of election-related funding and allows people to register in more than one location. In the Fifth

Cause of Action, Plaintiffs allege that the “Defendant New York State Municipal subdivisions . . .

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

municipal bases as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and New York State Election Law.”

Plaintiffs allege that, if other states properly claimed HAVA funds, more funds would be available to

the State of New York and, as a result, New York municipalities would not have to increase property

taxes to cover election-related expenses. The Sixth Cause of Action alleges that the States of

California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states “intentionally fail to

maintain an accurate voter registration database” as required by federal and state law.

Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, “voting is being rapidly undermined by

illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens,” the strength of their votes is being diluted, their right to

free speech and freedom of association is being infringed, their “suffrage rights” are being

“disenfranchise[d] . . . by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs [sic] proprietary

tangible suffrage property,” they are suffering “reverse discrimination,” they are being deprived of a

republican form of government, they are being denied substantive due process and are being subjected

to a taking of property for the “unfunded mandate as done under the Medicaid tax levy without notice

and segregation of the election costs on real property tax levy,” and they are being deprived of

“Homerule autonomy” and equal protection of the law against false HAVA claims.

Presently before the Court are various Motions to dismiss the Complaint and Amended Complaint.

Although Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an enlarged, consolidated brief in opposition to the

motions, they have failed to do so.

- 4 -


II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)). When considering a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must accept the factual allegations made by the non-moving

party as true and “draw all inferences in the light most favorable” to the non-moving party. In re

NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, 503 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2007). “The movant's burden is very

substantial, as ‘[t]he issue is not whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail ultimately, but whether the

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.’” Log On America, Inc. v. Promethean

Asset Mgmt. L.L.C., 223 F. Supp. 2d 435, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of

Educ., 69 F.3d 669, 673 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citations omitted)). With this standard

in mind, the Court will address the pending Motions to dismiss.

III. DISCUSSION

a. Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order

By Order dated March 28, 2006, the Western District of New York directed Plaintiffs to file

an amended complaint complying with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 on or before May 1,

2006. See Dkt. No. 24. The March 28 Order specifically warned that “in the event plaintiffs fail to file

an amended complaint as directed above by May 1, 2006, the complaint shall be dismissed with

prejudice without further order of the Court.” Id. To date, despite having ample time to do so,

Plaintiffs have neither filed the requisite amended complaint nor served it on Defendants. Plaintiffs

were warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. Because Plaintiffs have

- 5 -


failed to comply with the Court’s prior order by filing an amended complaint this action must be

DISMISSED.

b. Failure to Comply with Rules 8 and 10

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to contain a “short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” As noted, Plaintiff’s

were directed by the Court to submit an amended pleading that complies with the requirements of

Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiffs were specifically advised of the deficiencies in their Complaint, instructed

how to remedy the deficiencies, and given the opportunity to remedy the defects. Plaintiffs also were

warned of the consequences of failing to file a proper complaint. Notwithstanding the numerous

motions attacking the original Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint as failing to comply with

Rule 8 and the Court’s prior admonition, to date (several years later), Plaintiffs have made no effort to

submit a coherent, streamlined complaint. Rather than adhering to the Court’s warning and the dictates

of Rule 8(a)(2), Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Amended Complaint that is even longer and more

convoluted than the original filing. It continues to contain an abundance of irrelevant and otherwise

immaterial matters and unnecessary detail, including lengthy excerpts from articles and references to

irrelevant treaties. In most instances the proposed Amended Complaint fails to allege how the named

Defendants harmed them. Further, the length and prolixity of the proposed Amended Complaint places

an unnecessary and unjustified burden on the Court and the numerous Defendants who have to respond

to it. See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). For these reasons, all Motions to

dismiss are GRANTED and this matter DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

c. Standing

- 6 -


Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint on the

ground that Plaintiffs lack standing. Article III, § 2, cl. 1 of the Constitution extends the judicial2

power only to actual “cases” or “controversies.” The doctrine of standing preforms a critical role in

assuring the limits to judicial power imposed by this case-or-controversy requirement. See Allen v.

Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). “‘In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is

entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.’” Id. at 750-51

(quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).

Three elements form the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). These are:

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”- an invasion of a legally protected interest

which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or

‘hypothetical.’” Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct

complained of - the injury has to be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant,

and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third,

it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a

favorable decision.”

Id. at 560-61 (internal citations omitted). In applying these conditions, the Supreme Court has noted

that where a plaintiff is challenging government action or inaction, and “the plaintiff is not himself the

object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily

‘substantially more difficult’ to establish.” Id. at 562 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 758).

The allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint consistently fail to allege any

concrete harm personally suffered by Plaintiffs or explain how such harm could be traceable to the

Defendants. Throughout their twelve causes of action, Plaintiffs allege non-particularized injuries and

The remaining discussion assumes, arguendo, that the Complaint and/or proposed2

Amended Complaint comply with the Court’s prior Order and Rules 8 and 10.

- 7 -


generalized grievances, and, furthermore, leave unclear how any of the alleged harms could be

redressed by a favorable result in the courts. Where, as in the Ninth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs appear

to specify a concrete injury, the taking of their property through real property taxes collected to cover

the costs of HAVA, their claim still fails. Plaintiffs do not allege that property taxes have increased

because of the need to cover a shortfall in HAVA funding, that there is a shortfall in HAVA funding, or

that there could be any such a shortfall because, as explained in Loeber, HAVA requires states to adopt

certain voting requirements regardless of any federal funding. 2008 WL 111172, at *4.

In short, Plaintiffs lack standing because they fail to allege any concrete injury. Moreover,

for the reasons stated by this Court in Loeber, Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the

requirements of the NVRA or Titles I or II of the HAVA. 2008 WL 111172, at *4-5; see also Kalsson

v. U.S. Federal Election Com’n, 356 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (plaintiff did not have standing

despite his allegation that his vote was diluted because the NVRA results in more people registering to

vote than otherwise would be the case), aff’d, 159 Fed. Appx. 326 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Amalfitano

v. United States, 2001 WL 103437 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2001), aff’d, 21 Fed. Appx. 67 (2d Cir. 2001). In

any event, the NVRA imposes obligations upon states; not counties. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a). For the

foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs lack standing, thereby providing another basis for dismissal.

d. Failure to State a Claim

1. New York Attorney General and New York Secretary of State

The New York Attorney General and Secretary of State move to dismiss the Amended

Complaint against them on the ground that it fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them. The

Amended Complaint makes little reference to these Defendants and does not allege any acts

attributable to these Defendants or any other personal involvement by them. The Amended Complaint

- 8 -


also fails to articulate how these Defendants’ actions have harmed Plaintiffs or how any claimed injury

could be redressed by a favorable judgment. Accordingly, this provides another basis for dismissing

the Complaint as to the New York State Attorney General and Secretary of State.

2. Counties of Lewis, Erie, Genessee, Allegany, Cayuga, Chemung,

Clinton, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston,

Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Putnam, Saratoga, Seneca,

St. Lawrence, Steuben, Tioga, Ulster, Warren, Washington, Yates,

Columbia, Jefferson, Madison, Sullivan, and Onondaga and the City

of New York

Defendants Counties of Lewis, Erie, Genessee, Allegany, Cayuga, Chemung, Clinton,

Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston, Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego,

Putnam, Saratoga, Seneca, St. Lawrence, Steuben, Tioga, Ulster, Warren, Washington, Yates,

Columbia, Jefferson, Madison, Sullivan, and Onondaga and Defendant City of New York also move to

dismiss on the ground that the Amended Complaint fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them.

Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action broadly speaks to the “Defendant New York State Municipal

subdivisions . . . intentional[] fail[ure] to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a

municipal by municipal bases as required under color of NVRA and HAVA.” Out of all the named

Defendant counties, Plaintiffs reside in only two - Erie and Genessee. Inasmuch as none of the

Plaintiffs reside in any of the other Counties, the Amended Complaint fails to explain how any actions

by these other Counties or the City of New York caused harm to them. Moreover, neither the NVRA

nor the HAVA impose any obligations upon counties or the City of New York. See 42 U.S.C. §

1973gg (imposing certain requirements on “each State”). Accordingly, this provides another basis for

dismissal of the Complaint and/or proposed Amended Complaint as to all the County Defendants and

the City of New York.

- 9 -

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

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

Mexico

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

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

proposed Amended Complaint are DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 19, 2010

Albany, New York

- 10 -


1

1:06-cv-00080-RJA 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 suffr et al v. The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, A Richard J. Arcara, presiding Date filed: 02/06/2006 Date terminated: 08/14/2006 Date of last filing: 08/14/2006

CLOSED_2006U.S. DISTRICT COURT

U.S. District Court, Western District of New York (Buffalo) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-00080-RJA

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 suffr et al v. The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, A Assigned to: Hon. Richard J. Arcara Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 02/06/2006 Date Terminated: 08/14/2006 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

PlaintiffJohn Joseph Forjone : The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People's equity in Bottotax levy

represented by John Joseph Forjone : The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People's equity in BottoP.O. Box 285367 Upper Holly Rd.Clarendon, NY 14429 PRO SE

PlaintiffWayne Mack PlaintiffDan Delplato, Jr. PlaintiffGabriel Razzano represented by Gabriel Razzano

135 Gordon PlaceFreeport, NY 11520

2

516-223-6883Email: [email protected] PRO SE

PlaintiffEdward M. Person, Jr. PlaintiffChristopher Earl Strunk PlaintiffThe AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate PlaintiffInterstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide

V.DefendantThe United States Election Assistance Commission by Thomas R. Wilkey Defendantthe United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

represented by Mary Pat Fleming U.S. Attorney's Office Federal Centre 138 Delaware AvenueBuffalo, NY 14202716-843-5867Fax: 716-551-3196Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantThe Secretary of the State of New York

represented by Peter B. Sullivan New York State Attorney General 107 Delaware AvenueFourth Floor

3

Buffalo, NY 14202(716) 853-8473Fax: 716-853-8428Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantNew York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012

represented by Peter B. Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantThe New York State Board of Elections by its coounsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities DefendantThe duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz

represented by David W. Kloss Kloss & Stenger69 Delaware AvenueSuite 1003Buffalo, NY 14202716-847-2923Fax: 716-847-2924Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of AlleganyThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel

represented by Jeremy A. Colby Webster Szanyi, LLP1400 Liberty BuildingBuffalo, NY 14202716-842-2800Fax: 716-845-6709Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

4

County of CayugaThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Jeremy A. Colby (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of ClintonThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of EssexThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of FultonThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of HerkimerThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of LivingstonThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of MontgomeryThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


5

DefendantCounty of OneidaThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of OrleansThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of OswegoThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of PutnamThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of TiogaThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of WarrenThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of ErieThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Joseph F. Reina Erie County Department of Law 95 Franklin Street16th Floor

6

Buffalo, NY 14202716-858-2200Fax: 716-858-2281Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of MonroeThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Michael E. Davis Monroe County Department of Law 39 West Main Street Room 307 Rochester, NY 14614 585-753-1407Fax: 585-324-4238Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY

DefendantCounty of OnondagaThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Kathleen M. Dougherty Onondaga County of Department of LawJohn H. Mulroy Civic Center421 Montgomery Street 10th FloorSyracuse, NY 13202 315-435-2170Fax: 315-435-5729Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of AlbanyThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of DutchessThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of Defendant

7

County of OrangeThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of RocklandThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Thomas Simeti County of Rockland Department of Law 11 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956(845) 638-5468Fax: (845) 638-5676Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of WestchesterThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Carol Fumanti Arcuri Office of the Westchester County Attorney148 Martine Avenue6th Floor - Room 600 White Plains, NY 10601914-995-2696Fax: 914-995-3132Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantThe City of New YorkThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by David W. Kloss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of NassauThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of SuffolkThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

8

DefendantCounty of NiagaraThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of GeneseeThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of WyomingThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of ChautauquaThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of CattaraugusThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of ChemungThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of CortlandThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of Chenango

9

The New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of ColumbiaThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Stephen M. Sorrels Feldman, Kiefer & Herman, LLP 110 Pearl StreetSuite 400Buffalo, NY 14202716-852-5875, x226Fax: 716-852-4253Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of TompkinsThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of SchuylerThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of SteubenThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of BroomeThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Aaron J. Marcus Broome County Attorney's Office 44 Hawley StreetP.O. Box 1766Binghamton, NY 13902 607-778-2117Fax: 607-778-6122Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

10

DefendantCounty of OntarioThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Michael G. Reinhardt Ontario County Attorney's Office 27 North Main Street4th FloorCanandaigua, NY 14424-1447585-396-4410Fax: 585-396-4481Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of YatesThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of SenecaThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of WayneThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of JeffersonThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by John V. Hartzell Jefferson County Attorney's Office 175 Arsenal StreetWatertown, NY 13601 315-785-3088Fax: 315-785-5178Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

11

County of LewisThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Alan R. Peterman Hiscock & Barclay, LLP One Park Place300 South State Street P.O. Box 4878Syracuse, NY 13221-4878 315-425-2775Fax: 315-425-8575Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of MadisonThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Tina M. Wayland-Smith Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC 60 East State StreetSherrill, NY 13461315-363-0585Fax: 316-363-1952Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of OtsegoThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of St. LawrenceThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of FranklinThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of SaratogaThe New York state municipalities by

represented by Jeremy A. Colby (See above for address)

12

each corporation counsel of LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantCounty of WashingtonThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of RensselaerThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of GreeneThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of UlsterThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of DelawareThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of


DefendantCounty of HamiltonThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounty of SchenectadyThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

13

DefendantCounty of SchoharieThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of DefendantCounrty of SullivanThe New York state municipalities by each corporation counsel of

represented by Thomas J. Cawley Sullivan County Department of Law County Government Center 100 North StreetP.O. Box 5012Monticello, NY 12701 845-794-3000 ext. 3565Fax: 845-794-4924LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantState of Californiaeach by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively DefendantState of Oregoneach by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively DefendantState of Nevadaeach by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively DefendantState of Arizonaeach by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively

represented by Diana L. Varela Office of the Attorney General State of Arizona1275 West Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926602-542-7993Fax: 602-542-8308Email: [email protected]

14

LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantState of New Mexicoeach by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively

represented by Francine A. Chavez NM Attorney General's OfficeP.O. Drawer 1508Santa Fe, NM 87504(505) 827-6920LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantState of Texaseach by the Secretary of State and Attorney General respectively

represented by Wylie E. Kumler Office of the Attorney General of Texas 300 W. 15th Street Suite 1100Austin, TX 78701516-463-2120Fax: 512-320-0667Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

02/06/2006 1 COMPLAINT against The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, The United States Election Assistance Commission by Thomas R. Wilkey, the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, The Secretary of the State of New York, The New York State Board of Elections by its coounsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities, The New York State municipalities by each corporation counsel of: Erie, Monroe, Onondaga, Albany, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, Westchester, The City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Niagara, Orleans, Gene, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 19792), filed by 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 suffr, Wayne Mack, Dan Delplato, Jr, Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr, Christopher Earl Strunk, The AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate, Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide.(DLC) (Entered: 02/07/2006)

02/14/2006 Summons Issued as to The States of: California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New

15

Mexico, Texas, The United States Election Assistance Commission by Thomas R. Wilkey, the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, The Secretary of the State of New York, The New York State Board of Elections by its coounsel and every Municipal Board of Elections within 58 Municipalities, The New York State municipalities by each corporation counsel of: Erie, Monroe, Onondaga, Albany, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, Westchester, The City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Niagara, Orleans, Gene, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (DLC) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

02/21/2006 2 LETTER to serve the summons and complaint by fax by Christopher Earl Strunk. Title of document changed from a Motion to a Letter pursuant to Pro Se Dept (S). Modified on 2/28/2006 (DLC). (Entered: 02/23/2006)

02/27/2006 3 Letter from Christopher Earl strunk, dated 2/17/06, to Chief Judge reference serving of summons and complaints. (DLC) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

03/13/2006 4 MOTION to Dismiss or change venue or order more definite statement by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012.(Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/13/2006 5 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 4 MOTION to Dismiss or change venue or order more definite statement byThe Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/13/2006 6 DECLARATION signed by Peter B. Sullivan re 4 MOTION to Dismiss orchange venue or order more definite statement filed by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/13/2006 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012 re 6 Declaration, 5 Memorandum in Support, 4 MOTION to Dismiss or change venue or order more definite statement (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/13/2006 8 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint,,,, Emergency Stay Motion by County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren.(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/13/2006 9 DECLARATION signed by Jeremy A. Colby re 8 MOTION to Stay re 1Complaint,,,, Emergency Stay Motion filed by County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A - C# 2 Exhibit Exhibits D - G# 3 Exhibit Exhibit H)(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/13/2006 10 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 8 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint,,,,

16

Emergency Stay Motion Memorandum of Law in Support of County Defendants' Emergency Stay Motion byCounty of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren. (Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/17/2006 11 MOTION for Leave for Assistant Attorney General Francine A. Chavez, attorney for State of New Mexico to Appear Admission Pro Hac Vice by The States of: New Mexico.(DLC) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/17/2006 12 MOTION to Dismiss by The States of: New Mexico.(DLC) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/17/2006 13 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 12 MOTION to Dismiss by The States of: New Mexico. (DLC) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/17/2006 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The States of: New Mexico re 13Memorandum in Support, 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Admission Pro Hac Vice, 12 MOTION to Dismiss. (DLC) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/20/2006 15 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Attorney Declaration# 2 Certificate of Service plaintiffs by mail# 3 Certificate of Service co-defendants by ECF)(Davis, Michael) (Entered: 03/20/2006)

03/21/2006 16 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Change Venue, MOTION for More Definite Statement by County of Ontario.(Reinhardt, Michael) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/21/2006 17 Verified ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by County of Clinton.(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/22/2006 18 MOTION to Change Venue, MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION for More Definite Statement by County of Erie.(Reina, Joseph) (Entered: 03/22/2006)

03/24/2006 19 NOTICE of Appearance by David W. Kloss on behalf of The City of New York (Kloss, David) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

03/24/2006 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The City of New York re 19 Notice of Appearance (Kloss, David) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

03/24/2006 21 NOTICE of Appearance by David W. Kloss on behalf of The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kloss, David) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

03/27/2006 22 Letter from Andrew G. Tarantion, Jr., Assistant County Attorney for Suffolk County, dated 3/20/06, to Clerk of Court rejecting attempted service. (DLC) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/28/2006 23 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Jefferson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support JVHmemorandum# 2 Certificate of Service # 3 Supplement Local Rule 83.2 Motion# 4 Certificate of Service)(Hartzell, John) (Entered: 03/28/2006)

17

03/29/2006 24 ORDER, that plaintiffs' must file an amended complaint. Join Parties/Amend Pleadings due by 5/1/2006. Further, that plaintiffs must show cause, in writing why this action should not be dismissed or transferred to the Northern District of NY, and why sanctions shoould not be imposed against them. Show Cause Response due by 5/1/2006. FURTHER, that any and all further proceedings in this action, including, but not limited to, the pending motions filed by certain defendants, any further responses to the complaint by defendants, and service of the summons and complaint on any defendants who have not been served to date, are STAYED pending further order or directions from the Court.Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 3/28/06. (DLC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

04/03/2006 25 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pto Hac Vice by State of Texas for Wylie E. Kumler.(DLC) (Entered: 04/03/2006)

05/02/2006 26 RESPONSE to 24 Order to Show Cause filed by John Joseph Forjone : The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People's equity in Botto, Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5(DLC) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

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

05/08/2006 28 MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012.(Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2006)

05/08/2006 29 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 28 MOTION to Dismiss amendedcomplaint with certificate of service byThe Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2006)

05/11/2006 30 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan R. Peterman on behalf of County of Lewis (Peterman, Alan) (Entered: 05/11/2006)

05/11/2006 31 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by County of Lewis. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Alan R. Peterman, Esq.# 2 Memorandum in Support of Lewis County's Motion to Dismiss# 3 Certificate of Service)(Peterman, Alan) (Entered: 05/11/2006)

05/11/2006 32 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen M. Dougherty on behalf of County of Onondaga (Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/11/2006)

05/11/2006 33 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Onondaga. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration in support of motion# 2 Certificate of Service# 3 Appendix Letter of 3-33-06# 4 Appendix Letter of 5-11-06)(Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/11/2006)

05/12/2006 34 NOTICE of Appearance by Tina M. Wayland-Smith on behalf of County of Madison (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wayland-Smith, Tina)

18

(Entered: 05/12/2006)

05/12/2006 35 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Madison. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2Certificate of Service)(Wayland-Smith, Tina) (Entered: 05/12/2006)

05/16/2006 36 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Erie. (Attachments: # 1)(Reina, Joseph) (Entered: 05/16/2006)

05/16/2006 E-Filing Notification: Document 36 was filed as a MOTION to Dismiss. This document is titled as a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause. The document also is not signed. This document must be re-filed as a Reply Response and must be signed. (DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/17/2006 37 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 26 Reply/Response, filed by County of Erie. (Reina, Joseph) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/17/2006 38 RESPONSE DECLARATION to 28 MOTION to Dismiss amended complaintfiled by John Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: #1 (Exhibits 1-7) #2 (Exhibits 8-10) #3 (Exhibits 11-12) #4 (Exhibits 13-15).(DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/17/2006 39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Joseph Forjone and Chrisopher Earl Strunk re 38 Response to Motion. (DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/17/2006 40 NOTICE of Appearance by Tina M. Wayland-Smith on behalf of County of Madison. (DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/17/2006 41 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Judgment dismissing the Amended Complaint by County of Madison.(DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/17/2006 42 AFFIDAVIT of Tina M. Wayland-Smith in support of 41 MOTION to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by County of Madison. (DLC) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/19/2006 43 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 26 Reply/Response, filed by County of Onondaga. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

05/24/2006 44 MOTION to Dismiss with Memorandum of Law by County of Jefferson. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hartzell, John) (Entered: 05/24/2006)

05/24/2006 45 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by State of Texas.(DLC) (Entered: 05/24/2006)

05/24/2006 46 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT re 45 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by State of Texas. (DLC) (Entered: 05/24/2006)

05/24/2006 47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Texas re 46 Memorandum in Support, 45 MOTION to Dismiss. (DLC) (Entered: 05/24/2006)

05/24/2006 E-Filing Notification: 44 MOTION to Dismiss with Affidavit and Memorandum of Law was filed without proof of service. Proof of service to be provided. (DLC) (Entered: 05/25/2006)

19

05/26/2006 48 Certificate of Service re Motion by County of Jefferson.(Hartzell, John) Modified on 5/30/2006 (DLC). (Entered: 05/26/2006)

05/26/2006 49 First MOTION waiver of retention of local counsel pursuant to local rule 83.2 by County of Broome. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Aaron J. Marcus# 2Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 05/26/2006)

05/26/2006 50 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron J. Marcus on behalf of County of Broome (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 05/26/2006)

05/26/2006 51 DECLARATION signed by Aaron J. Marcus filed by County of Broome, County of Broome Declaration as reply of County of Broome to Plaintiff's response filed by County of Broome, County of Broome. (Attachments: # 1Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 05/26/2006)

05/30/2006 E-Filing Notification: Document 48 filed as a Motion to Dismiss is really a Certificate of Service. Title of document changed to Certificate of Service and motion terminated. (DLC) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 E-Filing Notification: 50 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron J. Marcus on behalf of County of Broome Is not signed. Document must be re-filed with signature.(DLC) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 52 TEXT ORDER granting 49 defts. Motion to waive the retention of local counsel requirement of Local Rule 83.2 . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 5/30/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 53 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen M. Sorrels on behalf of County of Columbia (Sorrels, Stephen) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 54 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Columbia. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss# 2 Certificate of Service)(Sorrels, Stephen) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 55 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 26 Response to the Order to Show Cause, filed by State of New Mexico. (DLC) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 56 NOTICE of Appearance by Carol Fumanti Arcuri on behalf of County of Westchester (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 57 MOTION waiver of Local Rule 83.2 requiring retention of local counsel by County of Westchester.(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 58 DECLARATION signed by Carol F. Arcuri re 57 MOTION waiver of Local Rule 83.2 requiring retention of local counsel filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Certificate of Service)(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by County of Westchester re 57 MOTION waiver of Local Rule 83.2 requiring retention of local counsel (Arcuri, Carol)

20

(Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 60 DECLARATION signed by Carol F. Arcuri re 26 Reply/Response, filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester in reply to plaintiffs' responsefiled by County of Westchester, County of Westchester. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit A-Acknowledgement# 2 Exhibit B-plaintiffs' May 6 fax transmission# 3Certificate of Service)(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 61 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 26 Reply/Response, memorandum in support of Westchester County's reply declaration filed by County of Westchester. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/31/2006 62 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron J. Marcus on behalf of County of Broome (Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 05/31/2006)

05/31/2006 63 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Dismiss by The City of New York, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kloss, David) Modified on 6/1/2006 (DLC). (Entered: 05/31/2006)

05/31/2006 64 MOTION to Dismiss by The City of New York, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service noitce to dismiss)(Kloss, David) (Entered: 05/31/2006)

05/31/2006 65 Certificate of Service by The City of New York, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service CORRECTED)(Kloss, David) Modified on 6/1/2006 (DLC, ). (Entered: 05/31/2006)

05/31/2006 E-Filing Notification: Both of these documents were filed as motions 65MOTION to Amend/Correct Certificate of Service, and 63 MOTION to Dismiss. The 63 document is an Affidavit in support of 64 Motion and the 65document is a corrected Certificate of Service. Both documents have been re-titled as to what they are and attorney is instructed to docket documents in future as to the title on the document. (DLC) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

06/01/2006 66 MOTION to Dismiss by the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.(Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

06/01/2006 67 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 26 Reply/Response, to Plaintiffs' Response to this Court's Order to Show Cause by County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren. (Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

06/01/2006 68 MEMORANDUM in Support re 66 MOTION to Dismiss filed by the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.

21

(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

06/01/2006 69 DECLARATION re 66 MOTION to Dismiss, 68 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. (Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

06/01/2006 70 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy A. Colby on behalf of County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren (Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

06/01/2006 71 MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice, MOTION to proceed without local counsel by County of Rockland.(SG) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/2/2006 Attorney's Oath (SG, ). Modified on 6/2/2006 (SG, ). (Entered: 06/02/2006)

06/02/2006 E-Filing Notification: Attorney's Oath added to Motion 71 MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice (SG) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

06/06/2006 72 TEXT ORDER granting 71 Motion for Leave to Appear without local counsel . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/6/2006. (Baker, J.) Modified on 6/7/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 06/06/2006)

06/07/2006 E-Filing Notification: 72 TEXT ORDER granting 71 Motion for Leave to Appear without local counsel. Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/6/2006. (Baker, J.) Modified on 6/7/2006 (Baker, J.). (Baker, J.) (Entered: 06/07/2006)

06/09/2006 73 Plaintiffs Request for a Stay of Response to Motion of Several State Defendants and for Consolidated Response to Motions of Municipal Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (JDK, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/12/2006 74 TEXT ORDER granting 25 Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/12/2006. (Baker, J.) Modified on 6/12/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/12/2006 75 TEXT ORDER Defts to file response to plaintiffs' motion, item number 73, on or before 7/5/2006. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 6/12/2006. (Baker, J.) Modified on 6/12/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/13/2006 78 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by Counrty of Sullivan.(DLC) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

06/13/2006 79 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice and Request for Waiver of Fee by Counrty of Sullivan.(DLC) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

06/14/2006 76 TEXT ORDER granting 57 Motion . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/14/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

22

06/14/2006 77 DECLARATION signed by Peter B. Sullivan re 73 Remark filed by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012, The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012 filed by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012, The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/16/2006 80 DECLARATION signed by Jeremy A. Colby re 8 MOTION to Stay re 1Complaint,,,, Emergency Stay Motion filed by County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren in Further Support of County Defendants' Request to Enjoin Plaintiffs as Vexatious Litigators. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/16/2006)

06/22/2006 81 DECLARATION signed by Aaron J. Marcus filed by County of Broome, County of Broome Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Stay (No. 73) filed by County of Broome, County of Broome. (Attachments: # 1Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

06/23/2006 82 AFFIDAVIT re 75 Order, Set Deadlines Affidavit of Alan R. Peterman, Esq. in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Special Master by County of Lewis. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Peterman, Alan) (Entered: 06/23/2006)

06/29/2006 83 MOTION for Diana L. Varela Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State of Arizona.(DLC) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

06/29/2006 84 AFFIDAVIT re 75 Order, Set Deadlines Affidavit of Thomas Simeti, Esq. in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Special Master and Extension of Time by County of Rockland, County of Rockland filed by County of Rockland, County of Rockland. (Simeti, Thomas) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

06/29/2006 85 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by County of Rockland re 84 Affidavit, (Simeti, Thomas) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

06/30/2006 86 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 73 Remark to Plaintiffs' Letter Dated May 31, 2006 by County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren. (Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

23

07/04/2006 87 TEXT ORDER granting 83 deft. State of Arizona's Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 6/30/2006. (Baker, J.) Modified on 7/4/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 07/04/2006)

07/05/2006 88 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Remark filed by County of Onondaga. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

07/05/2006 89 DECLARATION signed by Carol F. Arcuri re 73 Remark filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester with attached Certificate of Service filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester. (Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

07/05/2006 90 DECLARATION filed by County of Columbia, County of Columbia inResponse to Plaintiffs' Application filed by County of Columbia, County of Columbia. (Sorrels, Stephen) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

07/05/2006 91 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Sepcial Master and for Consolidation of Plaintiffs' Response filed by State of Arizona. (DLC) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

07/05/2006 92 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 73 Request for Appointment of a Special Master and request for a Stay to Respond to each State and County through a consolidated response pending determination of the parties filed by State of New Mexico. (DLC) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

07/05/2006 93 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 75 Order, Set Deadlines RESPONSE BY FEDERAL DEFENDANTS filed by the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1)(Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

07/05/2006 94 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Remark, 75 Order, Set Deadlines Motion to Appoint Special Master filed by The City of New York, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kloss, David) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

07/06/2006 95 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 75 Order, Set Deadlines Motion to Appoint Special Master filed by State of Texas. (Kumler, Wylie) (Entered: 07/06/2006)

07/06/2006 96 DECLARATION re 73 Remark filed by County of Madison, County of Madison Affidavit in Opposition filed by County of Madison, County of Madison. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wayland-Smith, Tina) (Entered: 07/06/2006)

07/17/2006 Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Diana Varela: $75.00, receipt number 21785. (DLC) (Entered: 07/18/2006)

07/18/2006 97 MOTION for Leave to make a consolidated reply of expanded length with exhibits by Christopher Earl Strunk.(DLC) (Entered: 07/18/2006)

07/18/2006 98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Christopher Earl Strunk re 97 MOTION for Leave to make a consolidated reply of expanded length iwth exhibits. (DLC)

24

(Entered: 07/18/2006)

07/31/2006 99 TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 Defendant County of Sullivan's Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice. Deft shall be admitted pro hac vice upon payment of fee. Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 7/31/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 07/31/2006)

08/08/2006 Pro Hac Vice Filing fee paid for Thomas Simeti: $ 75.00, receipt number 22084 (DLC) (Entered: 08/09/2006)

08/11/2006 Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Thomas Crawley: $ 75.00, receipt number 22113. (DLC) (Entered: 08/11/2006)

08/14/2006 100 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Change Venue. Clerk of Court to transfer case to Northern District of New York . Signed by Judge Richard J. Arcara on 8/14/2006. (Baker, J.) (Entered: 08/14/2006)

08/14/2006 Case transferred to District of Northern District of New York; Filed documents on disk, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. (DLC) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

1

1:06-cv-00263-GLS United States of America v. New York State Board of Elections et al Gary L. Sharpe, presiding Date filed: 03/01/2006 Date of last filing: 11/19/2010

ADR, APPEAL

U.S. District Court Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE - Version 4.0.3]

(Albany)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-00263-GLS

United States of America v. New York State Board of Elections et al Assigned to: Judge Gary L. Sharperelated Case: 1:10-cv-00229-GLS-RFT

Case in other court: 2nd Circuit, '07-04211-cv' 2nd Circuit, 06-01735-cv 2CCA, 06-03953-cv 2nd Circuit, 10-02320-cvCause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

Date Filed: 03/01/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: VotingJurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

PlaintiffUnited States of America represented by Barbara D. Cottrell

Office of United States Attorney - Albany 445 Broadway218 James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse Albany, NY 12207-2924518-431-0247Fax: 518-431-0249Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian F. Heffernan U.S. Dept. of Justice - Civil Division Voting Section1800 G. Street NW Room 7260 Washington, DC 20006202-514-4755Fax: 202-307-3961Email: [email protected]

2


Justin S. Weinstein-Tull U.S. Department of Justice 1800 G Street NW Room 7145 Washington, DC 20006202-353-0319Fax: 202-514-5331Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.DefendantNew York State Board of Elections represented by Kimberly A. Galvin

New York State Board of Elections40 Steuben StreetAlbany, NY 12207-1650518-474-6367Fax: 518-486-4546Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY

Paul M. Collins New York State Board of ElectionsOffice of Special Counsel40 Steuben StreetAlbany, NY 12207-1650518-474-6367Fax: 518-486-4546Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison M. Carr New York State Board of ElectionsOffice of Special Counsel40 Steuben StreetAlbany, NY 12207-1650518-474-6367Fax: 518-486-4546Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3

Patricia L. Murray New York State Board of ElectionsOffice of Special Counsel40 Steuben StreetAlbany, NY 12207-1650518-474-6367Fax: 518-486-4546Email: [email protected] TERMINATED: 08/21/2007

Todd D. Valentine New York State Board of ElectionsOffice of Special Counsel40 Steuben StreetAlbany, NY 12207-1650518-474-6236Fax: 518-486-4068Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantTodd D. ValentineCo-Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections, in their official capacities

represented by Kimberly A. Galvin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Paul M. Collins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia L. Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2007

Todd D. Valentine (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantStanley L. Zalenco-Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections, in their official capacities

represented by Kimberly A. Galvin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Paul M. Collins (See above for address)

4




DefendantState of New York represented by Jeffrey M. Dvorin

Office of Attorney General - AlbanyDepartment of Law The CapitolAlbany, NY 12224518-474-4441Fax: 518-473-1572Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce J. Boivin Office of Attorney General - AlbanyState of New YorkThe CapitolAlbany, NY 12224518-473-5093Fax: 518-473-1572Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Feldman New York State Dept. of TransportationOffice of Legal Affairs50 Wolf Road 6th FloorAlbany, NY 12232518-457-2411Fax: 518-457-4021Email: [email protected] TERMINATED: 04/16/2007

Douglas J. Goglia New York State Attorney General -

5

Albany Office The CapitolAlbany, NY 12224518-474-6800Fax: 518-473-1572Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantThe Catskill Center for Independence

represented by Emily Stern Proskauer, Rose Law Firm - New York Office1585 BroadwayNew York, NY 10036212-969-3000Fax: 212-969-2900Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen R. Kaye Proskauer, Rose Law Firm - New York Office1585 BroadwayNew York, NY 10036212-969-3000Fax: 212-969-2900Email: [email protected]

V.Intervenor Defendant Larry RockefellerTERMINATED: 03/23/2006

represented by Eric Hecker Emery, Celli Law Firm 75 Rockefeller Plaza20th FloorNew York, NY 10019212-763-5025Fax: 212-763-5001Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard D. Emery

6

Emery, Celli Law Firm 75 Rockefeller Plaza20th FloorNew York, NY 10019212-763-5000Fax: 212-763-5001Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ilann M. Maazel Emery, Celli Law Firm 75 Rockefeller Plaza20th FloorNew York, NY 10019212-763-5000Fax: 212-763-5001Email: [email protected]

Intervenor Defendant Stephen DeWittTERMINATED: 03/23/2006

represented by Eric Hecker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard D. Emery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ilann M. Maazel (See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant Henry J. NicolsTERMINATED: 03/23/2006



Ilann M. Maazel

7

(See above for address) Intervenor Defendant Lionel LoganTERMINATED: 03/23/2006




Intervenor Defendant Bo LipariTERMINATED: 03/23/2006




Intervenor Defendant New Yorkers for Verified VotingTERMINATED: 03/23/2006




8

Intervenor Defendant The League of Women Voters of New York StateTERMINATED: 03/23/2006




Intervenor Defendant County of SuffolkTERMINATED: 07/19/2007

represented by Christopher A. Jeffreys Suffolk County Attorney's Office 100 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788631-853-4049Fax: 631-853-5833Email: [email protected] ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard G. Kapsalis Suffolk County Attorney's Office 100 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788631-853-4851Fax: 631-853-5306Email: [email protected] ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Nassau County Board of ElectionsNassau County Board of Elections and Nassau County Legislature

represented by John Ciampoli Nassau County Attorney's Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501518-571-3076

9

Fax: 518-571-6604Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter James Clines Nassau County Attorney's Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501516-571-3958Fax: 516-571-6604Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori A. Barrett Nassau County Attorney's Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501516-571-6145Fax: 516-571-4332Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AmicusCitizens Action New York represented by Andrea T. Novick

Finder, Novick Law Firm315 Park Avenue South19th FloorNew York, NY 10010212-989-9100Fax: 212-505-2839Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Geri S. Krauss Krauss PLLC1 North BroadwayWhite Plains, NY 10601914-949-9100Fax: 914-949-9109Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

10

AmicusWhere's The Paper, New York represented by Andrea T. Novick

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AmicusNew York Citizens for Clean Elections

represented by Andrea T. Novick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AmicusNortheast Citizens for Responsible Media, New York


AmicusShandaken Democrat Club, New York


AmicusThe Dutchess Peace Coalition, NY represented by Andrea T. Novick


AmicusConnie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York


AmicusSusan ZimetUlster County Legislator

represented by Andrea T. Novick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

11

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED AmicusGary BischoffUlster County Legislator


AmicusJoel TynerDutchess County Legislator


AmicusMark Crispin MillerProfessor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University


AmicusSteven FreemanPh.D., M.S. University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School


AmicusHarvery WassermanFree Press Senior Editor


AmicusRobert J. FitrakisPh.D.,J.D. Executive Director Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism


Amicus

12

Abbe Waldman DeLozierco-author and co-editor


AmicusPokey Andersonjournalist, broadcaster


AmicusElection Defense Alliance represented by Andrea T. Novick


AmicusNew Hampshire Fair Elections Committee


AmicusAUDITAZ(Americans United for Democracy Integrity and Transparency in Elections, Arizona)


AmicusVoter Confidence Committee, California


AmicusProtect California Ballots represented by Andrea T. Novick


13

AmicusVideo the Vote, Florida represented by Andrea T. Novick


AmicusCoalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania


AmicusJ30 CoalitionOhio election integrity coalition


AmicusNew Yorkers for Verified Voting represented by Geri S. Krauss


AmicusLeague of Women Voters of New York State, Inc.

represented by Geri S. Krauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AmicusCitizen Action of New York represented by Geri S. Krauss


AmicusNew York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.

represented by Geri S. Krauss (See above for address)

14


AmicusElection Commissioners Association of New York

represented by Jeffrey D. Wait Saratoga Springs City Court474 BroadwaySaratoga Springs, NY 12866-3184518-581-1797Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AmicusThe New York State Independent Living Council

represented by Dennis R. Boyd New York Lawyers for the Public Interest 151 West 30th Street 11th FloorNew York, NY 10001212-336-9307Fax: 212-336-9307Email: [email protected] TERMINATED: 02/04/2009LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Gresham New York Lawyers For The Public Interest151 West 30th Street 11th FloorNew York, NY 10001-4007212-244-4664Fax: 212-244-4570Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AmicusDisabled in Action of Metropolitan New York

represented by Dennis R. Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2009LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

15

Emily Stern Proskauer, Rose Law Firm - New York Office1585 BroadwayNew York, NY 10036212-969-3000Fax: 212-969-2900Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Gresham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AmicusThe Disabilities Network of NYC represented by Dennis R. Boyd

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2009LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Stern (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


AmicusThe National Multiple Sclerosis Society Upstate New York Chapter



John A. Gresham (See above for address)

16

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED AmicusUnited Spinal Association represented by Dennis R. Boyd

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2009LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED



AmicusAmerican Council of the Blind of New York




AmicusThe New York State Association of Community and Residential Agencies and Self Advocacy Association of New York State


Emily Stern (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

17

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


AmicusAvante International Technology, Inc.

represented by James T. Potter Hinman, Straub Law Firm 121 State StreetAlbany, NY 12207-1693518-436-0751Fax: 518-436-4751Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY

Cross Claimant Nassau County Board of ElectionsTERMINATED: 07/19/2007

represented by John Ciampoli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter James Clines Nassau County Attorney's Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501516-571-3958Fax: 516-571-6604Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Nassau County LegislatureTERMINATED: 07/19/2007

represented by John Ciampoli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter James Clines (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

18

V.Cross Defendant New York State Board of Elections represented by Paul M. Collins




Cross Defendant Todd D. ValentineCo-Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections, in their official capacities

represented by Paul M. Collins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED



Cross Defendant Stanley L. Zalenco-Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections, in their official capacities

represented by Paul M. Collins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED



19

Cross Defendant State of New York represented by Jeffrey M. Dvorin


Bruce Feldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2007

Douglas J. Goglia (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

03/01/2006 1 COMPLAINT against New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen, State of New York filed by United States of America.(ban) (Entered: 03/01/2006)

03/01/2006 Summons Issued as to New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen, State of New York. (ban) (Entered: 03/01/2006)

03/01/2006 2 G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED Initial Conference set for 6/21/2006 11:30 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece. Civil Case Management Plan due by 6/12/2006. (ban) (Entered: 03/01/2006)

03/03/2006 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Larry Rockefeller (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Stephen DeWitt (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Henry J. Nicols (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Lionel Logan (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of Bo Lipari (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of New Yorkers for Verified Voting (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilann M. Maazel on behalf of The League of Women Voters of New York State (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

20

03/03/2006 10 First MOTION to Intervene Motion Hearing set for 4/6/2006 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Response to Motion due by 3/20/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/27/2006. by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene)(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 11 AFFIDAVIT of Richard Emery in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 12 AFFIDAVIT of Robert Marchiony in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 13 AFFIDAVIT of Stephen DeWitt in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 14 AFFIDAVIT of Henry J. Nicols in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 15 AFFIDAVIT of Lionel Logan in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 16 AFFIDAVIT of Larry Rockefeller in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 to Larry Rockefeller Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 2 to Rockefeller Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 3 to Rockefeller Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 4Exhibit(s) Exhibit 4 to Rockefeller Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 5 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 5 to Rockefeller Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene)(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 17 AFFIDAVIT of Bo Lipari in Support of Motion to Intervene by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A (Part I of II) to Bo Lipari Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A (Part

21

II of II) to Bo Lipari Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene# 3Exhibit(s) Exhibit B to Bo Lipari Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene)(Maazel, Ilann) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/06/2006 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law # 2 Attachments# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit(s) Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit(s) Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit(s) Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit(s) Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit(s) Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit(s) Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit(s) Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit(s) Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit(s) Exhibit L# 14 certificate of service)(Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

03/07/2006 19 Exhibit C-1 by United States of America to the 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C-2)(Cottrell, Barbara) Modified on 3/9/2006 (jel, ). (Entered: 03/07/2006)

03/07/2006 20 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd D. Valentine on behalf of New York State Board of Elections (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

03/07/2006 21 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd D. Valentine on behalf of Peter S. Kosinski (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

03/07/2006 22 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd D. Valentine on behalf of Stanley L. Zalen (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

03/07/2006 23 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia L. Murray on behalf of New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen (Murray, Patricia) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

03/07/2006 TEXT ORDER- ORDERED, all parties shall personally appear before this court on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 11:00 A.M., at the United States Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Courtroom 6, Albany, New York for an in-court conference to discuss the procedural framework of this case. The court would appreciate a brief letter filed, by noon on Monday, March 13, 2006, in advance of this conference articulating each party's position. It is further ORDERED that the referral to Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece is hereby RESCINDED, all further proceedings will be conducted by this court, and the Clerk is directed to enter the recision on the docket and notify Judge Treece. The court would like to clarify that this conference is not a hearing on the Preliminary Injunction. In-Court Conference set for 3/14/2006 at 11:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/7/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

03/07/2006 Emailed and Mailed a copy of the March 7, 2006 text order to Bruce Feldman, Esq. (AAG), Jeffrey M. Dvorin, Esq., (AAG) and Todd Valentine, Esq. (Entered: 03/07/2006)

03/09/2006 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter o/b/o AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1

22

Affidavit w/attachments in support)(wjg, ) (Entered: 03/09/2006)

03/13/2006 25 LETTER BRIEF by United States of America. (Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/13/2006 26 LETTER BRIEF in Response to the Court's March 7th Order by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State. (Hecker, Eric) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/13/2006 27 LETTER BRIEF by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/14/2006 28 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas J. Goglia on behalf of State of New York (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service via CM/ECF)(Goglia, Douglas) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/14/2006 29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John Law; In Court Conference held on 3/14/2006; Appearances Made: Barbara D. Cottrell and Brian F. Heffernan, Esqs., for the plaintiff, Todd D. Valentine and Patricia L. Murray, Esqs., for the New York State Board of Election defendants, Jeffrey M. Dvorin and Bruce D. Feldman, Esqs., for the State of New York Defendants; Proposed Intervenors attended; Atty. Cottrell moves for the pro hac vice admission of Brian F. Heffernan. Court GRANTS this motion. Court discusses the appearance of the proposed intervenors; Court discusses the complaint and pending motions to intervene. Court turns to impact of motion for preliminary injunction on the proposed intervenors. Court states need to set up schedule. Atty. Valentine states hearing necessary for State to address position. Trying to resolve issues that the plaintiff has raised in compliance with HAVA. Atty. Feldman hopes to have resolution before the preliminary injunction. Atty. Heffernan states prepared to move forward with hearing. States indisputable that NYS is in non-compliance with HAVA. Meeting scheduled for today. Have come close to resolving issues. Need to address quickly for election less than 6 months away. Whether move forward with a resolution or hearing before the court to remedy the violations. Court discusses return and deadlines on motions to intervene. Court anticipates on doing oral return on return date. Court inquires proposal from the plaintiff. Motions to Intervene are scheduled for an oral return on March 23, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Response papers are due on or before March 20, 2006. Any reply papers from the Intervenors are to be filed by March 22, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. Court turns to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Motion for Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for an oral return on March 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Response papers are due by March 28, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. Atty. Heffernan inquires on the court's availability for a conference. Attorney for proposed intervenors states their position regarding discussions. Court addresses issues and gives presumptions to parties and proposed intervenors. Court gives pro se intervenors until March 15, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. to file any supplemental papers to their motion to intervene. Pro Se

23

Intervenors inquire of service by fax. Court advises them to resolve that issue outside of the bench. Court inquires of any remaining proposed intervenors. Court concludes. (Court Reporter Stephanie Ragone) Time: 11:00-11:32 a.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/14/2006 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 10 First MOTION to Intervene, 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter for AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting submitted to Judge Sharpe. Response to Motion due by 3/20/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/22/2006 by 5:00 p.m.. Motion Hearing set for an oral return on 3/23/2006 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe pursuant to the 29 Minute Entry. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/14/2006 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Response to Motion due by 3/28/2006 by 5:00 p.m. Motion Hearing set for an oral return on 3/30/2006 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/15/2006 30 Letter dated March 13, 2006 from John-Joseph Forjone and Christopher Earl Strunk to the court. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/15/2006)

03/15/2006 31 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of B. Deitz in Support re 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter for AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting submitted to Judge Sharpe, filed by AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting. (Attachments: # 1additional declaration of G. Razzano# 2 additional declaration of C. Strunk# 3 proof of service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/20/2006 32 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter for AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting submitted to Judge Sharpe, 10First MOTION to Intervene of Rockefeller et al. filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brian F. Heffernan# 2 Exhibit(s) Certificate of Service (Brian Heffernan)# 3 Exhibit(s) In Re Auction Houses Case# 4 Exhibit(s) Palmer case# 5 Exhibit(s) Drongosky case# 6 Exhibit(s) Envirco case)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2006)

03/20/2006 33 RESPONSE to Motion re 10 First MOTION to Intervene filed by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 03/20/2006)

03/20/2006 34 RESPONSE to Motion re 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter for AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting submitted to Judge Sharpe, 10First MOTION to Intervene filed by State of New York. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2006)

03/22/2006 35 REPLY to Response to Motion re 10 First MOTION to Intervene filed by Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of

24

New York State. (Hecker, Eric) (Entered: 03/22/2006)

03/22/2006 36 Letter Motion from United States of America for United States of America requesting Entry of Proposed Order submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit(s) Certificate of Service)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 03/22/2006)

03/22/2006 40 REPLY to Response to 24 Motion requesting intervention in this matter for AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, filed by AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting. (Attachments: # 1 additional exhibits# 2 proof of service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

03/23/2006 37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John Law; Motion Hearing held on 3/23/2006 re 24 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen requestion intervention in this matter for AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting submitted to Judge Sharpe filed by AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting and the 10 First MOTION to Intervene filed by Henry J. Nicols,, Larry Rockefeller,, Stephen DeWitt,, Lionel Logan,, Bo Lipari,, New Yorkers for Verified Voting,, The League of Women Voters of New York State; Appearances Made: Brian Heffernan, Esq., for the plaintiff, Todd Valentine, Esq., for the NYSBOE defendants, Bruce Feldman, AAG, for the State of New York, Richard Emery, Esq., for the Proposed Rockefeller Intervenor Defendants, Bill Van Allen, Christopher Strunk and Burr Deitz. Court strikes appearances of Strunk and Deitz for motion to intervene is only on behalf of Van Allen; Court states procedural history of the case; Court states the legal standard to be applied. Court discusses FRCvP 24(a) and (b). Court discusses substance of the complaint with plaintiff. Atty. Heffernan states compliance with HAVA; asking to have plan; currently no remedy; Court discusses example with plaintiff on voting machines; Atty. Heffernan states plaintiff just seeking a plan for compliance with HAVA; discusses HAVA compliance guidelines with the court; Court turns the state defendants and their representations and their positions regarding the proposed intervenors; Atty. Valentine states his position regarding representation regarding the boards; Atty. Feldman states their representation and the state's position regarding the proposed intervenors; Atty. Feldman discusses views under HAVA; Court discusses remedy stage; Court turns to Rockefeller intervenors and their papers; Atty. Emery discusses representation and position; HAVA regulations; 2nd circuit rulings on intervention; remedy. Court inquires on intervention seeking; Atty. Emery states permissive intervention; Atty. Emery discusses right of representing views that are not in this action; Court inquires on approach of issue; Atty. Emery states they were approached; Atty. Emery presents argument to the court; discusses remedy stage; mandatory intervention; discusses positions of plaintiff and defendants; discusses return of money; chaotic elections; defense of impossibility; discusses permissive and mandatory intervention; Court turns to Van Allen's Motion to Intervene; Van Allen discusses issues

25

why before the court; discusses centralized data base; Court advises two case reviewed from CA and FL; Van Allen states gerrymandering of districts; Court turns to plaintiff on arguments; Atty. Heffernan states has no authority to ask for money back just asking for a plan to react to; Atty. Valentine states no intention of chaotic election; Atty. Feldman responds to Atty. Emery's distinction; Court DENIES Van Allen's Motion to Intervene under FRCvP 24(a) and (b); Court DENIES Rockefellers' Motion to Intervene under FRCvP 24(a) and (b). Court discusses as to the Rockefellers that at some point might permit to reconsider court's position and/or file an amicus brief under 2nd circuits authority under FRAP 29. Court states would leave that to Rockefellers to file a reconsideration or to file an amicus brief as to the plan; Court states Van Allen motion denial is a different issue as to the Rockefeller motion denial; Court states transcript is decision of the court; no written order forthcoming. (Court Reporter Theresa Casal) Time: 9:00-10:15 a.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

03/23/2006 Text Only Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John Law; In Chambers Conference held on 3/23/2006; Appearances Made: Brian Heffernan, Esq., for the plaintiff, Todd Valentine, Esq., for the NYSBOE defendants and Bruce Feldman, Esq., for the State of New York; Court discusses proposed order electronically filed with the parties; Parties do not oppose; Court grants the proposed order; Court discusses issues in the case; Atty. Valentine further discusses proposed order on stay of proceedings and inquires if that encompasses the answer deadline; Atty. Heffernan states did not consider at that point; parties advise court will work out that issue among themselves. (Court Reporter None) Time: 10:15-10:35 a.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

03/23/2006 TEXT ONLY ORDER, that Van Allen's 24 Letter Request/Motion to Intervene is DENIED and Rockefellers' 10 Motion to Intervene is DENIED. Orally issued from the bench by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/23/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

03/23/2006 38 ORDER, that the 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, to the extent set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/23/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

03/23/2006 TEXT ONLY NOTICE, the motion hearing scheduled for March 30, 2006 has been adjourned. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

03/24/2006 39 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, Larry Rockefeller, Stephen DeWitt, Henry J. Nicols, Lionel Logan, Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The League of Women Voters of New York State for proceedings held on March 23, 2006 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.. (tjc, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

03/31/2006 41 Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen dd 3/30/06 requesting reconsideration of 3/23/06 Order, filed on behalf of AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, submitted to Judge

26

Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A# 2 Exhibit(s) B# 3 Exhibit(s) C# 4Exhibit(s) D# 5 Exhibit(s) E# 6 Exhibit(s) F# 7 Exhibit(s) G# 8 Exhibit(s) H# 9 Proof of Service)(wjg, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)

04/03/2006 TEXT-ONLY ORDER: H. William Van Allen pro se has filed an application seeking reconsideration of his motion to intervene. The court acknowledges that it has discretion to reconsider its previous decision. However, for the reasons articulated during the hearing, Van Allen's application for reconsideration is DENIED [notification served on filer VanAllen on 4/3/06] (wjg, ). (Entered: 04/03/2006)

04/05/2006 42 RECORD of Proceedings: Oral Argument held on March 23, 2006 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal identifier data from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Redact with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the court will assume redaction of personal data identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available on the web. Notice of Intent to Redact due by 4/12/2006 (tjc, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

04/07/2006 43 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 3/23/06 Oral Order denying Van Allen's Letter Request to Intervene. (amt, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

04/07/2006 44 IFP APPLICATION by William Van Allen re: 43 notice of appeal. (amt, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

04/10/2006 45 LETTER BRIEF Submitting the State Board of Elections HAVA Implementation Plan by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) SBOE HAVA Plan)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

04/11/2006 46 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re: Van Allen's 43Notice of Appeal (amt, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

04/11/2006 47 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on Appeal re: Van Allen's 43 Notice of Appeal (amt, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

04/13/2006 48 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Unredacted): Oral Argument held on March 23, 2006 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. (tjc, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)

04/14/2006 62 ***Stricken pursuant 61 Order*** Letter Motion from H. William Van Allen requesting reconsideration of 3/23/06 Order, filed on behalf of AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting.(jel, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/9/2006 (jel, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)

04/20/2006 49 LETTER BRIEF with an addendum to the HAVA Plan previously submittedby New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix

27

Summary of County Board Responses to the State Board HAVA Plan)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 04/20/2006)

04/20/2006 51 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Paul Dutka, Esq. .(wbl, ) on behalf of proposed Amici Curiae, Citizens Union of the City of New York and Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York. Modified on 4/25/2006 (wbl, ). (Entered: 04/25/2006)

04/20/2006 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 51 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Paul Dutka, Esq. This Motion is on behalf of proposed amici curiae Citizens Union of the City of New York and Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

04/20/2006 52 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Cindy Y. Chen, Esq. on behalf of proposed amici curiae Citizens Union of the City of New York and Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York .(wbl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

04/20/2006 Filing fee for PHV Admission of Paul Dutka, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt number ALB002250 (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

04/20/2006 Filing fee for PHV Admission of Cindy Chen, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt number ALB002251 (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

04/21/2006 50 Letter Motion from Brian F. Heffernan for United States of America requesting Extension of time until April 28, 2006 for United States to respond to SBOE HAVA compliance Plan submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 04/21/2006)

04/25/2006 53 LETTER REQUEST dated April 21, 2006 by Brian F. Heffernan, Esq., and ORDER GRANTING request for an extension of time until April 28, 2006, for the United States to respond to the SBOE's Plan for compliance with HAVA. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/25/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

04/26/2006 54 Letter dated April 25, 2006 by Stephen Kaye, Esq., received via fax to the court. The court accepts this fascimile transmission. Please be advised pursuant to Local Rule 5.1 - Filing by Facsimile. "The Clerk's Office shall not accept any fascimile transmission unless the court gives prior approval." Therefore, the court will not accept any further fascimile transmissions unless prior approval is obtained. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/26/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 04/26/2006)

04/26/2006 55 ORDER granting 51 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Paul Dutka, Esq. . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/26/06. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/28/2006)

04/26/2006 56 ORDER granting 52 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Cindy Chen, Esq. . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/26/06. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/28/2006)

28

04/28/2006 57 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America as to 45LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of Elections, United States' Response to New York's HAVA Remedial Plan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 - County Summary Chart# 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 2 - Lee Declaration# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 3 - County Polling Places and Machines# 4Declaration Declaration of Brian F. Heffernan# 5 Exhibit(s) Certificate of Service)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 04/28/2006)

04/28/2006 74 MOTION for Leave to Appear Amici Curiae by Citizens Union of the City of New York, Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York. Motion Hearing set for 7/6/2006 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Response to Motion due by 6/19/2006, Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Motion# 2 Memorandum of Law # 3 Affidavit /Declaration of Richard D. Dadey# 4 Proposed Order/Judgment)(wjg, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

05/01/2006 58 Letter dated April 28, 2006 from Brian F. Heffernan, Esq., regarding scheduling a conference or a hearing. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/02/2006 TEXT ONLY NOTICE: In Chambers Conference set for 5/16/2006 at 01:00 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

05/08/2006 59 Letter dated May 3, 2006 by Stephen Rackow Kaye, Esq., to the Court. So Ordered. Please be advised that, absent prior approval by the court, no further faxes will be accepted . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/8/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)

05/08/2006 60 Letter dated May 3, 2006 by Stephen Rackow Kaye, Esq., and AMENDED ORDER, that the Intervenor motion shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(b)(2). Notifications will not be provided prior to becoming parties in this action. No further faxes, absent court approval, will be permitted . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/8/2006. (jel, ) Modified on 5/9/2006 (jel, ). (Entered: 05/08/2006)

05/09/2006 61 ORDER, that the 44 application filed by Van Allen for leave to proceed with his appeal in this matter in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 44) is denied; that Van Allen's April 14 documents, which were previously filed March 31, are REJECTED and the Clerk is directed to strike them from the docket; that the Clerk should forward any future filings by Van Allen to this court in order to determine if those filings are violative of this order; that the clerk serve a copy of this order on the parties and H. William Van Allen. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/9/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)

05/09/2006 Mailed copy of the 61 Order to H. William Van Allen. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)

05/11/2006 63 Letter dated May 9, 2006 from Stephen Rackow Kaye, Esq. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/11/2006)

05/15/2006 64 AMENDED DOCUMENT by New York State Board of Elections, Peter S.

29

Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen. Amendment to 49 LETTER BRIEF, 45 LETTER BRIEF. (Murray, Patricia) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/16/2006 65 AMENDED DOCUMENT by New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen. Amendment to 49 LETTER BRIEF, 64Amended Document, 45 LETTER BRIEF. (Murray, Patricia) (Entered: 05/16/2006)

05/16/2006 66 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Stanley L. Zalen. Amendment to 49 LETTER BRIEF, 64 Amended Document, 45 LETTER BRIEF, 65 Amended Document. (Murray, Patricia) (Entered: 05/16/2006)

05/16/2006 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John Law; In Chambers Conference held on 5/16/2006; Atty. Heffernan states NYS Board of Elections to file revised documents by today; will submit a proposed remedial order by tomorrow morning; State will want to respond; Atty. Feldman discusses the entity of the NYS Board of Elections with the court; Court inquires about the County Board entitities; discusses substantive issues in public forums; Atty. Heffernan discusses the interim plan and the long term plan; Court advises parties have tried to keep the issues narrowly focused; Atty. Heffernan discusses other lawsuits pending in the country; Court directs plaintiff to file proposed remedial order by tomorrow; Court directs the defendant State of New York has until Friday, May 19, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. to respond; Atty. Feldman discusses federal preclearance requirements; Court discusses the issuance of an order. (jel, ) Time: 1:00-1:30 p.m. (Entered: 05/16/2006)

05/16/2006 67 LETTER BRIEF by New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Chart of Tasks and Dates for Compliance# 2 Supplement Chart of County Compliance Plans# 3Supplement NYC Compliance Plan Detailed)(Murray, Patricia) (Entered: 05/16/2006)

05/16/2006 Filing fee for PHV Admission of Brenda Wright, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt number ALB002350 (wbl, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

05/17/2006 68 LETTER BRIEF Submitting Proposed Remedial Order by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment United States' Proposed Remedial Order# 2 Appendix Certificate of Service)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/17/2006 70 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Brenda Wright, Esq. by Steven Carbo, proposed plaintiff-intervenor.(wbl, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

05/18/2006 69 Letter from John Domurad, Chief Deputy to Judge Sharpe dd 5/17/06 re: clarification of documents filed by Mr. Van Allen. (amt, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/18/2006 75 MOTION to Intervene by Steven Carbo, Sharon Shapiro, Barbara Linn, Robert Gumson, Clifton Perez, Young Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng

30

Ying Jiang, The American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Independent Living Council, The Catskill Center for Independence, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group. Motion Hearing set for 7/6/2006 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Response to Motion due by 6/19/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service# 2Carbo Declaration# 3 Eng Declaration# 4 Godino Declaration# 5 Gumson Declaration# 6 Jiang Declaration# 7 Lau Declaration# 8 Linn Declaration# 9Mun Declaration# 10 Moon Declaration# 11 Perez Declaration# 12Rosenstein Declaration# 13 Shapiro Declaration# 14 Williams Declaration# 15 Zachmeyer Declaration# 16 Kaye Declaration# 17 Exhibit(s) "A" to Kaye Declaration# 18 Memorandum of Law # 19 Proof of Service of Memo# 20Attachment #1 to Appendix# 21 Attachment 2 to Appendix# 22 Attachment 3 to Appendix (part 1)# 23 Attachment 3 to Appendix (part 3))(wjg, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

05/18/2006 76 NOTICES of Appearance by Stephen R. Kaye, Emily Stern on behalf of Steven Carbo, Sharon Shapiro, Barbara Linn, Robert Gumson, Clifton Perez, Young Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng Ying Jiang, The American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Independent Living Council, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group (Attachments: # 1 Stern Notice of Appearnace)(wjg, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

05/19/2006 71 Letter Motion from Patricia Murray, First Deputy Counsel, SBOE and Bruce D. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General for New York State Board of Elections, State of New York requesting Adoption of Proposed Remedial Order submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Remedial Order# 2 Supplement Red-lined Proposed Remedial Order# 3Declaration of Service)(Goglia, Douglas) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

05/19/2006 73 ORDER granting 70 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Brenda Wright, Esq.. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/19/06. (wbl, ) (Entered: 05/23/2006)

05/20/2006 72 RESPONSE to Motion re 71 Letter Motion from Patricia Murray, First Deputy Counsel, SBOE and Bruce D. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General for New York State Board of Elections, State of New York requesting Adoption of Proposed Remedial Order submitted to Judge Sharpe filed by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 05/20/2006)

06/02/2006 77 REMEDIAL ORDER . Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/2/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

06/06/2006 78 Letter Motion from Proposed Amici Curiae Citizens Union of the City of New York and Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York for Citizens Union of the City of New York. (Chen, Cindy) (Entered:

31

06/06/2006)

06/07/2006 79 AFFIDAVIT re 78 Letter Motion from Proposed Amici Curiae Citizens Union of the City of New York and Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York for Citizens Union of the City of New York by Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New York. (Chen, Cindy) (Entered: 06/07/2006)

06/08/2006 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 75 MOTION to Intervene, 74MOTION for Leave to Appear Amici Curiae scheduled for July 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. have been adjourned without date. (jel, ) (Entered: 06/08/2006)

06/09/2006 80 NOTICE of Appearance by Brenda Wright on behalf of Steven Carbo (Wright, Brenda) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/12/2006 81 ORDER - On May 9, 2006, this court issued an order stating that Van Allen was attempting to file duplicative documents and rejected those documents. See Dkt. No. 61 . It now appears, as articulated by the letter filed by Chief Deputy Clerk John Domurad, that Van Allen's prior duplicative filing was erroneously before the court. See Dkt. No. 69 . Accordingly, the rejection of those duplicative documents is rescinded, however, the order stands in all other respects. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/12/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/12/2006 Mailed copy of the 81 Order to all non cm/ecf parties. (jel, ) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/15/2006 82 LETTER dated June 6, 2006 by Cindy Y. Chen, Esq., and ORDER, that Citizen Union's request for amicus curiae participation is denied as moot, since their participation would provide no further assistance, given the recent entry of this court's 77 remedial order. See Dkt. No. 77. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/15/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

06/15/2006 83 LETTER BRIEF in response to the June 2, 2006 Court order by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Plan B Ballot Marking Device Details and Logistics)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

06/16/2006 84 LETTER BRIEF in response to the Courts June 2, 2006 order by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proposed Statewide Database Regulations)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 06/16/2006)

06/16/2006 85 COURT NOTICE adjourning the Rule 16 conference w/out date and directing the parties to file a status report by 6/21/06 (amt, ) (Entered: 06/16/2006)

06/19/2006 86 RESPONSE in Opposition re 75 MOTION to Intervene filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Taylor v. Onorato# 2Appendix Certificate of Service# 3 Declaration Heffernan Declaration)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 06/19/2006)

06/21/2006 ORDER Cancelling Deadline: The Status Report Deadline set forth in Docket Number 85 is hereby cancelled as it was issued in error. Signed by

32

Judge Randolph F. Treece on 6/21/06. (rlh) (Entered: 06/21/2006)

06/21/2006 USCA Case Number is 06-1735-cv for 43 Notice of Appeal. (cbm, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)

06/26/2006 87 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn D. Magpantay on behalf of Young Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng Ying Jiang, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc. (Attachments: # 1)(Magpantay, Glenn) (Entered: 06/26/2006)

06/26/2006 88 REPLY to Response to Motion re 75 MOTION to Intervene ProposedPlaintiffs-Intervenors' Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Intervention filed by Steven Carbo, Sharon Shapiro, Barbara Linn, Robert Gumson, Clifton Perez, Young Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng Ying Jiang, The American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Independent Living Council, The Catskill Center for Independence, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service of Emily Stern-Proposed Plainitffs-Intervenors' Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Intervention)(Kaye, Stephen) (Entered: 06/26/2006)

06/30/2006 89 LETTER BRIEF Attaching Comments on Draft Database Regulations by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) June 30, 2006 Letter to SBOE Counsel Commenting on Draft Database Regulations# 2 Appendix Certificate of Service)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

07/03/2006 90 Letter dated June 27, 2006 from Stephen Rackow Kaye, Esq., requesting the court to schedule a hearing date on the pending motion to intervene. (jel, ) (Entered: 07/03/2006)

07/21/2006 91 ORDER, that the 75 Motion to Intervene is DENIED. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 7/20/2006. (jel, ) (Entered: 07/21/2006)

08/15/2006 92 LETTER BRIEF submitting the State Board's plan for voting machine replacement and the final statewide database regulations by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Plan for Voting Machine Replacement# 2 Appendix Final Statewide Database Regulations)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/17/2006 93 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 91 Order on Motion to Intervene by Steven Carbo, Sharon Shapiro, Barbara Linn, Robert Gumson, Clifton Perez, Young Ae Moon, Fun Mae Ching Eng, Feng Ying Jiang, The American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Independent Living Council, The Catskill Center for Independence, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group. (Stern, Emily) (Entered: 08/17/2006)

08/18/2006 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number ALB002704 re 93 Notice of Appeal, filed by New York Public Interest Research Group,, Steven

33

Carbo,, Sharon Shapiro,, Barbara Linn,, Robert Gumson,, Clifton Perez,, Young Ae Moon,, Fun Mae Ching Eng,, Feng Ying Jiang,, The American Council of the Blind of New York,, The New York State Independent Living Council,, The Catskill Center for Independence,, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance,, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc., (wbl, ) (Entered: 08/18/2006)

08/23/2006 94 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 93 Notice of Appeal, (tm) (Entered: 08/23/2006)

08/25/2006 95 MANDATE of USCA denying the IFP application by Pro Se Van Allen and dismissing the 43 Notice of Appeal (amt, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)

09/05/2006 USCA Case Number is 06-3953-cv for 93 Notice of Appeal, filed by New York Public Interest Research Group, et al. (cbm, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

09/07/2006 96 LETTER BRIEF filing the revised 2007 voting machine replacement plan by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Revised Voting Machine Replacement Plan)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 09/07/2006)

09/22/2006 97 USCA Scheduling Order as to 93 Notice of Appeal, filed by New York Public Interest Research Group,, Steven Carbo,, Sharon Shapiro,, Barbara Linn,, Robert Gumson,, Clifton Perez,, Young Ae Moon,, Fun Mae Ching Eng,, Feng Ying Jiang,, The American Council of the Blind of New York,, The New York State Independent Living Council,, The Catskill Center for Independence,, Chinatown Voter Education Alliance,, Young Korean American Service and Education Center, Inc.,. USCA Case No. 06-3953-cv. Appealed to: 2CCA. Certification of Appeal Record due by 10/16/2006. (wjg, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

09/25/2006 98 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on Appeal re 93 Notice of Appeal, (wjg, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

12/21/2006 99 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter James Clines on behalf of Nassau County Board of Elections (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

12/21/2006 100 MOTION to Intervene by Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections. Motion Hearing set for 2/1/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 1/16/2007 . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Peter J. Clines# 2 Declaration Joint Declaration in Support of Intervention) (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

12/21/2006 101 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 100 Motion to Intervene, 99 Notice of Appearance filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

12/21/2006 102 ANSWER to Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against New York State Board of Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Stanley L. Zalen, State of New York by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature.(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

34

12/21/2006 103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature re 102 Answer to Complaint, Crossclaim, 100MOTION to Intervene, 101 Memorandum of Law, 99 Notice of Appearance (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

12/27/2006 104 MANDATE of USCA/STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL OF 93 APPEAL (dmf) (Entered: 12/27/2006)

01/09/2007 105 Letter Motion from Brian F. Heffernan for United States of America requesting Adjournment of Hearing on Motion for Intervention submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 01/09/2007)

01/10/2007 106 RESPONSE in Opposition re 105 Letter Motion from Brian F. Heffernan for United States of America requesting Adjournment of Hearing on Motion for Intervention submitted to Judge Sharpe filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 01/10/2007)

01/10/2007 107 LETTER REQUEST dated January 9, 2007 and ORDER regarding the 100MOTION to Intervene : The court notes the 106 Proposed Intervenor defendants objections to the parties 105 request for adjournment of the motion intervene return date of February 1, 2007, however the court grants the parties request and the motion to intervene is adjourned until March 15, 2007. Response to Motion due by 2/26/2007 Motion Hearing set for 3/15/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/10/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)

02/15/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing:In Chambers Conference set for 2/21/2007 AT 01:00 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/21/2007 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John Law; In Chambers Conference held on 2/21/2007; Atty. Heffernan discusses previous appeal, discusses state vendor issue, discusses current plan order in place and discusses pending motion to intervene; discusses the issue of certification and implementation; Counsel advise court are negotiating dates for certification once resolved will set rest of scheduling plan for implementation, training and etc. Court discusses the possibility of modified order for certification and implementation; Atty. Valentine discusses certification issues and the process of implementation. (Court Reporter None GLS07-1) Time: 1:00-1:30 p.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/21/2007)

02/21/2007 108 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, USDOJ for United States of America requesting Adjournment submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered: 02/21/2007)

02/22/2007 109 RESPONSE to Motion re 108 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, USDOJ for United States of America requesting Adjournment submitted to Judge Sharpe Response filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 02/22/2007)

35

02/23/2007 110 LETTER REQUEST dated February 21, 2007 by Brian F. Heffernan, AUSA, and ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 100 MOTION to Intervene : On February 21, 2007, the parties filed a joint letter requesting the pending motion to intervene be adjourned until May 3, 2007. (Dkt. No. 108). On February 22, 2007, the proposed Defendants-Intervenors filed their letter opposing this request. (Dkt. No. 109) The court notes the proposed Defendants-Intervenors' objections and GRANTS the parties request. Response to Motion due by 4/16/2007; Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/23/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

03/29/2007 Filing fee for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt number ALB003394 (wbl, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)

03/29/2007 112 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq. by County of Suffolk. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

03/30/2007 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of Suffolk. Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 4/16/2007 by County of Suffolk. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher A. Jeffreys in support of motion to intervene# 2 Exhibits to Declaration# 3 Memorandum of law in support of motion to intervene) (Jeffreys, Christopher) (Entered: 03/30/2007)

04/03/2007 113 ORDER granting 112 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq.. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/3/07. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

04/16/2007 114 RESPONSE to Motion re 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of Suffolk.,100 MOTION to Intervene filed by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

04/16/2007 115 RESPONSE in Opposition re 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of Suffolk., 100 MOTION to Intervene Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Intervene of Nassau County and Suffolk County filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brian Heffernan# 2Appendix Appendix A# 3 Appendix Appendix B)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

04/16/2007 116 RESPONSE to Motion re 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of Suffolk.,100 MOTION to Intervene filed by State of New York. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

04/17/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 111 MOTION to Intervene by County of Suffolk and the 100 MOTION to Intervene : Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe will be on SUBMIT only. No personal appearances are needed.(jel, ) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

05/08/2007 117 NOTICE by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature

36

concerning recent decision in related matter (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Decision in County of Suffolk v. New York State et al.)(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

05/10/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 111 MOTION to Intervene byCounty of Suffolk., 100 MOTION to Intervene : Motion Hearing has been set for 7/5/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe on SUBMIT only. No personal appearances are needed.(jel, ) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

07/19/2007 Text Only Order - On December 22, 2006, the Board of Elections and the Legislature of Nassau County filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in this case. Dkt. No. 100. On March 30, 2007, the County of Suffolk also filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in this case. Dkt. No. 111. For the reasons articled in the U.S. Governments memorandum of law, Dkt. No. 115, this court declines to permit Nassau and Suffolk County to intervene. Accordingly, the motions to intervene are DENIED. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 7/19/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/25/2007 118 MOTION to Intervene (with declaration of Anthony G. Scannapieco, Jr. and Robert Bennett, and Memorandum of Law Attached) Motion Hearing set for 9/6/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 8/20/2007 by Putnam County Board of Elections, The Putnam County Legislature. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Michael G. Santangelo in Support of Intervention) (ban) (Entered: 07/26/2007)

07/30/2007 119 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Michael G. Santangelo, Esq. by Putnam County Board of Elections, and The Putnam County Legislature (wbl, ). Modified on 7/31/2007 (wbl, ). (Entered: 07/31/2007)

07/30/2007 Filing fee for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael G. Santangelo, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt number ALB003687 (wbl, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

07/31/2007 Remark - Doc #119 was mistakenly entered as filed 7/31/07. Correction was made on the docket indicating the file date of 7/30/07. (wbl, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

07/31/2007 Remark - The Putnam County Legislature was also added as a filer to the Pro Hac Vice Motion of Michael G. Santangelo, Esq.. (wbl, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

07/31/2007 120 ORDER granting 119 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Michael G. Santangelo, Esq. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 7/31/07. (tab) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

08/16/2007 121 RESPONSE in Opposition re 118 MOTION to Intervene filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brian Heffernan# 2 Appendix Appendix A - NYSBOE Status Reports# 3 Appendix Appendix B - State Publication)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 08/16/2007)

37

08/16/2007 122 RESPONSE to Motion re 118 MOTION to Intervene filed by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration certificate of service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2007)

08/17/2007 123 RESPONSE to Motion re 118 MOTION to Intervene filed by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 08/17/2007)

08/17/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing: Upon the oral request of the plaintiff, an In Chambers Conference set for 8/29/2007 at 01:00 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 08/17/2007)

08/22/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 118 MOTION to Intervene : Motion Hearing set for 9/6/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe will be on SUBMIT only. No personal appearances are needed.(jel, ) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

08/22/2007 Mailed copy of the August 22, 2007 text only notice to all non cm/ecf parties involved with the pending motion before the court. (jel, ) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

08/23/2007 TEXT ONLY ORDER - On July 25, 2007, Putnam County Board of Elections and Putnam County Legislature filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in this case. Dkt. No. 118. For the reasons articled in the U.S. Governments response, see Dkt. No. 121, this court declines to permit Putnam County Board of Elections and Putnam County Legislature to intervene. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 8/23/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

08/29/2007 124 STATUS REPORT for August 29, 2007 conference with the Court by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 08/29/2007)

08/29/2007 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : In Chambers Conference held on 8/29/2007; Appearances Made: Attorney Heffernan, Esq., for the USA, Atty. Valentine for NYSBOEl, Atty. Dvorin and Atty. Golia for NYS; Atty. Heffernan discusses impasse among the parties; Court discusses enforcement of the order in place; Atty. Valentine discusses letter filed with the court; discusses issues facing the defendants; discusses impact on the counties; court discusses intervention and amicus; Atty. Goglia discusses probable solution at some point on this issue; Atty. Heffernan states needs implementation of process; Court discusses time to submit something; Court gives the defendant (30) thirty days, September 28, 2007, to file implementation plan and does not set specific time for the plaintiff to digest and review. Parties and Court discuss possible scenarios based upon submission. (jel, ) Time: 1:00-1:45 p.m. (Entered: 08/29/2007)

09/13/2007 125 NOTICE by Nassau County Board of Elections Notice of Appeal (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 09/13/2007)

09/13/2007 126 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order on Motion to Intervene,,,,, by Nassau County Board of Elections. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number ALB003789.

38

(wbl, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)

09/17/2007 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 125 Notice (Other)of Appeal filed by Nassau County Board of Elections. Appeal was incorrectly filed as a Notice. Appeal will be filed again by the Clerk's Office. (wbl, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)

09/28/2007 127 LETTER BRIEF seeking extension to file implementation plan from 9/28 to 10/2 by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 09/28/2007)

09/28/2007 128 LETTER dated September 28, 2007 by Todd D. Valentine, Esq., and ORDER GRANTING request to extend the deadline for the State Board to file its revised implementation plan with the Court on or before October 2, 2007. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 9/28/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)

09/28/2007 129 ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 126 Notice of Appeal filed by Nassau County Board of Elections. (cbm, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)

10/02/2007 130 STATUS REPORT by Peter S. Kosinski. (Attachments: # 1 Kelleher and Donohue Plan# 2 Exhibit(s) Ex A# 3 Exhibit(s) Ex B# 4 Exhibit(s) Ex C# 5Exhibit(s) Ex D# 6 Exhibit(s) Ex E)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

10/02/2007 131 LETTER BRIEF re: SBOE Proposed Remedial Plans by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service via CM/ECF)(Goglia, Douglas) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

10/02/2007 133 STATUS REPORT/PLAN by New York State Board of Elections, Stanley L. Zalen, filed in response to Court's 8/29/07 Order. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s) A# 2 Exhibit(s) B# 3 Exhibit(s) C# 4 Exhibit(s) D# 5 Exhibit(s) E)(wjg, ) (Entered: 10/03/2007)

10/03/2007 132 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul M. Collins on behalf of New York State Board of Elections, Peter Koskinsi and Stanley Zalen (Collins, Paul) Modified on 10/3/2007 (wjg, ). (Entered: 10/03/2007)

10/03/2007 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 132 Notice of Appearance: Clerk corrected filing to correctly reflect that notice of appearance is for defts NYSBOE, Kosinski and Zalen (counsel filed notice of appearance and only selected NYSBOE for appearance). (wjg, ) (Entered: 10/03/2007)

11/05/2007 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 11/19/2007 by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of United States' Motion to Enforce June 2, 2006 Remedial Order# 2 Declaration of Brian F. Heffernan# 3 Declaration Certificate of Service# 4 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A to

39

U.S. Motion# 5 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B to U.S. Motion# 6 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C to U.S. Motion# 7 Exhibit(s) Exhibit D to U.S. Motion# 8 Exhibit(s) Exhibit E to U.S. Motion# 9 Exhibit(s) Exhibit F to U.S. Motion# 10 Exhibit(s) Exhibit G to U.S. Motion# 11 Exhibit(s) Exhibit H to U.S. Motion# 12Exhibit(s) Exhibit I to U.S. Motion# 13 Exhibit(s) Exhibit J to U.S. Motion# 14 Exhibit(s) Exhibit K to U.S. Motion# 15 Exhibit(s) Exhibit L to U.S. Motion# 16 Exhibit(s) Exhibit M to U.S. Motion) (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/07/2007 135 USCA Scheduling Order as to 126 Notice of Appeal filed by Nassau County Board of Elections. USCA Case No. 07-4211-cv. Appeal Record due by 11/23/2007. (dmf) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

11/08/2007 136 LETTER BRIEF seeking adjournment of filing dates for motion by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

11/08/2007 137 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America as to 136 LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of Elections. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

11/15/2007 138 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruce J. Boivin on behalf of State of New York (Boivin, Bruce) (Entered: 11/15/2007)

11/15/2007 139 LETTER/ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA : Response to Motion due by Noon on 12/14/2007; Motion Hearing has been reset for 12/20/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. No further extensions will be permitted. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/15/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)

11/15/2007 140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of New York re 138 Notice of Appearance (Boivin, Bruce) (Entered: 11/15/2007)

11/21/2007 141 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION to US Court of Appeals of Record on Appeal re: 126 Notice of Appeal. (dmf) (Entered: 11/21/2007)

12/06/2007 142 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Andrea T. Novick, Esq. by Citizens Action New York, Where's The Paper, New York, New York Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition, NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida, Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition. (wbl, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/06/2007 143 ORDER granting 142 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of

40

Andrea T. Novick, Esq.. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 12/6/07. (wbl, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/7/2007 (wbl, ). (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/07/2007 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY, neglected to link the document to docket entry - re 143 Order on Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice filed by Citizens Action New York, Where's The Paper, New York, New York Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition, NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida, Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition (wbl, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/07/2007 Remark - Counsel of record served by e-mail with Order in entry #143. Atty Michael G. Santangelo served by 1st class mail. (wbl, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/13/2007 144 Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Deputy Nassau County Attorney for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections requesting Renew Intervention Motion submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Court of Appeals Decision Order of the 2nd Circuit COA 12/11/2007# 2 Declaration Declaration of Sciglibaglio and DeGrace 12/13/07# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibits to Declaration)(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

12/13/2007 145 RESPONSE to Motion re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA filed by Peter S. Kosinski. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

12/13/2007 146 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of New Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State, Inc., Citizen Action of New York, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.. (Krauss, Geri) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

12/13/2007 147 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of New Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State, Inc., Citizen Action of New York, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curae brief)(Krauss, Geri) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

12/13/2007 148 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of New Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State, Inc., Citizen Action of New York, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amici Curiae Brief)(Krauss, Geri)

41

(Entered: 12/13/2007)

12/14/2007 149 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of New Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State, Inc., Citizen Action of New York, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Bo LIipari# 2 Exhibit(s) A-1# 3Exhibit(s) A-2# 4 Exhibit(s) B# 5 Exhibit(s) C# 6 Exhibit(s) D# 7 Exhibit(s) E# 8 Exhibit(s) F# 9 Exhibit(s) G# 10 Exhibit(s) H# 11 Exhibit(s) I# 12Exhibit(s) J# 13 Exhibit(s) K# 14 Exhibit(s) L# 15 Exhibit(s) M# 16Exhibit(s) N# 17 Exhibit(s) O# 18 Exhibit(s) P)(Krauss, Geri) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 150 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Geri S. Krauss on behalf of Citizens Action New York, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, League of Women Voters of New York State, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment)(Krauss, Geri) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 151 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA filed by Stanley L. Zalen. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s) # 2 Exhibit(s) # 3 Exhibit(s))(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 152 Proposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 12/3/2007 by Where's The Paper, New York, New York Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition, NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida, Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition. (Novick, Andrea) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 153 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA Exhibit C to Zalen Affidavit filed by Stanley L. Zalen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) # 2 Exhibit(s))(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 154 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA Exhibit D to Zalen Affifavit filed by Stanley L. Zalen. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 155 RESPONSE to Motion re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA filed by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1Affirmation affirmation in opposition# 2 Exhibit(s) Electionline report)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

42

12/14/2007 156 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA Zalen Exhibits E, F & G filed by Stanley L. Zalen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) # 2 Exhibit(s))(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 157 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA Zalen affidavit Exhibits H & I filed by Stanley L. Zalen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 158 Proposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2007 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 12/3/2007 by Where's The Paper, New York, New York Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition, NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida, Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Leave to File Amicus# 2 Order# 3 Memorandum of Law # 4Exhibit A - Tech Reports# 5 Exhibit B - Vendor Non-Responsibility# 6Exhibit C - Updated Procurement Vendor# 7 Exhibit D - 2006 Annual Statistics# 8 Exhibit E-Forecast Hand Count Tool# 9 Exhibit "F" NY08 Registration&Turnout Projections# 10 Exhibit "G" Summary Estimate HCNY# 11 Pokey Anderson Declaration# 12 Dennis Karius (ARISE) Declaration# 13 Dick Stinson (Del4Change) Declaration# 14 Prof. Steve Freeman Declaration# 15 Teresa Hommel (Where's the Paper) Declaration# 16 Irene Miller (NY for Clean Elections) Declaration# 17 Jeannie Dean (Video the Vote) Declaration Declaration# 18 Julie McQuain (Ulster Cty Dem Women) Declaration# 19 Vickie Karp (Coal.Visible Ballots) Declaration# 20 Joanne Lukacher (Re-Media) Declaration# 21 Prof. Mark Crispin Miller Declaration# 22 Nancy Tobi (NH Fair Elections) Declaration# 23 Dutchess Cty Leg. Joel Tyner Declaration# 24 Wayne Stinson (PeaceMakers) Declaration# 25 Judy Alter (Protect Calif.Ballots) Declaration# 26 Rady Ananda (J30Coaltion) Declaration# 27 Karen Charman (Shandaken Dems) Declaration# 28 Jonathan Simon (Election Defense Alliance) Declaration# 29 Ulster Cty. Leg Susan Zimet Declaration# 30 Ulster Cty. Leg Gary Bischoff# 31 Dave Berman (Voter Confid.Comm) Declaration# 32 Mary Ann Gould (Coal.Voting Integrity) Declaration) (Novick, Andrea) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 159 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Where's The Paper, New York, New York Citizens for Clean Elections, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, New York, Shandaken Democrat Club, New York, The Dutchess Peace Coalition, NY, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action at Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York, Susan Zimet, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Mark Crispin

43

Miller, Steven Freeman, Harvery Wasserman, Robert J. Fitrakis, Abbe Waldman DeLozier, Pokey Anderson, Election Defense Alliance, New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, AUDITAZ, Voter Confidence Committee, California, Protect California Ballots, Video the Vote, Florida, Coalition for Voting Integrity, Pennsylvania, J30 Coalition (Novick, Andrea) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Join County Boards of Election as Party Defendants by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Order to Show Cause# 2 Affidavit Kosinski-Zalen Affidavit# 3 Memorandum of Law # 4 Appendix Appendix A: List of County Boards)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 161 RESPONSE to Motion re 144 Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Deputy Nassau County Attorney for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections requesting Renew Interventi, 160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Join County Boards of Election as Party Defendants Letter regarding scheduling filed by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 162 Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Nassau County for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections requesting postponement of hearing submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/17/2007 TEXT ONLY NOTICE - The applications seeking permission to file amicus curiae briefs will be on SUBMIT only. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007 163 MOTION leave to file amicus brief Motion Hearing set for 1/17/2008 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.,Response to Motion due by 1/4/2008 by Election Commissioners Association of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law # 2 Exhibit(s) # 3 Exhibit(s) # 4Exhibit(s) # 5 Exhibit(s) # 6 Exhibit(s) # 7 Exhibit(s)) (Wait, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007 164 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Election Defense Alliance. Amendment to 158 Proposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief. (Attachments: # 1Declaration Amended Declaration of Dave Berman# 2 Supplement Spreadsheet Supplement to Berman Declaration# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit H: Handcount Manual)(Novick, Andrea) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/18/2007 165 RESPONSE to Motion re 163 MOTION leave to file amicus brief LetterResponse Indicating No Opposition to Amicus Filing filed by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007 166 RESPONSE in Opposition re 160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction toJoin County Boards of Election as Party Defendants filed by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

44

12/18/2007 167 RESPONSE in Opposition re 162 Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Nassau County for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections requesting postponement of hearing submitte, 144Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Deputy Nassau County Attorney for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections requesting Renew Interventi Memorandum of Law in Support of U.S. Opposition to Renewed Motion to Intervene of Nassau County filed by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007 168 Letter Motion dated December 12, 2007 from Edward J. Stiles requesting permission to file an amicus curiae brief submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007 169 Letter Motion dated December 13, 2007 from Sandra Galef, 90th A.D., Ginny Fields, th A.D., Jeffrey Dinowitz, 81st A.D., Barbara Lifton, 125th, A.D., Fred Thiele, Jr., 2nd A.D. and Harvey Weisenberg, 20th A.D. requesting permission to file an amicus curiae brief submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007 170 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jonathan D. Simon onbehalf of all amici curiae Filing fee $30, receipt number 915969 by Election Defense Alliance. (Altman, Richard) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/19/2007 171 RESPONSE to Motion re 160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Join County Boards of Election as Party Defendants filed by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Certificate of Service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/19/2007 172 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 134 MOTION Enforcement of June 2, 2006 Remedial Order and HAVA, 160 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Join County Boards of Election as Party Defendants, 144Letter Motion from Peter J. Clines, Deputy Nassau County Attorney for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Board of Elections requesting Renew Interventi : Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Oral argument will be required.(jel, ) (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/19/2007 173 Letter Motion dated December 18, 2007 from Keith H. Osborne and Marilyn P. O'Mara, Commissioners, Chemung County Board of Elections, Marilyn J. Cornell and Dexter J. Risedorph, Fulton County Board of Elections, Susan Bahren and David C. Green, Commissioners, Orange County Board of Elections, Brian L. Quail and Art Brassard, Commissioners, Schenectady County Board of Elections, Thomas F. Turco and John Parete, Commissioners, Ulster County Board of Elections and Patrica A. Haley and Donna English, Washington County Board of Elections requesting

45

permission to file amicus curiae submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/19/2007 174 Letter Motion dated December 19, 2007 by National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Self Advocacy Association of New York, United Spina Association, New York State Assoication of Community and Residential Agencies, New York State Independent Living Council, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, Inc., American Council of the Blind of New York and Disabilities Network of NYC requesting permission to file an amicus curiae brief submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/20/2007 175 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : Motion Hearing held on 12/20/2007; Appearances Made: Brian F. Heffernan, Esq., Paul Collins, Esq., Todd Valentine, Esq., Allison Carr, Esq., Jeffrey Dvorin, Esq., Bruce Boivin, Esq., Peter Clines, Esq., and Lori Barrett, Esq.; Court discusses procedural history of the case; Court gives analysis of the case. Court discusses pending matters before the court; court discusses amicus applications; Court grants all motions to file amicus brief; Court discusses parameters of the amicus brief; Court will not accept any other motions without brief; if motion filed with brief will take on submit; any in non-compliance will be sua sponte denied; Court turns to the intervention motion by Nassau County and lumps in the State Board of Elections motion. Atty. Clines discusses position of Nassau. Court inquires of letter by other counties. Atty. Clines discusses number of vote of their county regarding other counties. Discusses compliance; Discusses causation. Court discusses causation. Atty. Clines discusses legal duty. Court inquires why State Board cant take Nassaus view into consideration. Atty. Clines discusses order and right for a need to appeal. New York state cant thumb nose at HAVA; discusses loss of money for boards; requires to hand up state transcript. Court DENIES request and directs counsel to summarize. Atty. Clines summarizes transcript for the court. Atty. Clines discusses standard met for automatic intervention. Atty. Valentine discuss difference in counties; discusses why counties should now be joined as parties in the litigation. Court states counties must implement what the State Board tells them; need to pick machine certified by State and then implement that discusses the control of the money. Atty. Valentine states in control of the Comptroller; Discusses need for the counties; discusses why their motion was brought at this time; adopted standards. Court inquires of legal interest of county boards and need to be parties. Atty. Valentine states mechanism in place for the state to enforce the order of this court; expedient to bring in this action instead of bringing a state court action; only tool is a judicial proceeding; other issues to be resolved; Court discusses remedial order and have not complied. Cant submit a plan. Atty. Valentine states has reiterated position to comply; there have been steps backwards; tried to make explanation on what has transpired; have set high standard for voting systems; time frames by Congress was unrealistic. Court discusses 49 other states have complied. Court discusses issue of New York. Atty. Valentine states enforcement is for

46

basis of motion to join; each county is in a different position. Atty. Heffernan discusses the motions to intervention and to join. Discusses case law that the State Board oversees the County Boards; Counties are not necessary parties; If all counties were added the case would be unmanageable. Discusses federal money in the State account to comply with HAVA; it is state money and not county money; Court states for reasons articulated by the federal government, the motions to intervene and the motion to join is DENIED. Court turns to the enforcement action; Court discusses State Board in regards to prevention under State law; federal law preempts state law; Atty. Dvorin discusses the remedial order; attempt to come up with solution and a plan; discusses independent testing agency issues; Board has made tremendous progress in recent months; process was expedited through other state agencies; Board indicates compliance in 2009. Court states the State has to resolve the law under HAVA; federal law preempts state law; Atty. Dvorin discusses the purpose of the State Board of Elections. Court discusses states position is to give time to implement. Atty. Dvorin states federal law preempts in this area; Court inquires of State on what enforcement it has if the State Board does not do its job. Atty. Dvorin discusses state board election and appointing process; discusses compliance is not issue; it is when to get in compliance. Court states compliance was January 1, 2006. Atty. Dvorin discusses implementing HAVA; Court discusses compliance, submitting plans and implementing plans. Atty. Dvorin discusses mindful of implementing plan under HAVA; Court inquires who represents the Comptroller. Atty. Dvorin states to an extent represents as through the State as an official. Court inquires from legal standpoint where state board is paralyzed under some obligation. Atty. Valentine discusses statute and process with bipartisan board; statute has a default mechanism; open to an enforcement action; in the process now; trying to meet federal standards first. States none of the machines in US have been certified and meets federal standards. Discusses plan b machine to start testing in 10-14 days; have a testing agency; have bid for voting machines; ready to contract with vendors in 1st quarter of 2008; began initial analysis to test the machines. Court takes recess. Atty. Heffernan discusses HAVA non-compliance. Court discusses issue raised regarding appointment of special master. Atty. Heffernan discusses accessibility; Court discusses submission of plan; court inquires of federal government in regards to enforcement. Atty. Heffernan states government has been monitoring. Atty. Valentine states elements of steps not issue but it is the dates. Court inquires of State Board if time requested to submit a plan. Atty. Valentine discusses elements in Zalen plan; necessary steps; only issue and will accept time to make sure dates are accurate; ask until January 4, 2008 to comeback with details; time to assured accurate dates on testing; delivery dates; when delivered to the counties; Atty. Collins would urge the court to adopt Zalen plan with verification of dates by Atty. Valentine Atty. Heffernan states does not have problem with January 4, 2008. Have the board come in with plan review for sufficiency. Discusses letter from county board members yesterday. Focus on accessibility; discusses HAVA compliant machines; Court will convert Nassau Countys

47

motion to an amicus brief for consideration. Need to move this process forward. Court inquires of Zalen plan from the federal government. Atty. Collins states Zalen plan has time frame for full compliance for 2009. Court states State Board of Election to submit a plan by January 4, 2008. Court is going to want position of the federal government and if further action is going to be required by the court. Atty. Heffernan states would like to have a conference. (Court Reporter Theresa Casal) Time: 9:00-11:45 a.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/20/2007)

12/21/2007 176 RECORD of Proceedings: Oral Argument held on December 20, 2007 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal identifier data from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Redact with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available on the web 90 days from today's date. Notice of Intent to Redact due by 12/31/2007,Transcript due by 3/20/2008. (tjc, ) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/27/2007 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY: Deleted document #177 (Amended Document) b/c it was filed incorrectly. It should have been filed as a Notice of Appeal. Attorney Peter Clines will refile the Amended Appeal as a Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 12/27/2007)

12/27/2007 177 NOTICE OF APPEAL Amended Notice of Appeal by Nassau County Board of Elections. No fee paid. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 12/27/2007)

12/27/2007 178 AMENDED ELECTRONIC NOTICE sent to US Court of Appeals re 126Notice of Appeal, 177 Amended Notice of Appeal. (ban) (Entered: 12/27/2007)

01/02/2008 193 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Dennis Karius as to Declaration for Amicus Brief upon US Attorney on 1-02-08 re : 158 Proposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief (pta ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)

01/04/2008 179 STATUS REPORT for HAVA Compliance Plan by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 SBOE Plan# 2 Exhibit(s) Ex C Plan B# 3Exhibit(s) Ex E Plan A)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

01/11/2008 180 STATUS REPORT filing a Revised Plan A Time Line by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Summary of Revised Plan A Time Line# 2 Revised Plan A Time Line)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

01/11/2008 181 LETTER BRIEF Responding to Revised Remedial Plans of Defendants by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Supplemental Remedial Order)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

48

01/11/2008 182 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by State of New York as to 181LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1Declaration Certificate of Service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

01/14/2008 Text Only Order - The court is in receipt of the plaintiffs proposed order. See Dkt. No. 181. The defendants are directed to file a response, in regards to the proposed order, on or before January 15, 2008 by 1:00 p.m. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/14/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/14/2008)

01/15/2008 183 LETTER BRIEF Responding to the United States Proposed Order of docket # 181 by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 State Board response to United States Proposed Order)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

01/15/2008 184 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by State of New York as to 181LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1Declaration Certificate of Service# 2 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Supplemental Remedial Order# 3 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Supplemental Remedial Order (redlined))(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

01/15/2008 185 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by State of New York as to 181LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s) Corrected Letter Brief# 2 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Order)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

01/16/2008 186 ORIGNAL DECLARATION of Dennis Karius with signature duplicative of declartion previously filed as [158-13]. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)

01/16/2008 187 LETTER dated January 14, 2008 by Emily Stern, Esq., and ORDER requesting the court to defer ruling is denied. Her application seeking amicus curiae status is to be filed on or before January 18, 2008. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/16/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)

01/16/2008 188 SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/16/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)

01/18/2008 189 STATUS REPORT for week of 1/14/08 to 1/18/08 by New York State Board of Elections. (Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

01/18/2008 190 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Dennis R. Boyd on behalf of The New York State Independent Living Council, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, The Disabilities Network of NYC, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society Upstate New York Chapter, United Spinal Association, American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Association of Community and Residential Agencies and Self Advocacy Association of New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Boyd, Dennis) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

01/18/2008 191 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Emily Stern on behalf of

49

Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, The Disabilities Network of NYC, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society Upstate New York Chapter, United Spinal Association, American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Association of Community and Residential Agencies and Self Advocacy Association of New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Stern, Emily) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

01/18/2008 192 LETTER BRIEF Brief Amicus Curiae by The New York State Independent Living Council, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, The Disabilities Network of NYC, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society Upstate New York Chapter, United Spinal Association, American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Association of Community and Residential Agencies and Self Advocacy Association of New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law Brief Amicus Curiae# 2 Certificate of Service)(Stern, Emily) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

01/25/2008 194 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Status Report)(Valentine, Todd) (Entered: 01/25/2008)

02/01/2008 195 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/01/2008)

02/01/2008 196 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison) (Entered: 02/01/2008)

02/07/2008 197 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, U.S. Counsel, Requesting Substitution of Todd Valentine for Peter Kosinski as Defendant for United States of America requesting Party Substitution submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 02/07/2008)

02/08/2008 198 LETTER dated February 7, 2008 by Brian F. Heffernan, Esq., and ORDER granting 197 Letter Requesting Substitution of Todd Valentine for Peter Kosinski. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/8/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/08/2008)


02/08/2008 200 MOTION to Intervene by order to show cause by Avante International Technology, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation, # 2 Memorandum of Law) (Potter, James) Modified on 2/11/2008 (jel, ). Modified on 2/11/2008 (jel, ). (Entered: 02/08/2008)

02/11/2008 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY - Deleted document number 200 for it was duplicative of the document filed in document number 201. Renumbered document number 201 to document number 200 to follow in sequential order and terminated all deadlines associated with that entry. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)

02/11/2008 201 RESPONSE in Opposition re 200 MOTION to Intervene by order to show

50

cause to be presented 2/11/08--response to motion as directed by court. Ignore the following text in this box concerning motion return dates. filed by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 02/11/2008)

02/11/2008 TEXT ONLY ORDER-On February 8, 2008, Avante International Technology, Inc., filed a motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 200). It is unclear from the submissions whether the proposed intervenor is seeking intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 (a) and/or (b) or seeks amicus curiae status. In any event, to the extent the motion seeks the limited relief of a change in date already established in this case, that motion appears to seek Rule 24 intervention, and is denied. To the extent Avante seeks amicus curiae status, this request is granted. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/11/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)


02/15/2008 203 STATUS REPORT letter to Court re: Erie County by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

02/15/2008 204 STATUS REPORT Attachment to Docket No. 202 by New York State Board of Elections. (Carr, Allison) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

02/19/2008 205 STATUS REPORT Date Revision by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

02/20/2008 206 Letter Motion from Brian F. Heffernan for United States of America requesting Remedial Action with Regard to Ballot Mrking Device Choice for Erie County submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 02/20/2008)

02/21/2008 207 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Jeffrey D. Wait on behalf of Election Commissioners Association of New York. (Attachments: # 1Supplement letter from amicus Election Commissioners Association stating position on Erie County/SBOA non-compliance)(Wait, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008 Text Only Order Requiring Response---SBOE is hereby ordered to file a response to the letter filed by the U.S. Government (dated 2/19/08) and to Show Cause as to why this court should not hold SBOE in Contempt. Specifically, SBOE is hereby ordered to respond to each and every alternative proposed by the U.S. Government as a remedy to this court for noncompliance and/or file any response the SBOE deems necessary. The response is due Thursday, February 21, 2008, by 4:00pm. Telephone conference is scheduled for Friday, February 22, 2008 at 11:00am. Plaintiff's counsel is to conference in all counsel and initiate the telephone conference call to chambers at 518-257-1870. ( Telephone Conference set for 2/22/2008 at 11:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.)Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/21/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

51

02/21/2008 208 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of Elections as to Order,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,, 206 Letter Request/Motion filed by United States of America. (Carr, Allison) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008 Amended Text Only Order Requiring Response---SBOE and the State of New York is hereby ordered to file a response to the letter filed by the U.S. Government (dated 2/19/08) and to Show Cause as to why this court should not hold SBOE in Contempt. Specifically, SBOE is hereby ordered to respond to each and every alternative proposed by the U.S. Government as a remedy to this court for noncompliance and/or file any response the SBOE deems necessary. The response is due Thursday, February 21, 2008, by 4:00pm. Due to the omission State of New York from the original text only order, the State of New York will be permitted to file a response prior to the conference scheduled for February 22, 2008. Telephone conference is scheduled for Friday, February 22, 2008 at 11:00am. Plaintiff's counsel is to conference in all counsel and initiate the telephone conference call to chambers at 518-257-1870. The parties they are to participate in this conference are the plaintiff, the New York State Board of Elections and the State of New York ( Telephone Conference set for 2/22/2008 at 11:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.)Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/21/2008. (jel, ) Modified on 2/21/2008 (jel, ). (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY - To correct the amended text order to reflect that the court will permit the State of New York to file a response prior to the telephone conference scheduled for February 22, 2008 due to the court's inadvertent omission of the State of New York from the original text only order. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/22/2008 209 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by Election Commissioners Association of New York as to 207 Amicus Curiae Appearance, filed by Election Commissioners Association of New York, 206 Letter Request/Motion filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1Supplement letter clarifying Election Comm. Assoc. position re: SBOE/Erie County non-compliance)(Wait, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

02/22/2008 210 LETTER BRIEF by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Certificate of Service)(Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

02/22/2008 Text Only Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe: Telephone Conference held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Appearances Made: Brian Heffernan, Esq., Allison Carr, Esq., Paul Collins, Esq., Jeffrey Dvorin, Esq., and Bruce Boivin, Esq.; Court discusses violation of the remedial order Dkt. No. 188 ; Court discusses terms of that document; Discusses Erie County; Discusses selection process; Atty. Carr clarified the selection process; Atty. Collins discusses the situation of the 4th Commissioner; Court inquires of mechanism by law to resolve in stalemate in the SBOE; Atty. Carr discusses that there is no mechanism; Court discusses paralyzation of New York State; Atty. Carr discusses Erie County

52

Board meeting; Court inquires of the State as to the SBOE; Atty. Dvorin states no authority constitutionally or statutory to intervene; Atty. Heffernan discusses the power to remove commissioner; Atty. Dvorin states the State is looking further into the issue; Court discusses recommendation to review webcast; Court discusses the performation and actions of Commissioner Kellner; Court discusses the violation of the SBOE in regards to the supplemental remedial order; Court discusses 3 options proposed by the federal government; Atty. Heffernan discusses the proposal of imposing sanctions; cites 2nd circuit case law; discusses the State Board Hearing; disputes characterization of the Board; Court discusses the imposition of monetary penalty; Atty. Collins discusses another alternative with the court; Atty. Dvorin states the State has laid out their position in the paper; agree that court intervention is needed; Court discusses the substance of the ruling to follow; Court states reviewed the webcast; Court discusses views; Court summarizes machines and costs; Court discusses the majority rules; Court selects on behalf of the SBOE to purchase the ES&S Automatic BMD for Erie County basedon the SBOE majority vote, the presentation of argument of the Erie County Board of Commissioners as well as the other factors articulated by the court during the conference effective immediately today with the proposed order to be reviewed and submitted by the parties for the court's review and execution. (Court Reporter Theresa Casal) Time: 11:00-11:40 a.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

02/22/2008 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on February 22, 2008 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.. (tjc, ) (Entered: 02/22/2008)


02/22/2008 212 RECORD of Proceedings: Telephone Conference held on February 22, 2008 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal identifier data from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Redact with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available on the web 90 days from today's date. Notice of Intent to Redact due by 2/29/2008 Transcript due by 5/22/2008. (tjc, ) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

02/26/2008 213 ORDER, In accordance with the Supplemental Remedial Order of January 16, 2008, the State Board of Elections shall select for the Erie County Board of Elections, the ES&S AutoMark as its ballot marking device. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/26/2008. (jel, ) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

53

02/29/2008 214 STATUS REPORT and cover letter by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Status Report)(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 02/29/2008)


03/14/2008 216 STATUS REPORT 3-14-2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 03/14/2008)





04/15/2008 221 RECORD of Proceedings: Telephone Conference held on February 22, 2008 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Theresa J. Casal. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal identifier data from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Redact with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available on the web 90 days from today's date. Notice of Intent to Redact due by 4/22/2008 Transcript due by 7/14/2008. (tjc, ) (Entered: 04/15/2008)






05/20/2008 227 NOTICE of Appearance by Allison M. Carr on behalf of New York State Board of Elections (Carr, Allison) (Entered: 05/20/2008)

54




06/09/2008 231 MANDATE of USCA, issued 6/6/08, as to 126 and 177 Appeals filed by Nassau County Board of Elections; AFFIRMING orders of the district court. (cbm ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)


06/13/2008 233 STATUS REPORT Amended by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 06/13/2008)


06/27/2008 235 LETTER BRIEF by Nassau County Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s) Letter from Nassau BOE to State BOE and spreadsheet listing problems with BMDs)(Barrett, Lori) (Entered: 06/27/2008)


06/27/2008 237 Letter dated June 25, 2008 from Charlotte P. Koniuto, Commisioners of Elections, for the Otsego County Board of Elections to the Court. (jel, ) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

07/01/2008 238 LETTER BRIEF by Nassau County Board of Elections. (Barrett, Lori) (Entered: 07/01/2008)



07/18/2008 241 STATUS REPORT July 18, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/21/2008 242 Letter dated July 14, 2008 from Dave A. Byrd, President, for Premier Election Solutions, Inc. to the Court. (jel, ) (Entered: 07/21/2008)


08/01/2008 244 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul)

55

(Entered: 08/01/2008)

08/08/2008 245 STATUS REPORT August 8, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 08/08/2008)



08/21/2008 248 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly A. Galvin on behalf of New York State Board of Elections (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/21/2008)

08/21/2008 249 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly A. Galvin on behalf of Todd D. Valentine (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/21/2008)

08/21/2008 250 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly A. Galvin on behalf of Stanley L. Zalen (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/21/2008)

08/22/2008 251 STATUS REPORT by New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/22/2008)


09/05/2008 253 STATUS REPORT September 5, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 09/05/2008)

09/12/2008 254 STATUS REPORT September 12, 2008 by Todd D. Valentine, Stanley L. Zalen, New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/12/2008)





10/17/2008 259 STATUS REPORT October 17, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/17/2008)

10/24/2008 260 STATUS REPORT Weekly Report for 10/24/08 by New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/24/2008)

10/31/2008 261 STATUS REPORT Week ending October 31, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/31/2008)

56

11/07/2008 262 STATUS REPORT Weekly Status Report ending 11-07-08 by New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/07/2008)

11/14/2008 263 STATUS REPORT November 14, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

11/21/2008 264 STATUS REPORT November 21, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 11/21/2008)


12/12/2008 266 STATUS REPORT December 12, 2008 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 12/12/2008)





01/30/2009 271 STATUS REPORT January 30, 2009 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

02/04/2009 272 NOTICE of Appearance by John A. Gresham on behalf of The New York State Independent Living Council, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, The Disabilities Network of NYC, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society Upstate New York Chapter, United Spinal Association, American Council of the Blind of New York, The New York State Association of Community and Residential Agencies and Self Advocacy Association of New York State (Gresham, John) (Entered: 02/04/2009)



02/20/2009 275 NOTICE of Appearance by Lori A. Barrett on behalf of Nassau County Board of Elections (Barrett, Lori) (Entered: 02/20/2009)



57



03/13/2009 280 STATUS REPORT Amended by New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/13/2009)

03/20/2009 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing: At the request of defense counsel, an In Chambers Conference set for 3/27/2009 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

03/20/2009 281 STATUS REPORT March 20, 2009 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

03/25/2009 282 LETTER BRIEF Re: 3/27/2009 Conference by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 03/25/2009)

03/25/2009 283 Conference Issues Letter Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections requesting Conference March 27 submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 03/25/2009)

03/25/2009 284 LETTER BRIEF by State of New York. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/25/2009)

03/27/2009 285 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by New York State Board of Elections for proceedings held on March 27, 2009 before Judge Sharpe.. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 03/27/2009)

03/27/2009 Text Only Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe: CRD: John Law. In Chambers Conference held on 3/27/2009. Appearances Made: Brian Heffernan, Esq., for the plaintiff by phone, Jeffrey Dvorin, AAG, for the State of New York, Kim Galvin and Paul Collins, Esq., for the New York State Board of Elections. Court inquires of change in HAVA legislation. Atty. Heffernan discusses the change and the defendants' letter on this issue. Court summarizes content of the letter. Atty. Heffernan discusses the letter with the court. Court discusses the testing protocol. Atty. Collins states the State did not decertify Systest but the EAC did. Atty. Collins states lost accredidation. Atty. Galvin discusses the issue further with the court. Court discusses issue and states the overall problem is New York State is obligated to comply with federal law. Non-compliance is not an option. Court states action may be taken soon without compliance. Atty. Collins states wrote letter for it was apparent that not to meet the deadlines. Advises court of the potentional to make application to extend the deadlines. Atty. Hefferenan states would be open to have a proposal submitted to him. Need to have them move quickly. Atty. Galvin states would need some internal discussions as well. Court directs the defendants to have proposal submitted to the plaintiff by April 10, 2009. The plaintiff will response to the proposal by April 24, 2009. Court advises if parties can't resolve the issues that the

58

defendants' motion is to be filed by May 8, 2009. The plaintiff's response would be due by May 15, 2009. The defendants are directed that if they seek to reply they need to seek permission of the court. (Court Reporter Bonnie Buckley) Time: 9:00-9:30 a.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)



04/10/2009 288 STATUS REPORT 4-10-09 Status Report by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 04/10/2009)


04/24/2009 290 STATUS REPORT 04-24-09 by New York State Board of Elections. (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/24/2009)




05/18/2009 294 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: in chambers conference held on 3/27/09 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Bonnie Buckley, Telephone number: 518-257-1898. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal identifier data from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available on the web 90 days from today's date. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/8/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/18/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/17/2009. Notice of Intent to Redact due by 5/26/2009 (bjb, ) (Entered: 05/18/2009)


05/29/2009 296 STATUS REPORT 5-29-09 Status Report by New York State Board of

59

Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

06/03/2009 297 Letter Motion from Joint Application-Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections requesting Revised Order by Consent submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 06/03/2009)

06/03/2009 298 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections requesting Revised Proposed Order submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 06/03/2009)

06/04/2009 299 REVISED ORDER granting 297 Letter Request ; granting 298 Letter Request. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/4/09. (ban) (Entered: 06/04/2009)









07/24/2009 308 STATUS REPORT Amended status report 7-24-09 by State of New York. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 07/24/2009)





60








10/15/2009 320 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections requesting Expansion of Pilot Program submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 10/15/2009)


10/16/2009 322 ORDER granting 320 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections requesting Expansion of Pilot Program. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 10/16/2009. (jel, ) (Entered: 10/16/2009)








61











02/22/2010 340 STATUS REPORT regarding potential deviation from timetable set forth in the January 16, 2008 Supplemental Remedial Order by State of New York. (Boivin, Bruce) (Entered: 02/22/2010)






04/01/2010 346 STATUS REPORT concerning related state court litigation by State of New York. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/01/2010)

04/02/2010 347 STATUS REPORT 4-2-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins,

62

Paul) (Entered: 04/02/2010)



04/19/2010 350 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins for New York State Board of Elections requesting Conference submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 04/19/2010)

04/20/2010 351 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, Esq. for United States for United States of America requesting Contempt and/or other relief submitted to Judge Sharpe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) EAC Advisory)(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 04/20/2010)


04/26/2010 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication by New York State Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment All Writs Act Application, # 2 Affidavit Kimberly A. Galvin Exhibits Separately Filed, # 3 Exhibit(s) To Galvin Affidavit, # 4Exhibit(s) To Galvin Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit(s) To Galvin Affdiavit, # 6Memorandum of Law In Support of Application)(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 04/26/2010)


04/30/2010 355 RESPONSE in Opposition re 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication, 351 Letter Motion from Brian Heffernan, Esq. for United States for United States of America requesting Contempt and/or other relief submitted to Judge Sharpe filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

05/04/2010 356 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of Elections as to 355 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature 5-4-10. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/04/2010)

05/04/2010 TEXT ONLY ORDER, that Nassau County's 355 letter requesting an extension of time until May 20, 2010 to file a response to the NYSBOEl's 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication is DENIED. Nassau County's response is to be filed by noon on May 11, 2010. Response to Motion due by 5/11/2010. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/4/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/04/2010)

05/04/2010 Faxed copy of the May 4, 2010 text only order to Nassau County Attorney

63

John Ciampoli per directive of chambers. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/04/2010)

05/05/2010 TEXT ONLY ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication : Response to Motion due by 12:00 p.m. on 5/11/2010. Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2010 at 03:00 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. All parties are directed to appear in person at the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Courtroom No. 6, Albany, New York 12207. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/5/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)

05/05/2010 Faxed copy of the May 5, 2010 text only order to Nassau County Attorney John Ciampoli per directive of chambers. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)

05/06/2010 357 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for State of New York requesting granting application by the Defendant New York State Board of Elections for an Order to Show Cause submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (Dvorin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2010)


05/11/2010 359 Letter Motion dated May 10, 2010 by Peter J. Clines, Esq., for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Election Commissioners requesting an extension of time until 10:00 a.m. on May 12, 2010 to respond to the defendants application for an injunction against Nassau under the All Writs Act submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

05/11/2010 360 ORDER, granting the 359 Letter Motion for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature requesting an extension of time until 10:00 a.m. on May 12, 2010 to respond to the defendants application for an injunction against Nassau under the All Writs Act : Response to Motion due by 10:00 a.m. on 5/12/2010. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/11/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

05/11/2010 361 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America as to 360 Order Setting Hearing on Motion, Terminate Motions,, Requesting Extension until May 12, 2010 at 10 a.m. to Respond to SBOE Application.(Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

05/11/2010 362 ORDER, granting the plaintiff's 361 Letter Requesting Extension until May 12, 2010 at 10 a.m. to Respond to SBOE Application. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/11/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

05/12/2010 363 RESPONSE in Support re 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication filed by United States of America. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/12/2010 364 RESPONSE in Opposition re 357 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for State of New York requesting granting application by the Defendant New York State Board of Elections for an Order to Show Cause submitted to

64

Judge Gary L. Sharpe, 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/12/2010 365 RESPONSE in Opposition re 357 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for State of New York requesting granting application by the Defendant New York State Board of Elections for an Order to Show Cause submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe, 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s))(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/12/2010 366 RESPONSE in Opposition re 357 Letter Motion from Jeffrey Dvorin for State of New York requesting granting application by the Defendant New York State Board of Elections for an Order to Show Cause submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe, 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s))(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/12/2010 TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Allpication : Due to a conflict in the court's calendar the Motion Hearing has been reset for 5/17/2010 at 04:30 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. All parties are directed to appear in person at the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Courtroom No. 6, Albany, New York 12207. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/13/2010 367 Letter Motion from John Ciampoli for Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Legislature requesting Adjournment of the scheduled hearing. submitted to Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/13/2010)

05/13/2010 368 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by United States of America as to 367 Letter Request/Motion, filed by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature Opposing Motion for Adjournment. (Heffernan, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2010)

05/13/2010 369 ORDER denying 367 Letter requesting Adjournment of the scheduled hearing. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/13/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)


05/14/2010 371 NOTICE of Appearance by Justin S. Weinstein-Tull on behalf of United States of America (Weinstein-Tull, Justin) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

65

05/17/2010 372 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe: CRD: John Law. Motion Hearing held on 5/17/2010 re 353 Third Party MOTION for Preliminary Injunction All Writs Act Application filed by New York State Board of Elections. Appearances Made: Barbara D. Cottrell, Brian F. Heffernan and Justin S. Weinstein-Tull, Esqs., for the USA, Paul Collins and Kimberly A. Galvin, Esqs., for the New York State Board of Elections, Jeffrey M. Dvorin and Bruce J. Boivin, Esqs., for New York State, Peter James Cline and John Ciampoli, Esqs., for Nassau County. Court turns to the application for an order to show cause. Atty. Ciampoli argues point in opposition to the application for an order to show cause. Court inquires on authority under the all writs act. Atty. Ciampoli argues on this authority. Court inquires on the points articulated in the application. Atty. Ciampoli discusses the points with the court. Atty. Collins addresses the court. Atty. Boivin addresses the court. Atty. Heffernan addresses the court. Atty. Ciampoli further addresses the court. Atty. Collins, Atty. Heffernan and Atty Boivin states could have order in two days. Court grants the application for an order to show cause as articulated under the all writs act. The parties are directed to submit the proposed order within two days. Atty. Ciampoli request stay of the order. Court states submit authority but would deny stay. (Court Reporter Bonnie Buckley) Time: 4:30-5:10 p.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

05/18/2010 373 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature for proceedings held on May 17, 2010 before Judge Sharpe.. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

05/19/2010 374 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins/ Kimberly A. Galvin for New York State Board of Elections requesting Execution of Order as Submitted submitted to Judge Sharpe All Writs Act Application. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/19/2010)


05/20/2010 376 ORDER granting 353 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/20/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)

05/20/2010 377 RESPONSE to Motion re 374 Letter Motion from Paul M. Collins/ Kimberly A. Galvin for New York State Board of Elections requesting Execution of Order as Submitted submitted to Judge Sharpe All Writs Act ApplicationLetter filed by Nassau County Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s) Nassau's Letter in Opposition to Proposed Order)(Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/20/2010)

05/21/2010 378 LETTER BRIEF Schedule to the Court by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/21/2010)

05/21/2010 Text Only Order - As evidenced by the May 17, 2010 hearing transcript, the assertions contained in Nassau County's May 20, 2010 letter submitted to the

66

court are inaccurate. Accordingly, the request for a stay is DENIED and the Court declines to consider the County's proposals. Issued by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/21/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/21/2010)

05/21/2010 379 LETTER BRIEF Responding to Compliance Schedule by Nassau County Board of Elections. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 05/21/2010)

05/24/2010 380 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of Elections as to 379 LETTER BRIEF filed by Nassau County Board of Elections May 24, 2010 SBOE Response to Nassau County. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 05/24/2010)

05/25/2010 381 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on May 17, 2010 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.. (Cottrell, Barbara) (Entered: 05/25/2010)

05/25/2010 382 ORDER granting the 380 RESPONSE TO LETTER BRIEF filed by New York State Board of Elections as to 379 LETTER BRIEF filed by Nassau County Board of Elections May 24, 2010 SBOE Response to Nassau County. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/25/2010. (jel, ) (Entered: 05/25/2010)



06/03/2010 385 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0206-1585282. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 06/03/2010)


06/11/2010 387 ELECTRONIC NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION sent to US Court of Appeals re Nassau County defts' 385 Notice of Appeal. (cbm ) (Entered: 06/11/2010)

06/15/2010 388 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly A. Galvin on behalf of New York State Board of Elections (Galvin, Kimberly) (Entered: 06/15/2010)


06/22/2010 USCA Case Number is 10-2320-cv for 385 Appeal filed by Nassau County defts. (cbm ) (Entered: 06/22/2010)


06/25/2010 391 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause held on 5/17/2010 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Court Reporter: Bonnie Buckley, Telephone

67

number: 518-257-1898. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: In order to remove personal identifier data from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within 5 business days of this date. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.nynd.uscourts.gov. Read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within 5 business days of this date, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available on the web 90 days from today's date. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. Notice of Intent to Redact due by 6/30/2010 (bjb, ) (Entered: 06/25/2010)


07/09/2010 393 LETTER BRIEF 7-9-10 by New York State Board of Elections. (Collins, Paul) (Entered: 07/09/2010)


07/12/2010 395 LETTER BRIEF to Judge Sharpe in response to SBOE's July 9, 2010 letterby Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature. (Clines, Peter) (Entered: 07/12/2010)








09/02/2010 403 STATUS REPORT 9-2-2010 by New York State Board of Elections.

68

(Collins, Paul) (Entered: 09/02/2010)






10/08/2010 409 NOTICE of Appearance by John Ciampoli on behalf of Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Board of Elections, Nassau County Legislature (Ciampoli, John) (Entered: 10/08/2010)







Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 1 of 29 Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 1 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 2 of 29


STA

TE20

04 E

st.

Act

ive

Vot

ers

per

stat

e us

ing

New

Yor

k

Proj

ecte

d To

tal

HA

VA

Fun

ds p

er

Stat

e us

ing

New

Yor

k A

ctiv

e V

oter

s

AB

R.

1990

Cen

sus

Tota

l Per

sons

pe

r St

ate

TOTA

L PE

RSO

NS

INEL

IGIB

LE

TO V

OTE

TOTA

L PE

RSO

NS

ELIG

IBLE

TO

V

OTE

(CV

AP)

1990

Pe

rcen

t of

Stat

e EV

pe

r To

tal

Nat

iona

l EV

1990

Pe

rcen

t of

Tota

l CV

AP

per

Stat

e To

tal

Pers

ons

2000

Cen

sus

Tota

l Per

sons

pe

r st

ate

Perc

ent

Cha

nge

of

Tota

l sta

te

popu

latio

n in

crea

se

from

199

0 to

20

00

Proj

ecte

d 20

00

perc

ent o

f To

tal S

tate

EV

pe

r To

tal

Nat

iona

l EV

2000

Est

. Pe

rcen

t of

Stat

e EV

pe

r To

tal

Nat

iona

l EV

81

.51%

Est.

2005

Pe

rcen

t of

Tota

l Act

ive

Vot

ers p

er

Stat

e To

tal

Pers

ons

Est.

Perc

ent

of H

AV

A

Fund

s per

St

ate

AV

pe

r To

tal

AV

$2

21,0

00,0

00ST

ATE

AK

5500

4321

1926

3381

170.

0020

634

61.4

7%62

8933

0.14

3425

238

6,61

10.

0020

874

315,

129

0.50

1053

943

0.00

2087

46,

607,

216

Ala

ska

AL

40

4058

711

7558

528

6500

20.

0174

838

70.9

1%44

6113

00.

1040

797

3,16

3,19

00.

0170

791

2,57

8,33

60.

5779

5574

70.

0170

791

54,0

59,1

34A

laba

ma

AR

2350

725

7243

8016

2634

50.

0099

248

69.1

8%26

7973

30.

1399

602

1,85

3,96

90.

0100

102

1,51

1,18

10.

5639

2970

50.

0100

102

31,6

84,4

46A

rkan

sas

AZ

3665

228

1509

563

2155

665

0.01

3155

058

.81%

5140

683

0.40

2554

83,

023,

438

0.01

6324

52,

464,

423

0.47

9395

987

0.01

6324

551

,670

,759

Ariz

ona

CA

2976

0021

1298

7531

1677

2490

0.10

2354

856

.36%

3393

0798

0.14

0147

019

,123

,104

0.10

3252

015

,587

,358

0.45

9386

710.

1032

520

326,

815,

104

Cal

iforn

ia

CO

3294

394

1165

483

2128

911

0.01

2991

864

.62%

3409

535

0.03

7242

12,

208,

196

0.01

1922

81,

799,

914

0.52

7905

996

0.01

1922

837

,738

,216

Con

nect

icut

EXHIBIT 15:

CT

3287

116

1026

209

2260

907

0.01

3797

368

.78%

4311

882

0.30

8854

42,

959,

198

0.01

5977

72,

412,

060

0.55

9398

476

0.01

5977

750

,572

,889

Col

orad

o

DC

6069

0016

2017

4448

830.

0027

149

73.3

0%44

4,88

30.

0024

021

362,

627

0.00

2402

17,

603,

080

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aD

E66

6168

2148

8645

1282

0.00

2754

067

.74%

7850

680.

1784

835

531,

828

0.00

2871

543

3,49

70.

5521

7706

40.

0028

715

9,08

8,98

2D

elaw

are

FL12

9379

2647

4040

081

9752

60.

0500

257

63.3

6%16

0288

900.

2389

072

10,1

55,9

740.

0548

355

8,27

8,19

60.

5164

5473

0.05

4835

517

3,56

6,26

8Fl

orid

a G

A64

7821

622

9673

441

8148

20.

0255

177

64.5

5%82

0697

50.

2668

573

5,29

7,34

10.

0286

021

4,31

7,89

50.

5261

2498

50.

0286

021

90,5

31,9

04G

eorg

ia

HI

1108

229

4174

1869

0811

0.00

4215

762

.33%

1216

642

0.09

7825

475

8,39

00.

0040

948

618,

168

0.50

8093

750.

0040

948

12,9

60,9

33H

awai

i IA

2776

755

7838

7519

9288

00.

0121

616

71.7

7%29

3192

30.

0558

811

2,10

4,24

40.

0113

615

1,71

5,18

20.

5850

0247

70.

0113

615

35,9

61,6

73Io

wa

ID10

0674

938

3188

6235

610.

0038

053

61.9

4%12

9727

40.

2885

774

803,

507

0.00

4338

465

4,94

30.

5048

6103

90.

0043

384

13,7

31,9

81Id

aho

IL11

4306

0238

8652

875

4407

40.

0460

380

66.0

0%12

4390

420.

0882

228

8,20

9,63

40.

0443

265

6,69

1,72

20.

5379

6120

20.

0443

265

140,

303,

178

Illin

ois

IN55

4415

916

8301

338

6114

60.

0235

628

69.6

4%60

9078

20.

0985

944

4,24

1,83

30.

0229

031

3,45

7,54

40.

5676

6833

0.02

2903

172

,493

,212

Indi

ana

KS

2477

574

7541

3817

2343

60.

0105

173

69.5

6%26

9382

40.

0872

830

1,87

3,86

30.

0101

176

1,52

7,39

70.

5669

9945

90.

0101

176

32,0

24,4

35K

ansa

s K

Y36

8529

610

1982

426

6547

20.

0162

661

72.3

3%40

4943

10.

0988

075

2,92

8,84

10.

0158

138

2,38

7,31

60.

5895

4351

70.

0158

138

50,0

54,0

81K

entu

cky

LA

4219

973

1321

248

2898

725

0.01

7689

668

.69%

4480

271

0.06

1682

43,

077,

525

0.01

6616

62,

508,

509

0.55

9901

283

0.01

6616

652

,595

,110

Loui

sian

a M

A60

1642

518

3239

341

8403

20.

0255

332

69.5

4%63

5556

80.

0563

695

4,41

9,88

40.

0238

644

3,60

2,67

40.

5668

5320

90.

0238

644

75,5

36,1

07M

assa

chus

etts

M

D47

8146

815

5259

832

2887

00.

0197

043

67.5

3%53

0788

60.

1100

955

3,58

4,35

40.

0193

531

2,92

1,62

90.

5504

3168

50.

0193

531

61,2

56,8

46M

aryl

and

ME

1227

928

3321

3589

5793

0.00

5466

672

.95%

1277

731

0.04

0558

693

2,12

50.

0050

329

759,

781

0.59

4632

827

0.00

5032

915

,930

,079

Mai

ne

MI

9295

297

2929

762

6365

535

0.03

8845

968

.48%

9955

829

0.07

1060

96,

817,

876

0.03

6812

05,

557,

292

0.55

8194

764

0.03

6812

011

6,51

7,94

2M

ichi

gan

MN

4375

099

1420

117

2954

982

0.01

8032

967

.54%

4925

670

0.12

5842

03,

326,

843

0.01

7962

72,

711,

730

0.55

0530

107

0.01

7962

756

,855

,961

Min

neso

ta

MO

5117

073

1543

275

3573

798

0.02

1809

269

.84%

5606

260

0.09

5599

03,

915,

449

0.02

1140

83,

191,

507

0.56

9275

519

0.02

1140

866

,915

,290

Mis

sour

i M

S25

7321

680

2110

1771

106

0.01

0808

268

.83%

2852

927

0.10

8700

91,

963,

627

0.01

0602

31,

600,

564

0.56

1025

279

0.01

0602

333

,558

,513

Mis

siss

ippi

M

T79

9065

2479

6455

1101

0.00

3363

168

.97%

9053

160.

1329

692

624,

380

0.00

3371

250

8,93

60.

5621

6423

20.

0033

712

10,6

70,7

03M

onta

na

NC

6628

637

2102

304

4526

333

0.02

7622

168

.28%

8067

673

0.21

7093

85,

508,

972

0.02

9744

84,

490,

396

0.55

6591

262

0.02

9744

894

,148

,692

Nor

th C

arol

ina

ND

6388

0017

7097

4617

030.

0028

176

72.2

8%64

3756

0.00

7758

346

5,28

50.

0025

122

379,

257

0.58

9131

044

0.00

2512

27,

951,

752

Nor

th D

akot

a N

E15

7838

548

3414

1094

971

0.00

6682

169

.37%

1715

369

0.08

6787

41,

190,

001

0.00

6425

296

9,97

70.

5654

6247

70.

0064

252

20,3

37,1

91N

ebra

ska

NH

1109

252

3299

8877

9264

0.00

4755

570

.25%

1238

415

0.11

6441

587

0,00

30.

0046

974

709,

144

0.57

2622

636

0.00

4697

414

,868

,403

New

Ham

pshi

re

NJ

7730

188

2687

308

5042

880

0.03

0774

465

.24%

8424

354

0.08

9799

45,

495,

727

0.02

9673

34,

479,

601

0.53

1744

121

0.02

9673

393

,922

,344

New

Jer

sey

NM

1515

069

5628

5195

2218

0.00

5810

962

.85%

1823

821

0.20

3787

41,

146,

268

0.00

6189

193

4,33

00.

5122

9261

30.

0061

891

19,5

89,7

97N

ew M

exic

o N

V12

0183

352

3957

6778

760.

0041

368

56.4

0%20

0203

20.

6658

155

1,12

9,21

60.

0060

970

920,

431

0.45

9748

427

0.00

6097

019

,298

,381

Nev

ada

NY

1799

0455

5749

271

1224

1184

0.07

4702

368

.04%

1900

4973

0.05

6392

012

,931

,489

0.06

9821

410

,540

,535

0.55

4619

836

0.06

9821

422

1,00

0,00

0N

ew Y

ork

OH

1084

7115

3186

456

7660

659

0.04

6749

570

.62%

1137

4540

0.04

8623

58,

033,

147

0.04

3373

66,

547,

867

0.57

5659

937

0.04

3373

613

7,28

7,01

6O

hio

OK

3145

585

9747

2421

7086

10.

0132

478

69.0

1%34

5881

90.

0995

789

2,38

7,03

30.

0128

884

1,94

5,68

50.

5625

2873

30.

0128

884

40,7

94,5

52O

klah

oma

OR

2842

321

9497

5618

9256

50.

0115

495

66.5

9%34

2854

30.

2062

476

2,28

2,90

20.

0123

261

1,86

0,80

70.

5427

3996

20.

0123

261

39,0

14,9

47O

rego

n PA

1188

1643

3254

324

8627

319

0.05

2648

572

.61%

1230

0670

0.03

5266

88,

931,

577

0.04

8224

67,

280,

182

0.59

1852

486

0.04

8224

615

2,64

1,23

2Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia

RI

1003

464

3099

8269

3482

0.00

4232

069

.11%

1049

662

0.04

6038

572

5,40

90.

0039

167

591,

285

0.56

3310

071

0.00

3916

712

,397

,286

Rho

de Is

land

SC

3486

703

1065

612

2421

091

0.01

4774

869

.44%

4025

061

0.15

4403

22,

794,

915

0.01

5090

72,

278,

152

0.56

5991

979

0.01

5090

747

,765

,284

Sou

th C

arol

ina

SD69

6004

2108

8348

5121

0.00

2960

569

.70%

7568

740.

0874

564

527,

548

0.00

2848

443

0,00

80.

5681

3619

50.

0028

484

9,01

5,82

9S

outh

Dak

ota

TN

4877

185

1431

347

3445

838

0.02

1028

470

.65%

5700

037

0.16

8714

54,

027,

201

0.02

1744

23,

282,

596

0.57

5890

276

0.02

1744

268

,825

,130

Tenn

esse

e T

X16

9865

1070

4583

799

4067

30.

0606

633

58.5

2%20

9039

940.

2306

232

12,2

33,2

230.

0660

512

9,97

1,37

40.

4770

0809

30.

0660

512

209,

066,

592

Texa

s U

T17

2285

073

8382

9844

680.

0060

078

57.1

4%22

3671

40.

2982

639

1,27

8,09

90.

0069

009

1,04

1,78

60.

4657

6650

70.

0069

009

21,8

42,8

01U

tah

VA

6187

358

1901

286

4286

072

0.02

6155

969

.27%

7100

702

0.14

7614

54,

918,

759

0.02

6558

04,

009,

310

0.56

4635

704

0.02

6558

084

,061

,908

Virg

inia

V

T56

2758

1670

9539

5663

0.00

2414

570

.31%

6098

900.

0837

518

428,

800

0.00

2315

234

9,51

80.

5730

8346

90.

0023

152

7,32

8,22

9V

erm

ont

WA

4866

692

1794

757

3071

935

0.01

8746

663

.12%

5908

684

0.21

4106

83,

729,

657

0.02

0137

73,

040,

066

0.51

4508

175

0.02

0137

763

,740

,089

Was

hing

ton

WI

4891

769

1491

201

3400

568

0.02

0752

169

.52%

5371

210

0.09

8009

73,

733,

857

0.02

0160

33,

043,

489

0.56

6630

102

0.02

0160

363

,811

,859

Wis

cons

in

WV

1793

477

4379

7113

5550

60.

0082

720

75.5

8%18

1307

70.

0109

285

1,37

0,32

00.

0073

988

1,11

6,95

60.

6160

5537

60.

0073

988

23,4

18,8

53W

est V

irgin

ia

WY

4535

8814

3546

3100

420.

0018

920

68.3

5%49

5304

0.09

1968

933

8,55

60.

0018

280

275,

959

0.55

7151

228

0.00

1828

05,

785,

948

Wyo

min

g 1990

=========

========

=========

========

========

========

========

====

====

========

====

====

========

=============

CHART of HAVA FUNDS DISBURSEMENT Nationally projected based upon the First Approximation of ACTIVE VOTERS IN EACH STATE using the ACTUAL December 31, 2004 NEW YORK ACTIVE VOTERS and $221 Million Federal Dollars for New York

TOTALS 248709873

84843649

163,

866,

224

100%

65.89%

281424177

113%

185,

208,

072

100%

150,

964,

221

100%

$3,1

65,2

18,1

55

Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company PagesFailed Fax S Rensselaer County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 3:02 PM Rensselaer County Board of Elections 26Failed Fax S Oneida County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 3:00 PM Oneida County Board of Elections 24Failed Fax S Orange County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:59 PM Orange County Board of Elections 18Comp Fax S Nassau County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:51 PM Nassau County Board of Elections 9Failed Fax S Livingston County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:50 PM Livingston County Board of Elections 9Comp Fax S Hamilton County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:46 PM Hamilton County Board of Elections 7Failed Fax S Fulton County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:41 PM Fulton County Board of Elections 6Failed Fax S Franklin County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:40 PM Franklin County Board of Elections 13Comp Fax S Delaware County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:33 PM Delaware County Board of Elections 6Comp Fax S Allegany County Board of Elections Mon 2/13/2006 2:22 PM Allegany County Board of Elections 10Failed Fax S Count-Attorney Mon 2/13/2006 2:21 PM Orange County (County Attorney) 8Comp Fax S Attorney, (Broome County) Mon 2/13/2006 2:05 PM Broome County 22Failed Fax S Konstanty, James Mon 2/13/2006 2:04 PM Otsego County Attorney 13Failed Fax S Attorney-General Mon 2/13/2006 10:35 AM Nevada, State of 26Failed Fax S Secretary-of-State Sun 2/12/2006 5:53 PM Oregon State of 29Failed Fax S Attorney-General Sun 2/12/2006 5:50 PM Oregon State of 29Failed Fax S Kings County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 1:25 PM Kings County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Kellner, Douglas Sun 2/12/2006 1:09 PM NYS-Bd of Elections 29Comp Fax S Graber, Joel Sun 2/12/2006 12:54 PM NYS-DOL OAG 29Comp Fax S Platkin, Richard Sun 2/12/2006 12:35 PM NYS Executive Office (Counsel to the ... 29Comp Fax S Pataki, George Sun 2/12/2006 12:16 PM NYS Executive Office 29Comp Fax S Sullivan, Peter Sun 2/12/2006 12:00 PM NYS DOL OAG Buffalo 29Comp Fax S Albany County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 11:39 AM Albany County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Joyce, Amy Sun 2/12/2006 11:19 AM Albany County Department of Law 29Comp Fax S Yates County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 10:53 AM Yates County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Westchester County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 10:35 AM Westchester County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Wayne County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 10:14 AM Wayne County Board of Elections 29Failed Fax S Washington County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 10:14 AM Washington County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Tompkins County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 9:53 AM Tompkins County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Tioga County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 9:37 AM Tioga County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Sullivan County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 9:03 AM Sullivan County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S New York City Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 8:47 AM New York City Board of Elections 29Failed Fax S Goodman, Norman Sun 2/12/2006 8:33 AM New York County Clerk 29Failed Fax S Bobrow, Joy Sun 2/12/2006 8:32 AM New York County Clerk 29Comp Fax S Suffolk County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 3:28 AM Suffolk County Board of Elections 29Failed Fax S Steuben County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 3:27 AM Steuben County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S St. Lawrence County Board of E Sun 2/12/2006 3:01 AM St. Lawrence County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Seneca County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 2:28 AM Seneca County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Schenectady County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 1:32 AM Schenectady County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Saratoga County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 1:12 AM Saratoga County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Putnam County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 12:52 AM Putnam County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Oswego County Board of Elections Sun 2/12/2006 12:32 AM Oswego County Board of Elections 29

Page 1

Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company PagesComp Fax S Orleans County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 11:32 PM Orleans County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Ontario County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 11:03 PM Ontario County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Onondaga County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 10:42 PM Onondaga County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Niagara County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 10:16 PM Niagara County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Montgomery County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 9:41 PM Montgomery County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Monroe County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 9:21 PM Monroe County Board of Elections 29Failed Fax S Madison County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 9:20 PM Madison County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Jefferson County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 8:47 PM Jefferson County Board of Elections 29Failed Fax S Herkimer County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 8:47 PM Herkimer County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Greene County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 8:13 PM Greene County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Genesee County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 7:52 PM Genesee County Board of Elections 29Failed Fax S Essex County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 7:10 PM Essex County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Erie County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 6:50 PM Erie County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Dutchess County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 6:29 PM Dutchess County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Cortland County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 5:38 PM Cortland County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Columbia County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 5:03 PM Columbia County Board of Elections 29Failed Fax S Clinton County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 5:03 PM Clinton County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Chenango County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 4:43 PM Chenango County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Chemung County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 4:20 PM Chemung County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Chautauqua County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 4:00 PM Chautauqua County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Cayuga County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 3:44 PM Cayuga County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Cattaraugus County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 3:17 PM Cattaraugus County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Broome County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 2:56 PM Broome County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Indelicato, Charlene Sat 2/11/2006 2:16 PM Westchester County (County Attorney-... 29Comp Fax S Attorney, (Warren County) Sat 2/11/2006 1:55 PM Warren County 29Comp Fax S Attorney, (Sullivan County) Sat 2/11/2006 1:35 PM Sullivan County 29Comp Fax S Malafi, Christine Sat 2/11/2006 1:16 PM Suffolk County (County Attorney) 29Comp Fax S Zugibe, Patricia Sat 2/11/2006 12:56 PM Rockland County (County Attorney) 29Comp Fax S Attorney, (Onondaga County) Sat 2/11/2006 12:35 PM Onondaga County 29Comp Fax S Goodman, Lorna Sat 2/11/2006 12:19 PM Nassau County (County Attorney) 29Comp Fax S Attorney, (Monroe County) Sat 2/11/2006 11:53 AM Monroe County 29Comp Fax S Hartzell, John Sat 2/11/2006 11:33 AM Jefferson County 29Comp Fax S Attorney, (Erie County) Sat 2/11/2006 11:12 AM Erie County 29Comp Fax S Wozniak, Ronald Sat 2/11/2006 10:52 AM Dutchess County (County Attorney) 29Comp Fax S New York City Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 10:20 AM New York City Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Otsego County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 9:59 AM Otsego County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Ulster County Board of Elections Sat 2/11/2006 8:32 AM Ulster County Board of Elections 29Comp Fax S Attorney, (Ulster County) Sat 2/11/2006 6:52 AM Ulster County 29Comp Fax S Hinchey, Maurice Wed 2/8/2006 10:33 AM US Congress (NY-22) 29Comp Fax S McDermott, Meaghan Wed 2/8/2006 7:40 AM Democrat and Chronicle 29Comp Fax S Thompson, Carolyn Wed 2/8/2006 7:24 AM Associated Press (Buffalo) 29Comp Fax S Herbeck, Dan Wed 2/8/2006 7:04 AM Buffalo News, The 29

Page 2

Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company PagesComp Fax S Precious, Tom Wed 2/8/2006 6:43 AM Buffalo News 29Comp Fax S Bunker, Matthew Wed 2/8/2006 6:41 AM US Senate Judiciary Committee 1Comp Fax S Schumer, Charles Wed 2/8/2006 6:40 AM US Senate 1Comp Fax S Clinton, Hillary Wed 2/8/2006 6:38 AM US Senate 1Comp Fax S Miller, Candice Wed 2/8/2006 6:37 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S Walsh, James Wed 2/8/2006 6:35 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S King, Peter Wed 2/8/2006 6:33 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S McNulty, Michael Wed 2/8/2006 6:32 AM US Congress 1Failed Fax S Velasquez, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:31 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S Lewis, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:30 AM US Congress 1Failed Fax S Burton, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:29 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S Shays, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:27 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S Davis, Rep. Wed 2/8/2006 6:26 AM US Congress 1Failed Fax S Turner, Fred Wed 2/8/2006 6:25 AM US CONGRESS 1Comp Fax S TANCREDO, REP. Wed 2/8/2006 6:23 AM US CONGRESS 1Failed Fax S Kelly, Sue Wed 2/8/2006 6:23 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S Boehlert, Sherwood Wed 2/8/2006 6:21 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S Nadler, Jerrold Wed 2/8/2006 6:20 AM US Congress 1Comp Fax S Reynolds, Thomas Wed 2/8/2006 6:18 AM US Congress (R-NY) 26th District 1Comp Fax S Hinchey, Maurice Wed 2/8/2006 6:17 AM US Congress (Kingston) 1Comp Fax S Sweeney, John Wed 2/8/2006 6:16 AM US Congress (NY-20th) 1Comp Fax S Hinchey, Maurice Wed 2/8/2006 6:14 AM US Congress Friends of Maurice Hinc... 1Comp Fax S Hinchey, Maurice Wed 2/8/2006 6:12 AM US Congress (NY-22) 1Comp Fax S Rich, Joseph Wed 2/8/2006 5:56 AM US DOJ Civil Rights Div. Voting Sec. 29Comp Fax S Wilkey, Thomas Wed 2/8/2006 5:41 AM US Election Assistance Commission 29Comp Fax S Cottrell, Barbara Wed 2/8/2006 5:40 AM US DOJ NDNY (Albany) 1Comp Fax S Dvorin, Jeffrey Wed 2/8/2006 5:38 AM NYS-DOL Attorney General 1Comp Fax S Miller, Jennifer Wed 2/8/2006 5:37 AM NYS-DOL Attorney General 1Comp Fax S Spitzer, Eliot Wed 2/8/2006 5:36 AM NYS-DOL Attorney General 1Comp Fax S Arnold, Kathlene Wed 2/8/2006 5:35 AM NYS-DOL CLAIMS BUREAU 1Comp Fax S Graber, Joel Wed 2/8/2006 5:33 AM NYS-DOL OAG 1Comp Fax S NYS-DOL Press Office Wed 2/8/2006 5:31 AM NYS-DOL Press Office 1Comp Fax S Sullivan, Peter Wed 2/8/2006 5:30 AM NYS DOL OAG Buffalo 1Comp Fax S Daniels, Randy Wed 2/8/2006 5:29 AM NYS DOS 1Comp Fax S Pataki, George Wed 2/8/2006 5:27 AM NYS Executive Office 1Comp Fax S Platkin, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 5:25 AM NYS Executive Office (Counsel to the ... 1Comp Fax S Attorney, (Broome County) Wed 2/8/2006 5:24 AM Broome County 1Failed Fax S Maziarz, George Wed 2/8/2006 5:23 AM NYS Senate SD 62 1Comp Fax S Rath, Mary Wed 2/8/2006 5:22 AM NYS Senate SD 61 1Comp Fax S Volker, Dale Wed 2/8/2006 5:21 AM NYS Senate SD 59 1Comp Fax S Stachowski, William Wed 2/8/2006 5:19 AM NYS Senate SD 58 1Comp Fax S McGee, Patricia Wed 2/8/2006 5:18 AM NYS Senate SD 57 1

Page 3

Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company PagesComp Fax S Little, Elizabeth Wed 2/8/2006 5:17 AM NYS Senate SD 45 1Comp Fax S Bonacic, John Wed 2/8/2006 5:16 AM NYS Senate SD 42 1Comp Fax S Larkin, William Wed 2/8/2006 5:14 AM NYS Senate SD 39 1Comp Fax S Gonzalez, Efrain Wed 2/8/2006 5:13 AM NYS Senate SD 33 1Failed Fax S Schneiderman, Eric Wed 2/8/2006 5:13 AM NYS Senate SD 31 1Comp Fax S Paterson, David Wed 2/8/2006 5:11 AM NYS Senate SD 30 1Failed Fax S Mendez, Olga Wed 2/8/2006 5:11 AM NYS Senate SD 28 1Comp Fax S Connor, Martin Wed 2/8/2006 5:10 AM NYS Senate SD 25 1Comp Fax S Marchi, John Wed 2/8/2006 5:08 AM NYS Senate SD 24 1Comp Fax S Padavan, Frank Wed 2/8/2006 5:07 AM NYS Senate SD 11 (District Offices) 1Comp Fax S Padavan, Frank Wed 2/8/2006 5:06 AM NYS Senate SD 11 1Comp Fax S Parment, William Wed 2/8/2006 5:04 AM NYS Assembly AD 150 1Comp Fax S Young, Catherine Wed 2/8/2006 5:03 AM NYS Assembly AD 149 1Failed Fax S Hayes, Jim Wed 2/8/2006 5:02 AM NYS Assembly AD 148 1Comp Fax S Burling, Daniel Wed 2/8/2006 5:01 AM NYS Assembly AD 147 1Comp Fax S Smith, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 4:59 AM NYS Assembly AD 146 1Failed Fax S Higgins, Brian Wed 2/8/2006 4:59 AM NYS Assembly AD 145 1Comp Fax S Hoyt, Sam Wed 2/8/2006 4:58 AM NYS Assembly AD 144 1Comp Fax S Tokasz, Paul Wed 2/8/2006 4:56 AM NYS Assembly AD 143 1Comp Fax S Wirth, Sandra Wed 2/8/2006 4:55 AM NYS Assembly AD 142 1Failed Fax S Peoples, Crystal Wed 2/8/2006 4:54 AM NYS Assembly AD 141 1Comp Fax S Schimminger, Robin Wed 2/8/2006 4:52 AM NYS Assembly AD 140 1Comp Fax S Nesbitt, Charlie Wed 2/8/2006 4:51 AM NYS Assembly AD 139 1Comp Fax S DelMonte, Francine Wed 2/8/2006 4:49 AM NYS Assembly AD 138 1Comp Fax S Sayward, Teresa Wed 2/8/2006 4:48 AM NYS Assembly AD 113 1Comp Fax S Manning, Patrick Wed 2/8/2006 4:46 AM NYS Assembly AD 103 1Comp Fax S Miller, Joel Wed 2/8/2006 4:45 AM NYS Assembly AD 102 1Comp Fax S Kirwan, Thomas Wed 2/8/2006 4:44 AM NYS Assembly AD 100 1Comp Fax S Diaz, Ruben Wed 2/8/2006 4:42 AM NYS Assembly AD 085 1Comp Fax S Arroyo, Carmen Wed 2/8/2006 4:41 AM NYS Assembly AD 084 1Comp Fax S Heastie, Carl Wed 2/8/2006 4:39 AM NYS Assembly AD 083 1Comp Fax S Dinowitz, Jeffrey Wed 2/8/2006 4:38 AM NYS Assembly AD 081 1Comp Fax S Klein, Jeff Wed 2/8/2006 4:36 AM NYS Assembly AD 080 1Comp Fax S Benjamin, Michael Wed 2/8/2006 4:35 AM NYS Assembly AD 079 1Comp Fax S Rivera, José Wed 2/8/2006 4:34 AM NYS Assembly AD 078 1Comp Fax S Greene, Aurelia Wed 2/8/2006 4:32 AM NYS Assembly AD 077 1Comp Fax S Rivera, Peter Wed 2/8/2006 4:31 AM NYS Assembly AD 076 1Comp Fax S Gottfried, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 4:29 AM NYS Assembly AD 075 1Comp Fax S Sanders, Steven Wed 2/8/2006 4:28 AM NYS Assembly AD 074 1Comp Fax S Espaillat, Adriano Wed 2/8/2006 4:26 AM NYS Assembly AD 072 1Comp Fax S Wright, Keith Wed 2/8/2006 4:25 AM NYS Assembly AD 070 1Failed Fax S Stringer, Scott Wed 2/8/2006 4:24 AM NYS Assembly AD 067 1

Page 4

Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company PagesComp Fax S Glick, Deborah Wed 2/8/2006 4:23 AM NYS Assembly AD 066 1Comp Fax S Grannis, Alexander Wed 2/8/2006 4:21 AM NYS Assembly AD 065 1Comp Fax S Silver, Sheldon Wed 2/8/2006 4:20 AM NYS Assembly AD 064 1Comp Fax S Cusick, Michael Wed 2/8/2006 4:18 AM NYS Assembly AD 063 1Failed Fax S Straniere, Robert Wed 2/8/2006 4:18 AM NYS Assembly AD 062 1Comp Fax S Valentine, Todd Wed 2/8/2006 4:17 AM NYS-Bd of Elections 1Comp Fax S Zalen, Stanley Wed 2/8/2006 4:15 AM NYS-Bd of Elections 1Comp Fax S Kosinski, Peter Wed 2/8/2006 4:14 AM NYS-Bd of Elections 1Comp Fax S Daghlian, Lee Wed 2/8/2006 4:13 AM NYS-Bd of Elections 1Comp Fax S Maziarz, George Wed 2/8/2006 4:12 AM NYS Senate SD 62 1Comp Fax S Rath, Mary Wed 2/8/2006 4:10 AM NYS Senate SD 61 1Comp Fax S Brown, Byron Wed 2/8/2006 4:09 AM NYS Senate SD 60 1Comp Fax S Volker, Dale Wed 2/8/2006 4:08 AM NYS Senate SD 59 1Comp Fax S Stachowski, William Wed 2/8/2006 4:07 AM NYS Senate SD 58 1Comp Fax S McGee, Patricia Wed 2/8/2006 4:05 AM NYS Senate SD 57 1Failed Fax S Seward, James Wed 2/8/2006 4:04 AM NYS Senate SD 51 1Comp Fax S DeFrancisco, John Wed 2/8/2006 4:03 AM NYS Senate SD 50 1Comp Fax S Breslin, Neil Wed 2/8/2006 4:02 AM NYS Senate SD 46 1Comp Fax S Little, Elizabeth Wed 2/8/2006 4:01 AM NYS Senate SD 45 1Comp Fax S Farley, Hugh Wed 2/8/2006 3:59 AM NYS Senate SD 44 1Comp Fax S Bruno, Joseph Wed 2/8/2006 3:58 AM NYS Senate SD 43 1Comp Fax S Bonacic, John Wed 2/8/2006 3:57 AM NYS Senate SD 42 1Comp Fax S Saland, Stephen Wed 2/8/2006 3:56 AM NYS Senate SD 41 1Comp Fax S Leibell, Vincent Wed 2/8/2006 3:54 AM NYS Senate SD 40 1Comp Fax S Larkin, William Wed 2/8/2006 3:53 AM NYS Senate SD 39 1Comp Fax S Paterson, David Wed 2/8/2006 3:52 AM NYS Senate SD 30 1Comp Fax S Stavisky, Toby Wed 2/8/2006 3:50 AM NYS Senate SD 16 1Comp Fax S Padavan, Frank Wed 2/8/2006 3:49 AM NYS Senate SD 11 1Comp Fax S Johnson, Owen Wed 2/8/2006 3:48 AM NYS Senate SD 04 1Comp Fax S LaValle, Kenneth Wed 2/8/2006 3:47 AM NYS Senate SD 01 1Comp Fax S NYS Assembly Office of Minority Coun... Wed 2/8/2006 3:45 AM NYS Assembly Office of Minority Coun... 1Comp Fax S Hayden, Courtney Wed 2/8/2006 3:44 AM NYS Assembly Committee on Education 1Comp Fax S Parment, William Wed 2/8/2006 3:42 AM NYS Assembly AD 150 1Comp Fax S Young, Catherine Wed 2/8/2006 3:41 AM NYS Assembly AD 149 1Comp Fax S Hayes, Jim Wed 2/8/2006 3:40 AM NYS Assembly AD 148 1Comp Fax S Burling, Daniel Wed 2/8/2006 3:38 AM NYS Assembly AD 147 1Comp Fax S Smith, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 3:37 AM NYS Assembly AD 146 1Comp Fax S Higgins, Brian Wed 2/8/2006 3:35 AM NYS Assembly AD 145 1Comp Fax S Hoyt, Sam Wed 2/8/2006 3:34 AM NYS Assembly AD 144 1Comp Fax S Tokasz, Paul Wed 2/8/2006 3:33 AM NYS Assembly AD 143 1Comp Fax S Wirth, Sandra Wed 2/8/2006 3:31 AM NYS Assembly AD 142 1Comp Fax S Peoples, Crystal Wed 2/8/2006 3:30 AM NYS Assembly AD 141 1

Page 5

Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company PagesComp Fax S Schimminger, Robin Wed 2/8/2006 3:29 AM NYS Assembly AD 140 1Comp Fax S Nesbitt, Charlie Wed 2/8/2006 3:27 AM NYS Assembly AD 139 1Comp Fax S DelMonte, Francine Wed 2/8/2006 3:26 AM NYS Assembly AD 138 1Comp Fax S Hooker, Daniel Wed 2/8/2006 3:24 AM NYS Assembly AD 127 1Comp Fax S Sayward, Teresa Wed 2/8/2006 3:23 AM NYS Assembly AD 113 1Comp Fax S McDonald, Roy Wed 2/8/2006 3:22 AM NYS Assembly AD 112 1Comp Fax S Prentiss, Robert Wed 2/8/2006 3:20 AM NYS Assembly AD 109 1Comp Fax S Casale, Pat Wed 2/8/2006 3:19 AM NYS Assembly AD 108 1Comp Fax S Canestrari, Ron Wed 2/8/2006 3:17 AM NYS Assembly AD 106 1Comp Fax S Manning, Patrick Wed 2/8/2006 3:16 AM NYS Assembly AD 103 1Comp Fax S Cahill, Kevin Wed 2/8/2006 3:15 AM NYS Assembly AD 101 1Comp Fax S Stephens, Willis Wed 2/8/2006 3:13 AM NYS Assembly AD 099 1Comp Fax S Brodsky, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 3:12 AM NYS Assembly AD 092 1Comp Fax S Farrell, Herman Wed 2/8/2006 3:10 AM NYS Assembly AD 071 1Comp Fax S Silver, Sheldon Wed 2/8/2006 3:09 AM NYS Assembly AD 064 1Comp Fax S Betts, Julie Wed 2/8/2006 3:08 AM Yates County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Spano, Leonard Wed 2/8/2006 3:06 AM Westchester County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Shaffer, Linda Wed 2/8/2006 3:04 AM Wayne County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Stewart, Donald Wed 2/8/2006 3:03 AM Washington County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Spada, Albert Wed 2/8/2006 3:02 AM Ulster County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Valenti, Aurora Wed 2/8/2006 3:01 AM Tompkins County Clerk 1Failed Fax S LaPlante, Carole Wed 2/8/2006 3:00 AM Tioga County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Cooke, George Wed 2/8/2006 2:59 AM Sullivan County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Romaine, Edward Wed 2/8/2006 2:58 AM Suffolk County Clerk 1Failed Fax S Hunter, Judith Wed 2/8/2006 2:57 AM Steuben County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Ritchie, Patricia Wed 2/8/2006 2:55 AM St. Lawrence County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Lotz, Christina Wed 2/8/2006 2:54 AM Seneca County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Compton, Linda Wed 2/8/2006 2:52 AM Schuyler County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Hallock, E. Wed 2/8/2006 2:51 AM Schoharie County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Woodward, John Wed 2/8/2006 2:49 AM Schenectady County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Marchione, Kathleen Wed 2/8/2006 2:48 AM Saratoga County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Gorman, Edward Wed 2/8/2006 2:46 AM Rockland County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Merola, Frank Wed 2/8/2006 2:44 AM Rensselaer County Clerk 1Comp Fax S D'Amico, Gloria Wed 2/8/2006 2:43 AM Queens County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Sant, Dennis Wed 2/8/2006 2:42 AM Putnam County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Carso, Brian Wed 2/8/2006 2:40 AM Otsego County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Williams, George Wed 2/8/2006 2:39 AM Oswego County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Lonnen, Carol Wed 2/8/2006 2:38 AM Orleans County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Benson, Donna Wed 2/8/2006 2:36 AM Orange County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Cooley, John Wed 2/8/2006 2:35 AM Ontario County Clerk 1Failed Fax S Ciarpelli, M. Wed 2/8/2006 2:33 AM Onondaga County Clerk 1Comp Fax S Allen, Richard Wed 2/8/2006 2:32 AM Oneida County Clerk 1

Page 6

Send Log

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

Page 7

Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company PagesComp Fax S St. Lawrence County Board of E Wed 2/8/2006 1:37 AM St. Lawrence County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Seneca County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:35 AM Seneca County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Schuyler County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:33 AM Schuyler County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Schoharie County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:31 AM Schoharie County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Schenectady County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:29 AM Schenectady County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Saratoga County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:28 AM Saratoga County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Rockland County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:26 AM Rockland County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Rensselaer County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:25 AM Rensselaer County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Putnam County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:23 AM Putnam County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Otsego County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:21 AM Otsego County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Oswego County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:20 AM Oswego County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Orleans County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:16 AM Orleans County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Orange County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:14 AM Orange County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Ontario County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:13 AM Ontario County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Onondaga County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:11 AM Onondaga County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Oneida County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:09 AM Oneida County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Niagara County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:08 AM Niagara County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S New York City Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:07 AM New York City Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Nassau County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:05 AM Nassau County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Montgomery County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:04 AM Montgomery County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Monroe County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:02 AM Monroe County Board of Elections 1Failed Fax S Madison County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:02 AM Madison County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Livingston County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 1:01 AM Livingston County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Jefferson County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:59 AM Jefferson County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Herkimer County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:57 AM Herkimer County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Hamilton County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:56 AM Hamilton County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Greene County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:55 AM Greene County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Genesee County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:53 AM Genesee County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Fulton County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:52 AM Fulton County Board of Elections 1Failed Fax S Franklin County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:50 AM Franklin County Board of Elections 1Failed Fax S Essex County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:50 AM Essex County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Erie County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:49 AM Erie County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Dutchess County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:47 AM Dutchess County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Delaware County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:45 AM Delaware County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Cortland County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:44 AM Cortland County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Columbia County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:42 AM Columbia County Board of Elections 1Failed Fax S Clinton County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:41 AM Clinton County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Chenango County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:40 AM Chenango County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Chemung County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:39 AM Chemung County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Chautauqua County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:37 AM Chautauqua County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Cayuga County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:35 AM Cayuga County Board of Elections 1Comp Fax S Cattaraugus County Board of Elections Wed 2/8/2006 12:34 AM Cattaraugus County Board of Elections 1

Page 8

Send Log

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

Page 9

Send Log

StatusAtType PrName Date Company PagesComp Fax S DeWitt, Karen Tue 2/7/2006 9:40 PM NYS Public Radio Network 1Comp Fax S Caher, John Tue 2/7/2006 9:38 PM New York Law Journal 1Comp Fax S Bureau, Capitol Tue 2/7/2006 9:37 PM Newsday 1Comp Fax S Ottaway News Service Tue 2/7/2006 9:36 PM Ottaway News Service 1Failed Fax S Perez-Pena, Richard Tue 2/7/2006 9:35 PM New York Times 1Comp Fax S Gavin, Robert Tue 2/7/2006 9:33 PM Staten Island Advance 1Comp Fax S Kriss, Erik Tue 2/7/2006 9:32 PM Syracuse Herald-Journal/ Post-Standard 1Comp Fax S Precious, Tom Tue 2/7/2006 9:30 PM Buffalo News 1Failed Fax S WGY Radio Tue 2/7/2006 9:29 PM WGY Radio 1Comp Fax S Zahn, Benita Tue 2/7/2006 9:28 PM WNYT TV 1Comp Fax S WRGB TV Tue 2/7/2006 9:27 PM WRGB TV 1

Page 10

Send Log

Subject Retries Duration Speed Phone Number/CallerIdForjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 13 min 46 sec 4800 15182702909Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 1 min 2 sec 14400 13157986412Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 54 sec 0 2912437

Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 7 min 26 sec 14400 15165712058Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 0 min 56 sec 14400 15852437015Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 3 min 25 sec 14400 15185486345Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 1 4 min 15 sec 9600 15187361612









Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 19 min 23 sec 14400 15188844751Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 13 sec 14400 2786798Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 6 sec 14400 13153498357

Page 11

Send Log

Subject Retries Duration Speed Phone Number/CallerIdForjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 59 min 3 sec 4800 15855892771Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 15 sec 14400 15853932941Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 7 sec 14400 13154358451










Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 33 sec 14400 15852582237Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 15 min 10 sec 14400 17168521452Forjone v California 06cv0080 USDC-WDNY as filed 02.06.06 0 20 min 8 sec 14400 17168565150

Page 12

FAX of Show Cause Letter Page 1 of 7

The AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide

P.O. Box 28 - Clarendon New York [email protected]

May 5, 2006` FAX and E-Mail

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

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

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

05/02/2006 26 RESPONSE to 24 Order to Show Cause filed by John Joseph Forjone : The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People's equity in Bottom-up Suffrage, Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5(DLC) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

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

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

John Joseph Forjone / Christopher Earl Strunk

Co-Chairmen of the AD HOC NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide


EXHIBIT A




EXHIBIT B

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

Amended Complaint Page 1 of 62

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK case: 06-cv-0080 A(Sc) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x The 42 USC 1983 / Bivens / False Claims Act matter effecting the statewide

distribution of HAVA funds requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel effecting New York Municipal People s equity in Bottom-up suffrage, Homerule autonomy and effecting real property tax levy: JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, DAN DEL PLATO JR. GABRIEL RAZZANO, EDWARD M. PERSON JR., And CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiffs: AMENDED V. COMPLAINT

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

Defendants.___________________________________________________________________________x

JURISDICTION

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

Article V, Article VI, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth, Fifteenth U.S.

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

§1982, §1983, §1985,§1986,§1988 and 42 U.S.C.A §1973gg as relates to the 1993 National

Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the October 29, 2002 Help America to Vote Act ( HAVA ),

P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 and as relates to Article 1 Sections 2 and 4 compliance with the

State of New York Constitution and Laws as a sovereign state among several sovereign states



constitutions and related laws, and as a matter of any state and or subdivision / person, territory

that makes a false claim, as defined under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 USC §3729 thru

§3733, as well as Racketeering provisions of 18 USC §1961 thru §1968 as done under color of

HAVA for Federal Treasury reimbursement certification review by the United States Department

of Justice (DOJ) for the United States Election Assistance Corporation (EAC).

VENUE

2. Venue is properly found in this District and this Division under 28 U.S.C.A.

§§1391(b) and §1393(a) and 18 USC §1965 as a statewide HAVA funds distribution matter to be

heard by a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel in that this Court comprises the District and Division

in which Erie county among other State Subdivision Defendants that maintain their official

residence and in which the claims arose under color of the 1993 NVRA in the 42 USC §1973gg,

the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 with

available remedy as of right adopted by the New York State Election Law ( EL ) §2-100, §4-

100, §4-138, §5-210, §5-211, §5-213, §6-134, §6-138, §6-147, §6-154, §6-156.

That additional State and Federal Defendants are necessary parties arising after the enactment of

the 2002 HAVA, with significant occurrences and transactions with supplemental injuries arising

first on January 1, 2006 by failure of the State Board of Elections to maintain a virtual real-time

duplicate central data base to verify the actual active voter registration in any and all

municipalities with control over the Bottom-up original voter registration data base; and by

failure of the EAC to also maintain a duplicate certified central national data base capable of

checking the legitimacy of actual active voters nationwide in each and every state and territory

totaling FIFTY-FIVE (55).



That this matter has related active cases with different issues:

a) in Western District of New York Forjone v. Leavitt 05-cv-395 before the Honorable

Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara with an interlocutory appeal dismissed by 2nd Circuit

case 05-4513-cv, with motions pending involving 28 USC 2284;

b) in Northern District of New York Loeber v. Spargo 04-cv-1193 before Judge

Lawrence E. Kahn with an appeal wrongly pending before the Second Circuit in case

05-6956-cv and dismissal of an Original Proceeding 05-6539-op with a motion for en

banc on procedural matters pending involving 28 USC 2284;

c) in Northern District of New York USA v. New York State et.al. 06-cv-263 before

Judge Gary L. Sharpe in the matter of New York not meeting the January 1, 2006

HAVA deadline- and where Plaintiffs are denied intervention with prejudice.

d) in Eastern District of New York Torres et.al. v NYS BOE et.al. 04-cv-1129 before

Judge John Gleeson with a January 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order and

Preliminary Injunction with significant elements effected by redistricting, Strunk was

denied intervention status.

e) in Northern District of New York Fitzgerald et.al. v. NYS BOE et.al. 02-cv-926

before Judge Norman A. Mordue with amended complaint in the matter of the NVRA

and HAVA involving ballot access and lockbox restraint, effected by the decision of

Judge Gleeson in the EDNY case Green v NYS BOE 02-cv-6465 with 2nd Circuit

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



PARTIES

3. At all times relevant to the instant action of all PLAINTIFFS, hereinafter known as

Plaintiffs , Eligible Voters , PEOPLE (1) U.S. Citizens , whistleblowers , relators are

U.S. Citizens entitled and or duly registered voters as active voters per Election Law §5-213

organized under EL §4-100 within a legitimate NYS municipality of the State of New York, by

individual relator affidavit of verification attached, are part of a class of state U.S. Citizens jus

tertii of the PEOPLE without any control over patronage, policy, and purse, who are pro se

without an attorney, per 18 USC §1964(c) hereby complain of Defendants as persons defined by

31 USC §3729 thru §3733 under the False Claims Act (FCA) and 18 USC §1962(a)(b)(c)(d).

4. John Joseph Forjone, 5367 Upper Holley Road mailing address POB 28 Clarendon

NY 14429 Phone: 585-721-7673, injured in County of Orleans with George D. Maziarz 62nd SD

and Charles Nesbitt 139th AD

5. a.) Dan Del Plato Jr., 50 Chandler Avenue, Batavia, N.Y. 14202, Phone:

585.343.5283 e-mail [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 516-223-

6883, injured in County of Nassau, with Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. in the 8th SD and David G.

McDonough in the 19th AD

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



7. Edward M. Person, Jr., 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon N.Y. 11703 Phone

631-667-7316, injured in County of Suffolk, Owen H. Johnson in 4th SD & Andrew P. Raia 9th

AD with real property in the 6th AD.

8. Christopher Earl Strunk, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238

Phone 845-389-0774, injured in City of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn, Velmanette

Montgomery in 18th SD and Roger L. Green in the 57th AD.

9. Plaintiffs are associated with The AD HOC NYS People s Bottom-up Suffrage and

Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide ( AD HOC U.S.

Citizens ) for this suit as of right seeking remedy individually jus tertii (third party status created

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

as an unincorporated association that would be granted recognition by the NYS Civil Rights

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

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

Address United States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite -

1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202)

566-3127 E-mail Address [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



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 3Carson 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, SantaFe, NM 87501, Phone:(505) 827-6000, Fax: (505) 827-5826



f) the state of TEXAS by the Secretary of State at Executive Offices State Capitol Room 1E.8 Austin Texas 78701, (512) 463-5770 Fax (512) 475-2761 E-mail; [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.



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]



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 486-2002mailto:[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)853-4049 FAX 853-5169

17. Each of Forty-seven (47) Municipalities without sufficient total persons excluding

the civilly dead resident within for the People therein to have Homerule with at least two (2)

Assembly Districts coterminous within as such are null municipal entities historically created by

the neglect of the State Legislature under State Constitution Article IX, Article II and Article III

accordingly for the People with a nullity municipal Board of Elections including NIAGARA,

ORLEANS, GENESEE, WYOMING, ALLEGANY, CHAUTAUQUA, CATTARAUGUS,

CAYUGA, CHEMUNG, ONEIDA, CORTLAND, CHENANGO, COLUMBIA, TIOGA,

TOMPKINS, SCHUYLER, STEUBEN, BROOME, LIVINGSTON, ONTARIO, YATES,

SENECA, WAYNE, OSWEGO, JEFFERSON, LEWIS, MADISON, HERKIMER, OTSEGO, ST.

LAWRENCE, FRANKLIN, CLINTON, ESSEX, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, SARATOGA,



WASHINGTON, RENSSELAER, GREENE, ULSTER, DELAWARE, PUTNAM, HAMILTON,

FULTON, SCHENECTADY, SCHOHARIE, SULLIVAN:

l. Niagara County Attorney Claude A Joerg, Esq. Courthouse, 175 Hawley Street, Lockport NY 14094-2740 [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 13902-1766Phone: 607.778.2117 [email protected]

o. Chautauqua County Attorney, Frederick Larson, Esq. Chautauqua County Law Department Gerace Office Building Mayville, New York 14757 (716) 753-4247 email: [email protected]

p. Cattaraugus County Attorney, Dennis Tobolski, Esq. 303 Court Street - Little Valley 14755 Extension: 2390 Phone: 716- 938-9111 Fax: [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



dd. Seneca County Attorney, Steven Getman, Esq. Seneca County Office Building 1 DiPronio Drive, Waterloo, NY 13165 Phone: 315-539-1833, Fax: 315-539-3789E-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: [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, FortEdward, NY 12828. Phone (518) 746-2216

ww. Rensselaer County Attorney, Robert A. Smith, Esq. Rensselaer County Office Building - 4th Floor NY 1600 7th Ave Troy, NY 12180-3410 (518) 270-2950



xx. Greene County Attorney, Carol D. Stevens, Esq. 411 Main Street Catskill, NY 12414 Phone: 518 719-3540 Fax: 518 [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 [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



issued by the United Nations, is being utilized to modify suffrage here in New York and each

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

20. The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was adopted by a summit meeting of most

European governments in addition to those of Canada, the United States and the Asian countries

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

21. The Charter of Paris was established on the foundation of the Helsinki Accords, and

was further amended in the 1999 Charter for European Security. Together, these documents form

the agreed basis for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

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

international organization for security; in its region, OSCE is concerned with early warning,

conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.

23. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has 55 participating states

from Europe, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Central Asia and North America, with agents

operating with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and whose Office for Democratic

Institutions and Human Rights is the oldest OSCE institution, established in 1990.

24. OSCE is based in Warsaw, Poland, and is active throughout the OSCE area in the

fields of election observation, democratic development, human rights, tolerance and non-

discrimination, and rule of law.

25. OSCE/ODIHR has observed over 150 elections and referenda since 1995, sending

more than 15,000 observers.

26. OSCE/ODIHR has operated outside its own area more than once. Notably a 43-

member OSCE team offered technical support for the October 9, 2004 presidential election in

Afghanistan, as well as with multiple inspection teams inside the United States.



27. The 1991 Copenhagen Declaration on International Standards of Elections

associated with the OSCE created after the so-called collapse of the USSR (actually seen as a

shift in war by alternative means) follows the script of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe

that adopts the Helsinki Accords human rights goals ratified by the U.S. Senate except for those

Copenhagen Declaration articles that are not self actuating and unenforceable unless adopted by

each of the several states in suffrage matters.

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

H.W. Bush and the Federal Executive in 1990 requires that of 53 Articles the first 27 Articles

are not self-actuating, because nearly exclusively the 50 States who are not party to the treaty

per se individually in each state legislatures in the name of the people within control suffrage.

29. Under the Federal Constitution Article I Sections 1, 4, 8-18, Article II Section 1-4,

Article IV, Article V, Article VI, Article VII limits the power of Congress in keeping with the

spirit of the Copenhagen Declaration as an Extension of the CSCE Helsinki Accords with the

OSCE / ODIHR overtly interfering with elections under the NVRA and HAVA empowers the

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

30. In 1993 the National Voter Registration Act Motor Voter Registration by Mail

was enacted as a self-fulfilling design by Congress to circumvent state sovereign control over

suffrage and create a central voter registration data base for those states maintaining such and

nationally supposedly to prevent the ongoing interstate and intrastate abuse of One Person One

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.



32. The Nov. 21, 1995 Dayton Accords were created as an extension of the Helsinki

Accords and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, that brought forth Copenhagen and NVRA;

33. That the Dayton Accords are an social engineering experiment intended to afford

suffrage to otherwise questionable transient persons deemed resident in the New state (Bosnia

Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia) therein requiring provisional voting at a general election,

which has since been adopted by HAVA;

34. And Furthermore like boiling a frog the provisional voting experiments by the OSCE

/ ODIHR in Bosnia under the Dayton accords, are now being used to further impose top-down

control over the outcome of elections in every state of the several states, that as of October 29,

2002 Congress enacted Help America to Vote Act ( HAVA ), P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 as a

questionable mandate under Article 1 Section 4 to carry forward the state by state requirement

for a central voter databases that was to be done by January 1, 2006 for the November 2006

national elections, with final system operations due in 2008.

35. As enticement for cooperation of the southwest border states Congress created an

overly broad HAVA reimbursement formula based upon Voting Age Population (VAP); and

by vagueness and cynical interpretation would include all persons enumerated in the 2000

Census who are 18 years of age and older whether citizens or not, rather than Citizens Voting

Age Population (CVAP) that does not include non-citizens, the civilly dead and those U.S.

Citizens otherwise not entitled to register to vote.

36. Nowhere in the United States does a non-citizen have a civil right to vote in any

Federal Election at the state level and therefore VAP must only be defined as CVAP.

37. New York only uses those U.S. Citizens who are registered to vote, and is not

interested in those citizens who aren t registered- e.g. no non-citizen is of voting age.



38. the States of CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS,

OREGON all require that only US Citizens be allowed to vote would violate their own state

constitutions and election laws by using VAP under the broad definition used by Congress to

raid the US Treasury of HAVA Funds disproportionately from New York and other states with

less non-citizens or otherwise more honest in filing for HAVA certification and funds.

39. The September 2005 report by the American University Commission on Federal

Election Reform and Center for Democracy & Election Management whose Co-Chairmen James

E Carte and James Baker III report on the public confidence in the election system in Section II

for Voter Registration and Identification state quote that under the National Voter Registration

Act, names are often added to the list, but counties and municipalities often do not delete the

names of those who moved.. Inflated voter lists are also caused by phony registrations and

efforts to register individuals who are ineligible . At the same time, inaccurate purges of voter

lists have removed citizens who are eligible and are properly registered. [T]he quality of voter

registration lists probably varies widely by state. Without quality assurance, however, cross-

state transfers of voter data may suffer from the problem of garbage in, garbage out

40. In New York we have bottom-up suffrage in supposedly Homerule municipalities

with a BOE within that is to maintain the original voting records, and each such municipality

outside the city of New York provide funds for expense of all elections by a real property tax

levy under EL §4-138.

41. In New York 47 municipalities of 58 by mis application and administration of the

State Constitution and Elections Laws do not have at least two (2) Assembly Districts

coterminous within as required by the State Constitution Article III Section 5, as such are a legal

nullity and do not even qualify for having a municipal board of Elections within.



42. As a top-down matter, the New York state Election Law §4-100 requires that each

Election District as a single polling place with at least one voting machine have 950 Active

Voters per EL §5-213 each for equal time place and manner of suffrage- the status quo in New

York as a rule fails to provide equity as such.

43. As a result of the April 22, 2002 redistricting using the 2000 Census by the State

Legislature, Governor, Secretary of State, have continued since the WMCA v. Lomenzo , 377

U.S. 633 (1964) US Supreme Court case to mis administer and apply the State Constitution

and related laws as applies to Municipal boundaries, Election Districts, Assembly Districts,

Senate Districts, Congressional Districts and Judicial Districts statewide using total population

without giving deference for actual citizens eligible to vote and there by gerrymander vote

effectiveness.

44. That each legitimate state subdivision municipality with a legislative body and board

of elections within, in which there are eleven legitimately formed, had until March 1, 2006 to

declare its intention to redraw their own Senate, Assembly, Legislative and Election Districts

within in order to comply with administration and application of equal time place and manner for

bottom-up suffrage within in a fight for more HAVA funding.

45. Despite adequate notification to each and every one of the 58 state subdivision

municipalities named as defendants herein, not one of the municipalities has expressed intent to

reconfigure any districts coterminous within.

46. That NYC is too large in population size by proper application and administration of

the State Constitution and Laws shall not have 1/3 and or ½ of all the State Senators- does;

47. That the State BOE and the State of New York failed to meet the HAVA deadline of

January 1, 2006 to create a central data base which is the subject of a case before the Honorable



Gary L. Sharpe in NDNY 06-cv-263.

48. the State BOE knows an active ongoing central data base, as opposed to the present

once every two years as a snapshot, would entail detecting Election Law Article 17 illegal

interstate / intrastate multiple voting, domicile residency and uncovering the civilly dead and

thereby greatly reduce the number of both active and inactive voters on the registration roles and

thereby decrease the amount of HAVA money due the state.

49. The HAVA penalty, and lack of interstate and intrastate HAVA funding equity means

that real property owners are not equally treated on a municipal by municipal basis and some of

which will lose real property in smaller municipalities as a result of the increased burden

imposed by the HAVA mandate of as much as a 500% Tax Levy increase.

50. Plaintiffs in the Western part of the state as in the Eastern part, on an intrastate basis

want equity with all other parts of the state in HAVA funding missing since 1994, and

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

loss of HAVA funds when California etcetera use a broad interpretation of VAP versus CVAP

contrary to its own election laws and constitutions in seek HAVA funding; New York gets less

funds than it should be entitled to.

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

to name, report that Erie County is unable to pay for compliance with the HAVA without raising

real property taxes or getting more of a share of HAVA money now going to California and

other states making false claims under HAVA, and in that regard the 27 January 2006 Erie Board

Of Elections Audit Released Written by Press Release at Cost, Free!!

http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=898

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



and that additional funding will likely be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Erie County Comptroller Mark C. Poloncarz today issued an audit of the Erie County Board of Elections (Board) for the period starting October 1, 2004 and ending September 30, 2005. The review was initiated by Comptroller, Poloncarz's predecessor in October 2005 at the request of the Erie County Legislature and Executive. The audit examined staffing and operational issues relating to the conduct of elections.

"Our review determined that the Board's staffing structure of 36 full-time employees is sufficient to meet normal election requirements if supplemented by appropriate part-time and seasonal employees , said Poloncarz.

"However, our auditors determined that the Board does not have sufficient funding for part-time employees to meet 2006 election responsibilities and that additional funding will likely be necessary to meet federal electoral mandates under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)." Poloncarz expressed concerns over the Board's ability to conduct, within its current appropriation, the February 28th Special Election for the New York State Senate, September Primary Election, and November General Election. Poloncarz stated, "The Board's 2006 Budget appropriation is not sufficient to meet the new expenses incurred by the County under HAVA, and additional funding will be necessary." The audit reports that HAVA costs to Erie County in 2006 will be at least $1.4 million, and likely higher. HAVA is the federal legislation passed in the wake of the 2000 Presidential Election requiring state and local elections officials to implement certain procedures to safeguard elections. In New York State, this includes transferring election responsibilities and those respective expenses from cities and towns to the County.

53. In the September 2005 GAO Report 05-956 on ELECTIONS it found that:

Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting SystemsAre Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed

While electronic voting systems hold promise for improving the election process, numerous entities have raised concerns about their security and reliability, citing instances of weak security controls, system design flaws, inadequate system version control, inadequate security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor security management, and vague or incomplete voting system standards (see below for examples). It is important to note that many of these concerns were based on specific system makes and models or a specific jurisdiction s election, and there is no consensus among election officials and other experts on their pervasiveness. Nevertheless, some have caused problems in elections and therefore merit attention.

Federal organizations and nongovernmental groups have issued both election-specific recommended practices for improving the voting process and more general guidance intended to help organizations manage information systems security and reliability. These recommended practices and guidelines (applicable throughout the voting system life cycle) include having vendors build security controls and audit trails into their systems during development, and having election officials specify security requirements when acquiring systems. Other suggested practices include testing and certifying systems against national voting system standards.

The federal government has begun efforts intended to improve life cycle management of electronic voting systems and thereby improve their security and reliability. Specifically, EAC has led efforts to (1) draft changes to existing federal voluntary standards for voting systems, including provisions addressing security and reliability; (2) develop a process for certifying voting systems; (3) establish a program to accredit independent laboratories to test electronic voting systems; and (4) develop a library and clearinghouse for information on state and local elections and systems.

However, these actions are unlikely to have a significant effect in the 2006 federal election cycle because important changes to the voting standards have not yet been completed, the system certification and laboratory accreditation programs are still in development, and a system software library has not been updated or improved since the 2004 election. Further, EAC has not consistently defined specific tasks, processes, and time frames for completing these activities; as a result, it is unclear when their results will be available to assist state and local election officials.



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

enforce the election law by equal time place, manner, and flouts the appearance of impropriety in

the matter reported on January 26, 2006 by the New York Daily news article entitled Board

votes to spare elex boss http://www.nydailynews.com/01-26-2006/boroughs/story/385772p-327360c.html

by HUGH SON DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, quote:

Diane Haslett Rudiano- Despite a City Department of Investigation probe that found she lied about her voting address, an embattled Brooklyn Board of Elections honcho will keep her job, the Daily News has learned.

Board of Elections officials declined to punish Diane Haslett Rudiano - even though city investigators said she lives in Forest Hills, Queens, and not at the East New York address listed in voter registration records.

"Her attorney made a case and gave supplemental documentation that wasn't part of the DOI investigation," said Board of Elections Executive Director John Ravitz.

"And [election commissioners] decided that the residency issue DOI raised wasn't sufficient enough for disciplinary action against Rudiano."

Board of Elections commissioners unanimously voted to clear Haslett-Rudiano of the election law felony charges at a closed Tuesday hearing.

Haslett-Rudiano, who earns $76,817 as the borough's top Elections Board employee, is responsible for making sure election laws are upheld.

"I think it's a disgrace," said Sam Sloan, the political gadfly who notified the investigators of Haslett-Rudiano's address flap last year.

"I went to her supposed house," said Sloan. "I talked to 30 of her neighbors who had never seen her there. The idea that she claims she's been living there all these years is just preposterous."

Haslett-Rudiano represents East New York, Bushwick and Cypress Hills as an elected district leader in the Brooklyn Republican organization.

According to her voter registration records, Haslett-Rudiano has lived in a modest two-story Schenck Ave. house since 1988. The owner of the building, Theresa McGovern, 99, said Haslett-Rudiano lives on the second floor.

Property records show Haslett-Rudiano owns several properties, including an upper West Side townhouse and two Queens homes.

The Investigation Department report wasn't made public, and a Freedom of Information Law request to reveal its contents was rejected.

55. On March 15, 2006 an EXCLUSIVE New York Post article entitled Hill Foe Registers

Often, Votes Rarely By FREDRIC U. DICKER http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/65274.htm



ALBANY - Just-announced Republican Senate hopeful Kathleen McFarland has repeatedly failed to vote in some elections and is registered at two addresses - a possible violation of state law, The Post has found.

McFarland, a wealthy Park Avenue matron who announced last week that she'll seek the GOP nomination to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, didn't vote in nearly half of the state elections since 1991, records show.

She skipped six of the past 14 elections - starting from the time she registered as a Republican in late 1991, Board of Election records for New York City and Suffolk County show.

McFarland, a Reagan administration official in the early 1980s, has maintained two voting addresses since 1996: at her posh Park Avenue home and at her family's stunning second home on a small island near Southampton, according to the records.

She pingponged her vote from Manhattan to Southampton in various years, casting her ballot from the Ram Island address in 1998 and 1999, but voting from Park Avenue in 2000 and 2001.

She skipped the 2002 and 2003 elections, and then it was back to voting in Southampton in 2004, according to the records.

State law makes it a felony to be registered at two addresses during the same election cycle, according to state Board of Elections spokesman Lee Daghlian.

"When you change the place you've been voting, a new registration has to be filed, showing that you've changed your address," Daghlian said.

Her spokesman, William O'Reilly, said, "We don't know the circumstances around the missed votes, but we will make no excuses for them."

McFarland's newly hired election lawyer, Josh Ehrlich of Albany, insisted there was "no criminal intent, no venality here," but conceded the law does not allow dual registrations.

"This is a case of the boards of elections not doing their jobs . . . She should have been turned away," Ehrlich insisted.

Records at the two boards show McFarland registered as a Republican in Manhattan in late 1991 and then registered again as a GOPer in Southampton in 1996.

State Republican Chairman Stephen Minarik said yesterday it would "probably make more sense" for the GOP to give its nod to McFarland's opponent, ex-Yonkers Mayor John Spencer.

56. Based upon Plaintiff Strunk s phone call with the Office of Representative Hyde of

Illinois April 18 2006 there is broad failure in any attempt to enact The Federal Election

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



would specifically amend the NVRA of 1993, would require any individual who desires to

register or re-register to vote in an election for federal office to provide the state election official

with proof of citizenship to prevent illegal aliens from voting in federal elections.

57. Plaintiffs pursuant to the foregoing background facts have injuries to plaintiffs

individual proprietary suffrage property by dilution, devaluation as a targeted jus tertii class also

effected by long-term gerrymandering since the 1972 reapportionment; and that those Plaintiffs

with real property are effected by takings injury by multiple schemes to defraud facilitated by

local governments acting in conjunction with state and federal malfeasance, therefore Plaintiffs

complain such is done by defendants illegally as a if by a complex racketeering enterprise under

18 USC 1961 thru 1964 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries as follows:

58. As and for a First Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants DOJ and its

agents and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yet to be named pursuant to above

paragraphs 19 thru 57 have improperly enforced the 1993 NVRA to prevent mail-fraud by those

persons ineligible to register to vote in a respective state of the several states and or territories.

59. A report issued by the Justice Dept. in 2000 detailed a program run under auspices of

Vice President Gore's "Reinventing Government" project to streamline government services.

60. In a successful effort to clear a backlog of 1.2 million applicants, the INS engaged in

this crash program called "Citizenship USA" to naturalize the immigrants between October 1995

and September 1996, not coincidentally, just in time for the presidential election.

61. Douglas Farbrother, an official on Gore's team, is quoted in the report saying he

"believed that the (citizenship) program had a deadline that was directly connected to the

upcoming election."

62. The Clinton administration bypassed the customary FBI background check for these



new citizens demonstrating that creating new Democrat voters was a much higher priority than

national security.

63. It is estimated that tens of thousands of applications approved without FBI review.

64. The Justice Dept. report documented 1,000 cases in Miami; 1,300 cases in Chicago;

and an astonishing 2,500 cases in Los Angeles.

65. The politicization of the INS continued in the 2000 election. As documented by

journalist Joseph Farah, on Nov. 6, 2000, (one day before the national election) the California

Democratic Party sent thousands (upwards of 4 million by some estimates) of mailers out to

immigrants who had citizenship requests before the INS.

66. These non-citizens were informed, in both English and Spanish, they were registered

to vote as a Democrat and given special identification card to "help...voting go more smoothly."

67. Follow up investigations by the press pointed to the possible use of INS records to

commit this massive voter fraud.

68. How many of the recipients took advantage of the generous offer made by the

Democrats is unknown, but based on the estimates it is quite possible that Gore's much touted

popular vote win (by just under a million votes) could all be attributed to this scam alone

69. A Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report reveals that "The Matricula card is

accepted as a valid form of identification by police departments, banks and 12 states for driver's

license applications."

70. This disregard for immigration law has no positive impact for Americans except

those who seek to grant Democrats and Republicans additional power.

71. Moreover, this aberration of constitutional law is tantamount to mailing absentee

ballots for any future election to Iran, Syria, France, Germany, North Korea, or anywhere else.



72. Under the Motor Voter law, anyone [Motor Vehicle Department employees

included] who "knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to

intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to

register or vote" violates federal law.

73. Hence, the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, visa overstayers and others

classified as "refugees" who were granted amnesty or asylum by the Clinton Administration and

or borderless philosophy of Texacan George W. Bush, under the NVRA and seditious lack of

enforcement could all have been illegal voters in the 1996 thru 2004 election thereafter.

74. The DOJ has not done enforcement under NVRA to prevent those ineligible to vote

to take advantage of the Motor Voter law by registering to vote. In Florida, according to the

Florida Secretary of State's numbers, between 1994 and 1998 (the most recent data available),

the number of registered Hispanic voters skyrocketed by an astonishing 557%, from 99,000 to

655,000 while the number of White and Black registered voters increased by a reasonable 15%.

75. The number of registered Hispanic voters has grown even more dramatically in south

Florida. For example, in Dade County, from 1994 to 1998 the number of Hispanic voters grew

by 1996%, a nearly 20-fold increase! And in now-famous Palm Beach County, the four year

increase was completely off the charts, a 7,220% jump!

76. In 1996 the Clinton administration's documented immigrant fast-track citizenship

programs, which have granted citizenship to known criminals, freed to prey on innocent

Americans who "worked hard and played by the rules." ; has not skipped a beat with transition to

the Bush Administration rush to placate and entice illegal immigration and vote fraud.

77. NVRA use by applicants who had no business even visiting this country, let alone

living here, were rushed by the Clinton Administration through the citizenship maze based on the



theory they would, out of gratitude, vote for the Democratic Party.

78. While unhinged seditious Democrats and Republicans spread fear about the alleged

discriminatory disenfranchisement of American citizens, they have supported the indiscriminate

enfranchisement of untold numbers of foreign outlaws -- including suspected al Qaeda operatives

and terrorist sympathizers.

79. The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported that illegal alien Nuradin Abdi -- the

suspected shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia -- was registered to vote in the battleground

state of Ohio by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

80. Also on the Ohio voting rolls: convicted al Qaeda agent Lyman Faris, who planned

to sabotage the Brooklyn Bridge and had entered the country fraudulently from Pakistan on a

student visa.

81. In the battleground state of Florida, indicted terror suspect Sami Al-Arian illegally

cast his ballot in a Tampa referendum in 1994 while his citizenship application was pending. He

claimed the unlawful vote was a "misunderstanding." State officials declined to prosecute.

82. John Fund, author of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our

Democracy," reports that at least eight of the nineteen Sept. 11 2001 hijackers were eligible to

vote in Virginia or Florida while they plotted to kill Americans.

83. According to Ohio s Franklin County Board of Elections, the Dispatch reports, the

office simply "takes a person's word, that they're (sic) a U.S. citizen." The Democratic Party

revealed its hand when it crafted the "motor-voter" bill, which made registration so easy that

NVRA stopped authorities from asking for proof of citizenship.

84. Another method in use by seditious state officials is the unwillingness to require an

ID at the polling place, in New York merely requires recognition by a person s signature.



85. In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal

election (or state election, unless authorized by state law).

86. It is up to the state officials to ensure that those voting in federal, state and local

contests are citizens.

87. A vote by an illegal immigrant brings in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, a newly formed arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

88. It would be ICE's job to deport any non-citizen discovered casting a vote, whether

they are legal or illegal. Marc Raimondi, an ICE spokesman, said the penalty for being in the

country illegally would be deportation anyway.

89. Additionally, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in

violation of the IIRIRA law.

90. There are many documented reports of non-citizen voting, (2) and there is no evidence

of prosecution of the aliens for their action by DOJ or state authority.

91. With nearly 19 million foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens in the

country in the 2000 Census and an estimated 9-11 million illegal residents (many of them were

also counted in the Census by intentional refusal to ascertain actual citizenship status for fear of

decreasing responses) and now in 2006 estimated to be approaching 20 million, the potential is

enormous for non-citizens to affect the outcome of elections.

2 Fraud Roundup, United Press International, January 26, 2001.

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



92. Charges were made in at least three federal elections in California (3) and twice in

Florida (4) that voting by ineligible aliens determined the outcome of the election; for instance:

In Florida, election observers say a sizable number of Florida votes in the 2000 election

may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens. (5)

In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta

Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were

cast illegally by non-citizens. (6)

93. Investigation of the allegations established that aliens had illegally voted in those

elections, but not in sufficient numbers to have changed the result. Authorities appear not to

have prosecuted any of the aliens who voted illegally.

94. The enactment of NVRA made the process of registering to vote nearly automatic for

people applying for a state driver s license or ID card, and called for distributing registration

applications in state welfare offices. (7)

95. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as

information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she does not want to be

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

Ineligible Voters May Have Cast a Number of Florida Ballots, Washington Times, November 29, 2000.4 Ibid5 Ibid6 Ibid7 Illegal Voters, Honolulu Advertiser, September 9, 2000. Election officials found 543 Oahu residents who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote. The officials speculated a number of factors may have resulted in the voter irregularities, including language barriers and the ease of voter registration.



registered to vote. (8)

96. With driver s licenses made available by several states to aliens (both legal and

illegal), it seems likely that voter rolls now contain large numbers of non-

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)



New York were minorities, a group Clinton clearly pandered to in making her decision.

101. Among the special interest groups that oppose requiring ID to vote: The League of

Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership

Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense

and Educational Fund.

102. The Clinton and now the Bush Administration contribute to the opening for mass

voter disenfranchisement.

103. Recently the Treasury Department handed down a decision allowing banks to

accept Matriculas under the Patriot Act, legislation enacted in part to make tracing money to

terrorist organizations easier.

104. In Congressional testimony spokesmen for both the FBI and Department of

Homeland Security backed off previously asserted national security concerns with issuing

Matricula cards to illegals. Granting legitimacy to these flawed ID's opens the door wider to

massive voter fraud in states granting driver s licenses to non-citizens, further undermining an

already besieged franchise.

105. Flaws in the system continue to be used and expanded upon to give the Left an

unfair advantage in elections and to undermine the legitimacy of our most fundamental

American right.

106. In 2002 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, designed to correct some of

the irregularities found in the 2000 election.

107. A report filed in Washington D.C. Nov. 21, 2003 by United Press International

declared that the nation's election boards have few controls that would prevent illegal immigrants

from voting in federal, state or local elections, with many of them saying they operate under a



patriotic cloak of trust that individuals casting ballots will conform to U.S. law.

108. Federal immigration officials estimate in 2002 between 8 million and 11 million

illegal immigrants live in the United States and with the limited restrictions on voting policies,

some say that raises serious questions about the integrity of the U.S. voting system.

109. Three years after the country's most contentious presidential election -- inundated

with hanging chad and butterfly ballots -- the sweeping reforms promised for the voting process

in the 50 states and the District of Columbia had not been realized.

110. Moreover, with few exceptions including those instituted in Arizona and Missouri,

no security measures have been put in place to protect the veracity of elections from illegal, legal

aliens and or citizen multiply registered within a state and without a single state.

111. The U.S. Constitution details how elections in the United States are to work. To

hold office in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, it requires an individual to

reach at least age 25 or age 30, respectively, and be a citizen for at least seven years.

112. The Federal Election Commission, which oversees the financing of federal

elections, does not have jurisdiction over how elections are carried out in the individual states.

"That's not the role of the FEC. It's probably enforced by the Department of Justice," said Peggy

Sims, an FEC research specialist.

113. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in Washington, is an

organization that advocates reform of U.S. immigration policy. Dan Stein, FAIR's executive

director, says the federal government and political parties have little interest in ensuring that

illegal immigrants do not cast votes.

114. "It is one more factor that causes illegal immigration to jeopardize the integrity of

the electoral process. (If) we count illegal aliens in the census and reapportion districts to include



them and we allow people to vote illegally, we have dual nationality," Stein said.

115. "In a sense, it winds up diluting the votes. (But) it's not just a matter of diluting the

votes. If a person's vote is offset by someone voting illegally, you also have this problem of

entire states losing congressional seats. It jeopardizes the legitimacy of the whole system of

representation in this country, potentially."

116. Stein contends that efforts to match names on voter registration lists with

immigration lists have been confounded by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union,

which threaten lawsuits about information sharing. Democrats, he said, insist it would chill voter

participation.

117. FAIR s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal

aliens vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations. He pointed to the 1996 California

race between former Rep. Robert Dornan and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, who defeated

him by 985 votes.

118. In that race Stein said that Dornan challenged the election results and set up a year-

long battle over the validity of more than 700 votes, allegedly by illegal immigrants. A House

committee voted to drop the investigation of Dornan's accusations, saying that while they had

found evidence of illegal votes by non-citizens, it wasn't enough to affect the race.

119. Stein pointed to state driver s licenses as a problem. The so-called motor-voter

program that allows individuals to register to vote when they obtain or renew their drivers

licenses also opens the process to fraud. Some states do not require applicants to prove they are

legal residents of the United States or citizens before they obtain a drivers license

120. Since enactment of the 1993 NVRA a pattern of illegal registration use by mail

fraud by illegal aliens has been aided and abetted by partisan political figures wire and media



fraud intent on vote fraud necessary for maintaining control over patronage policy and purse,

121. There is an ubiquitous scheme to defraud elections with use of NVRA with

impunity due to lack of bi-partisan will to prosecute offenders at the state and federal DOJ law

enforcement level, under the guise that somehow illegal registration and voting is a victimless

crime and law enforcement would undermine confidence in elections and impact partisan gains.

122. That the FEC uses an arbitrary and capricious unofficial definition of VAP based

upon internal consideration separate and apart from state law (11).

11 The Federal Election Commission website http://www.fec.gov/pages/vapwords.htm, with emphasis added by Strunk quote: A Few Words About Voting Age Population (VAP)

The term Voting Age Population (VAP), refers to the total number of persons in the United States who are 18 years of age or older regardless of citizenship, military status, felony conviction, or mental state.The standard source of VAP figures is the Bureau of Census, as reported in their Current Population Reports, Series P-25.

Extreme care must be taken when using VAP figures as a basis for measuring voter participation in elections for federal office. The actual number of eligible voters, those that are legally entitled to vote, will always be less than the VAP because of the inclusion of resident aliens (both legal and illegal), as well as convicted felons who are either institutionalized or who have not yet had their voting rights restored under the various State laws, persons declared non-compos mentis by a court of law, or those persons otherwise ineligible to vote. Neither the Bureau of Census nor any other organization can define with complete accuracy exactly how many eligible voters there are in the United States. According to 1994 estimates, approximately 13 million persons over the age of 18 were not U.S. citizens. (Non citizens make up the largest group of ineligible voting age persons. In contrast, the next largest group, institutionalized felons, who are prohibited by State law from voting in all but 4 States, numbered only about 1.2 million at the end of 1996.) In spite of these shortcomings, the lack of accurate eligibility figures requires political analysts to employ voting age population as a base number for comparisons of participation in the political process.

The other significant variable one must keep in mind when dealing with VAP is the fact that the Bureau of Census actually uses 3 separate sets of voting age population figures in any given federal election:

Projected Voting Age Population Estimated Voting Age Population Current Population Survey

The Projected Voting Age Population is provided by Census in the Spring of each election year. These figures are only "quick and dirty" extrapolations from previous data and are therefore unofficial approximations. These figures include members of the armed forces where they reside at their duty stations, but exclude the military and civilian population overseas and their dependents of voting age who would be eligible to vote by absentee ballot in their home State. These early figures are used primarily to satisfy the needs of the news media and political strategists.

The Estimated Voting Age Population are based on a sample survey conducted in the Summer of the election year and are thus "official" estimates as of July 1st and are certified as such by the Commerce Department. These figures include military and institutionalized populations but (in 1996) were not adjusted for the 4 million undercount in the 1990 census. The value of these statistics lies in their



123.As and for a Second Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants the EAC

and DOJ and its agents yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 122 have

improperly certified state HAVA submissions of the several states without reviewing the

submissions in the context of the respective state law and constitution;

124. EAC has improperly distributed HAVA funds to each state of the several states and

territories under color of HAVA on the basis of DOJ and EAC staff application review

125. That DOJ has admitted to improper review and certification of the applications from

New York in the case USA v the State of New York et.al. NDNY 06-cv-263

126. DOJ has admitted it has improperly certified for EAC to make premature funds

distribution to defendant New York without being in compliance with HAVA and or state Law

127. That DOJ admits that it has improperly certified the application for payment and

EAC has improperly disbursed funds to New York, and are without authority under HAVA to

retrieve the sums improperly paid

128. However, DOJ and EAC are empowered to retrieve HAVA funds under the False

Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733, but refuse to do so.

129. That DOJ and in turn EAC as per above paragraphs 19 thru 128 have similarly

reviewed the applications of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas as well

as the other state of the several states and territories to numerous name without using state law in

utility to government agencies like the FEC who must use them, especially in Presidential election years, for certain financial purposes.

Current Population Survey numbers are generated by Census each month based on extrapolations from the previous years estimates. In contrast, these figures do not include military or institutionalized persons, but are adjusted for the 4 million undercount.

For statistical purposes, the Federal Election Commission has opted to use the Current Population Survey figures for its report to Congress on the NVRA largely out of professional convention.These are the figures employed by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress as well as by Election Data Services, Inc.. Moreover, these are the most frequently cited sources in other private publications such as those from the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate andCongressional Quarterly.



regards to an accurate definition of VAP commensurate with the use of the respective state

election law and constitution in regards to what voting population actually is for the respective

state, i.e. any US citizen 18 years or older being a qualified to register to vote.

130.As and for a Third Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants EAC, Thomas

Wilkey and its agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 19 thru 129

intentionally promote facilitate aid and abet illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona

and in other state of the several states.

131. In ARIZONA when vote fraud was suspected in the 1996 Arizona Primary (the one

that ended Pat Buchanan's winning streak after New Hampshire), the Arizona legislature passed

a special law forbidding a recount for that one primary election only!

132. Jeff Flake R-Ariz., introduced a bill that would bar federal agencies from accepting

a state-issued driver s license unless the state has in effect a policy requiring presentation of

acceptable forms of identification prior to issuance of the license.

133. "Acceptable forms of identification" would include a birth certificate, U.S. passport,

a U.S. certificate of naturalization or U.S. certificate of citizenship.

134. Matthew Specht, an aide to Flake, said that Flake wanted to close the loophole

opened when Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002. That law states that a voter

should present to "the appropriate state or local election official current and valid photo

identification."

135. "There are some states like California that issue drivers licenses to undocumented

citizens. That would be a case where you have a legal form of identification according to federal

law ... for somebody who is not a citizen and should not be allowed to vote," Specht said. In



2004 Arizona Voters approved Proposition 200 that requires all registrants and voters to show an

idea when voting.

136. That the EAC and DOJ are working at cross purposes under HAVA as is properly

framed nationwide by the March 11, 2006 press report By C.J. Karamargin ARIZONA DAILY

STAR Tucson, Arizona entitled U.S. panel says voters don't have to prove citizenship -

Decision appears to run counter to state's Proposition 200 .

137. That EAC and Director Wilkey treatment of the State of Arizona in the matter of

it s plenary right to ascertain who is or is not a citizen for the purposes of voting as a conflict to

be resolved general is further elaborated by the January 24, 2005 Letter from Joseph Rich then

chief of the DOJ Voting Rights Section to the Attorney General of Arizona in the matter of

constitutionality of Arizona proposition 200.

138. Furthermore, on February 7, 2005 the Arizona Attorney General duly notified

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

and as such Missouri enacted a similar law requiring certification that only U.S. Citizens are

permitted to vote in Missouri. United Press International surveyed several states with large

immigrant populations to determine their policies for ensuring voters are legal citizens.

139. FAIR estimates there are as many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in

California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the state's board of elections told UPI that it has

an "inherent assumption" that individuals who sign their names on voter registration cards are

doing so legally.

140. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order

to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding that they provide registration cards in seven different

languages.



141. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or

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

142. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have

been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law,"

Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred.

143. Lee Daghlian, spokesman for the New York Board of Elections, alleges that their

voter registration card is an affidavit that has an individual swear that they are a U.S. citizen and

at least 18 years of age, or face felony charges; in fact the voter registration card is an un-

witnessed declaration unenforceable as an affidavit.

144. "Is there room for someone to lie and get by, sure," Daghlian said. However, he

pointed out that the new rules for the next general election will require potential voters who

register by mail to provide their drivers license number and the last four digits of their Social

Security number.

145. A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney, Hans Von Spakovsky, charged with

determining whether to pre-clear Georgia's voter identification law penned a law review article

advocating polling-place photo ID from all voters last spring, angering critics who say the staffer

had made up his mind on the issue before reviewing it.

146. The Washington Post reported that Hans Von Spakovsky, now at the Federal

Election Commission, published the article under a pseudonym in a 2005 issue of the Texas

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

page at the FEC. It has since been removed from the agency's site but is available here.

147. In the CALIFORNIA 1996 election that unseated Bob Dornan following his efforts

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



registered to vote in the GOP election from 7 precincts simply did not exist.

148. The California Attorney General's office was informed by the precinct worker, but

again nothing was done.

149. In 1998, almost 20,000 fraudulent voter registrations were discovered on the voting

rolls, but were allowed to remain on the excuse that their removal in time for the election would

cost too much!

150. California State Senator BILL MORROW of the 38th Senatorial District in a letter

to the state Attorney General Bill Lockyer on April 7, 2006 challenged him to enforce state law

in regards to illegal aliens registering to vote.

151. Morrow Alleges the registrars of voters in all of California s 58 counties are not

ensuring that they have procedures in place for identifying valid voters so that illegal aliens are

prevented from casting illegal ballots

152. United Press International surveyed several states with large immigrant populations

to determine their policies and controls for ensuring voters are legal citizens.

153. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates there are as

many as 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in California. Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for

the state's board of elections told UPI that it has an "inherent assumption" that individuals who

sign their names on voter registration cards are doing so legally.

154. "Also voter registration cards are clear on the top that you must be a citizen in order

to register to vote," Carbaugh said, adding they provide registration cards in seven languages.

155. She also said poll workers do not check documents such as drivers' licenses or

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

156. "In the event that individuals are identified or suspicious or that complaints have



been filed, we do investigate, to ensure that the voter registrant did so according to law,"

Carbaugh said. She could not say how often that has occurred.

157. The evidence for massive vote fraud in the United States uncovered by the Voting

Integrity Project and organizations like it are ignored by the government, which has obviously

been the beneficiary of such chicanery, and by the media, which is complicit in the fraud.

158. FAIR s Stein says no one can say with any degree of certainty how often illegal

immigrants vote, but that there are occasional fraud investigations.

159. Election On Line. Org reported April 13, 2006 Thousands of registration

applications were rejected in California where, since January 1, nearly 25 percent of voter

registration forms submitted for verification have been rejected by the statewide database. In Los

Angeles County, 43 percent of voter registrations have been rejected.

160. In a letter to Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (R), Conny McCormack, L.A.

County registrar-recorder/county clerk cited several examples of some of the thousands of

applications rejected by the "CalVoter" system including forms being rejected because a last

name has a space in it such as De Leon, or a last name that is actually two last names with no

hyphen, such as Weaver Cardona, or even new residents to California being rejected because the

DMV file the CalVoter system uses is only six months old.

161. "The challenge of setting up a statewide voter registration database that complies

with HAVA requirements has been well-known to election administrators and activists for

years," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "This particular

problem that California is experiencing is a result of the terms of an agreement made between the

Secretary of State and the Department of Justice that is unique to California and a handful of

other states. This form rejection problem itself is a surprise that I don't think anyone anticipated."



162. Nevada has announced that it is to use a voter registration back up system because

of problems with its vendor Covansys Inc., Nevada will be employing a similar system to

California's whereby counties will send voter registration information to a state computer every

24 hours for comparisons to DMV and Social Security records.

163. In February 2006, Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller (R) suspended a contract

with Covansys claiming there were too many problems with the system the company was

creating for the state.

164. According to published reports, in addition to suspending the contract with

Covansys, Heller requested that the company return more than $1 million the state paid for the

creation of a new database as well as reimbursement of monies the state is now spending to

implement the replacement system.

165. Heller told The Associated Press that the back up system is not ideal and that he

prefers a top-down system, but with no vendor contract and an election just about four months

away, the back up system is the only option for compliance with HAVA.

166. As and for a Fourth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendants New York

State Board of Elections and its agents yet named as Defendants as per above paragraphs 19

thru 165 intentionally and maliciously for partisan gain fail to maintain statewide central

data base to enable municipalities to reduce and verify actual inactive voters per EL §5-213 as

displayed below: § 5-213. Inactive status.

1. When a voter is sent a confirmation notice pursuant to the provisions of this article, the voter s name shall be placed in inactive status.

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



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

5. If the board of elections receives notice, which complies with the requirements of this article, that a voter in inactive status is residing at another address within the jurisdiction of such board, it shall transfer the registration and enrollment of such voter to such other address pursuant to the provisions of section 5-208 of this title.

167. That using the flawed 31 December 2004 statewide database done as a snapshot

every two years yields a statewide average number of inactive registrations of 9.74%, includes a

10.08% of inactive registrations within NYC shown in the below Chart on Line #58, and outside

NYC, the mean number of inactive registrants is 9.39% shown below as Chart line #59.

168. Outside NYC the EL §5-213 determined number of inactive registrations by

municipality varies from 2.95% in Chenango county shown on the Chart below on Chart Line

#1 to Sullivan County with 22.93% shown on Chart Line 57.

169.That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE individual municipal

boards responsible for maintaining the original registration records in each municipality separate

from the so-called state database, the NYS BOE does not impose rigorous of uniformity of EL

§5-213 compliance to be done by each municipality as evidenced by the below chart:





170. That notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE and the obvious facts of

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

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

the don t 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:



New York

Municipal

Subdivision History

1683 thru 2006



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

malfeasance is rewarded with expectation of increased dollars by maintaining fraudulent

registrations with plausible denial by the State refusal to setup a real time statewide database,

177. That each individual municipality with implementation of NVRA has lost control

of the accuracy of the original registration database, as was intentionally done to create plausible

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

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

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.



183. As and for a Fifth Cause of Action Petitioners Allege Defendant New York

State Municipal subdivisions and agents yet named as Defendants pursuant to above

paragraphs 19 thru 182 intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration

database on a municipal by municipal basis as required under color of NVRA and HAVA and

New York State Election Law;

184. That Municipal defendants under EL §4-138 pass-on the expense of administering

elections to the real property owners by tax levy outside of NYC and by users fees and other

excises within the city:

185. That Defendant Municipalities depicted in Chart Line Item 24 thru 58 have a

fiduciary duty required of each respective bi-partisan municipal board of elections as part of

the partisan control over patronage policy, purse and especially the real property tax levy

empowered under local government Homerule law, pass on the all unfunded expenses for

Medicaid, Elections, and other unfunded mandates required by the State.

186. Municipal Defendants over the years based upon public records display a pattern

of intentional concealment and cover-up in regards to accurately noticing and segregating the

actual Medicaid costs required under Social Service Law related to the Social Security Act, as



well as election costs required under EL §4-138 and now NVRA and HAVA to be levied upon

real property outside NYC, as excise users fees within NYC whose tax burdens are staggering.

187. That were the other states of the several states to honestly and legally to make

reimbursement claims for HAVA funds using the narrow interpretation of VAP based upon

rigorous use and enforcement of the respective state constitution and laws less HAVA funds

would be disbursed to those states, and

188. Accordingly based upon the narrow interpretation of the HAVA VAP

reimbursement formula, rather than the intentionally over broad use of VAP as

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

part of the voting age population, and

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

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

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

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

interpretation of VAP.

190. That Plaintiffs are not legally represented in the state legislature with a dedicated

voice or other recourse other than Federal court and that State Defendants, State Municipalities

and rubber stamp by DOJ of the April 22, 2002 gerrymander of state and federal districts

191. Gerrymander per se is done by mis application and administration of the state

constitution and laws, contradicts the express required total number and allotment of State Senate

Districts ( SDs ) location, and ratio of Assembly Districts ( ADs ) seats within;

192. Statewide allocation, size, number of State Senate and Assembly seats for the

people resident within each existing municipality entitled to no less than two (2) ADs and a



municipal Board of Elections within is dictated by the state constitution and related laws;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

195. That the Chart on the next page entitled 2000 Census Table 1.1 Total Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

196. The 2000 Census Table 1.1 for total combined persons by Sex and Age in the

category of 18 Years and over totals say 204 mil. VAP as opposed to Citizens both Native and

Naturalized including the civilly dead, or say 188 mil. minus the civilly dead equals CVAP

197. The Projected 2000 percent of Total State EV per total National EV the total

185,208,072; and further shows the 2004 Estimated Active Voters per state using New York

10,540,535 AV or 81.51% of the total registered persons in NY and each state as first

approximation equal to say 150,964,221 Active Voters nationally as the figure to be used to



disburse HAVA funds.

198. The set of Census numbers when compared to the total VAP used by the EAC will

validate whether VAP of CVAP is used.

199. That the basis for determining the accuracy of the projection of the national total

of say 185,208,072 mil. Citizens 18 years or older, whether registered or not excluding the

civilly dead, approximates Citizen Voting Age Persons New York has say 12,931,489 with the

actual 10,540,535 AV recorded as of 31 December 2004 in the flawed central database, and

200. That based upon the December 31, 2004 New York voting rolls, 10,540,535



Active Voters is compared for accuracy with the actual number of those persons alleged

Eligible to register to vote as claimed by the Secretary of State of both California, Texas, in

each State Compliance Plan filed with the Department of Justice and the Election Assistance

Commission for HAVA funds reimbursement, and that the SOS of California alleges it has

26.08% unregistered and Texas alleges it has 12.47% unregistered; and compares such figures to

an estimated 9.79% for New York state as of December 31, 2004, as follows:

State2000

Census Total

ALLEGED Eligible

Percent of ALLEGED

Eligible

Actual Total

Registered

Total Active Voters

Total Alleged Eligible

unregistered

Percent unregistered

======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= =======California 33,930,798 22,495,914 66.30% 16,628,673 15,587,358 5,867,241 26.08%

Texas 20,903,994 14,965,061 71.59% 13,098,329 9,971,374 1,866,732 12.47%New York 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



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

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

203. That the Texas compliance submission to the DOJ and EAC in the matter of use of

the term Eligible notes that its VAP according to the 2000 Census is 14,965,061; as follows:



204. That in the matter of national HAVA Funds distribution there is an inconsistency in

the use of VAP versus CVAP, that a thorough review of the public records of each state of the

several states and territories will reveal in comparison the 2000 Census enumeration for nativity

and State Plans submissions to the Election Assistance Commission evidenced by the Federal

Register record on the EAC website.

205. Federal Election Commission (FEC) basis for which VAP (shown in footnote #11)

is used differently from state to state and would properly create an offset and resolution for

equity; especially since as many as 18 states have not implemented the centralized voter

registration database- i.e. the underlying reason for HAVA and the National Voter Registration

Act (NVRA) in the first place.

206. The imperative to catch the rampant vote fraud and abuse nationally and statewide

here in New York is essential and warrants fraud investigation statewide.

207. The Chart below compares the actual numbers used by New York with a

$221,000,000 funds figure that is subject to HAVA funding variations caused by arbitrary use of

VAP by California and Texas in the state compliance submissions to the DOJ and EAC:

the Chart shows that New York even with a large number of non-citizens like both Texas and

California, however New York has relatively less aliens, and therefore is more significantly



injurious to the U.S. Citizens resident in New York with use of VAP instead of CVAP;

accordingly New York Citizens are denied equal protection as a result of California and

especially Texas gaming the system without proper Voting Rights Act compliance oversight and

equal treatment afforded by DOJ review and certification for the EAC to equally disburse funds.

208. That Injury to Plaintiffs is significant and palpable by the very nature of the

underlying causes of action stated above in paragraphs 58 thru 207, Petitioners / Plaintiffs

individually and collectively as a class as those similarly situated are irreparably injured by

Respondents / Defendant as a result as follows:

209. As and for a First Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 208

Respondents injure Petitioners by Denial of Substantive Due Process required of Defendants

under proper administration and application of the NVRA, HAVA and NYSC and Laws .

210. Because of virtually no vote fraud enforcement, motor voter registration, driver's

licenses for illegal aliens, amnesties and other factors, American's most precious liberty, voting,

is being rapidly undermined by illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens.

211. As and for a Second Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 210

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

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

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

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

Respondents infringe Petitioners speech and association fundamental rights otherwise

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

denial of due process and equal treatment under Election Law and redistricting violation of the

NYSC Art III, infringe speech in the Legislature.



213. As and for a Fourth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 212

Federal Respondents as a Bivens 1st, 4th 5th 8th 13th 14th 15th amendments injury disenfranchise

Petitioner suffrage rights by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs proprietary

tangible suffrage property.

214. As and for a Fifth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214 State

Defendants by a pattern of malicious fiduciary neglect intentionally take Petitioners suffrage

rights as reverse discrimination prohibited by VRA under a scheme to defraud under color of the

NVRA and HAVA.

215. As and for a Sixth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 214

Respondents infringement of Petitioners speech, association, bottom-up suffrage and Homerule

autonomy rights and unlawful takings by patterns of fraud under multiple schemes to defraud

thereby deny a republican form of government.

216. As and for a Seventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 215

Respondents injures Petitioners 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th Amendment Right as U.S. Citizens who as

New York State Citizens with sovereignty granted in each state of the several states are to be

protected against foreign interference with suffrage aren t by use of VAP instead of CVAP.

217. As and for a Eighth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 216

Respondents injure Petitioners as jus tertii classes where they reside since April 22, 2002 having

expended state available remedy are without a means to provide for reasonable amendment to the

State Constitution.

218. As and for a Ninth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 217 in

the matter of CVAP unequal treatment of the unfunded HAVA mandate on a municipal entity-

by-entity basis Defendants deny substantive due process for the EL §4-138 unfunded mandate as



is done under the Medicaid tax levy without notice and segregation of the election costs on real

property tax levy, is a taking of property.

219. As and for a Tenth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 218

notwithstanding 28 USC 1341 does not apply herein, the EAC under HAVA absent equity relief

would deprive Plaintiffs and the PEOPLE of NYS and of the several States by either Top-down

or Bottom-up suffrage, with Homerule autonomy, must afford equal protection of the law against

HAVA false claims, would otherwise qualify under the False Claims Act 31 USC 3729-3733.

220. As and for a Eleventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 219

that damages to individual plaintiffs jus tertii within each respective municipality entitled to a

board of elections not in compliance with application and administration of the state constitution

and laws who by ultra vires offense, not least of which impose unequal EDs non-conforming

with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 and without elections conducted without bipartisan election

inspection, while maliciously requiring of real property tax per EL §4-138 as an unreasonable

burden by excessive expense, Plaintiffs as a jus tertii class require reimbursement for suffering

arbitrary and capricious taking of personal and real property.

221. As and for a Twelfth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 220

that were any claim against the HAVA reimbursement transacted with DOJ and EAC for the

state of New York without bottom-up suffrage and Homerule compliance with the application

and administration of the state constitution and related laws such would be a false claim as

defined under 31 USC §3729 thru §3733 subject to treble damages and penalties against

Defendants with payment due to Plaintiffs as whistleblower / relator jus tertii as U.S. Citizens in

the name of the United State Government entitled to 15% to 30% of that recovered and a fee for

each false claim filed by any municipality not conforming as well as any state effecting as a false



claim, and that the fee due relators per transaction is in the amount not to exceed $11,000 for

each occurrence, and notwithstanding the False Claims Act ( FCA ) damages that financial

injury to individual plaintiffs being denied expectation of effective suffrage participation date

exceeds $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners as whistleblower / relators and those similarly situated as a

Federal class of CVAP within the state of New York and in the several states and territories urge

remedy from irreparable harm that warrants a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel for preliminary

injunction suspending HAVA filing deadlines, permanent injunction for equal treatment of

suffrage and autonomy for all New York State Citizens and CVAP nationwide entitled to

suffrage separate from non-citizens, minors and those adjudged civilly dead, Petitioners and

those similarly situated urge remedy and protection from irreparable harm that warrants

permanent injunction for equal treatment of all real property owners with a the Court order:

A. That there must be a 28 USC 2284 trial to hear the statewide municipal apportionment of HAVA funds based upon proper administration and application of the State Constitution and related laws

B. That each legitimate municipality has until March 1, 2006 to initiate redistricting of its legislative, senate, assembly, congressional districts coterminous within including those of NYC and for HAVA certification and constitutional infringement issues.

C. That the HAVA January 1, 2006 compliance deadline for each state of the several states be stayed nationwide until such time that the court determines the constitutionality of the use of VAP funding rather than CVAP without those adjudged civilly dead, and determines equity for reimbursement using CVAP nationwide accordingly.

D. That each municipality entitled to a Board of Elections within must produce a compliance plan proving conformance with the administration and application of the State Constitution and laws in order to receive HAVA reimbursement for equity statewide in voting machine acquisition.

E. That U.S. DOJ voting rights section must pre-clear municipal compliance plans before



certification is sent to the Election Assistance Commission for reimbursement offset.

F. That the municipalities of Hamilton and Fulton must elect together conterminous within one single SD, AD and CD.

G. That the US Supreme Court held in the WMCA case that the State Constitution Article III Section 4 formula for enlarging the number of SDs beyond the expressed provision of fifty (50) is unconstitutional, and as such until such time that the NYSC is amended accordingly with a new formula, there shall be fifty (50) SDs that shall each contain three ADs coterminous within a CD and JD by proper application and administration of the NYSC and laws to meet the requirements of the VRA, the U.S. Constitution and HAVA reimbursement for ED voting machines.

H. That in the matter of EL §4-100 creation of Election Districts shall not to exceed 950 active voters ( AV ) each statewide, and further, every ED statewide shall be of equal size with the exception that for the convenience of the active voters any ED may be subdivided and additional voting machines provided and paid for by the EL §4-138 real property tax levy, and furthermore, at the direction of any municipal legislature to the board of elections within may decrease the number of EDs within such municipality to contain more active voters beyond 950 AV not to exceed 1150 active voters, with the convenience proviso of ED subdivision.

I. That redistricting of the each SD, AD, CD and adjoining SDs ADs and CDs is moot were it effected before March 1, 2006 for the purposes of the 2006 election cycle based upon proper use of the New York State Constitution Article III and laws, is now dependent upon a Federal Court under 28 USC 2284.

J. That the NYC entity must be subdivided to prevent continued disproportionate diminished dilution of EV / CVAP votes within NYC, excluding those adjudged civilly dead must beenumerated 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 andmanner in regards to available machines and absentee ballots

M. A trust fund for each municipality setup with HAVA funds to property real property owners over time to prevent real property taxes increase

N. Restraint against HAVA funds from being disbursed to any and all states and or

EXHIBIT C

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

RICO Statement Page 1 of 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------x RICO CASE STATEMENTJOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, DAN DEL PLATO JR. PURSUANT TO LOCALGABRIEL RAZZANO, EDWARD M. PERSON JR., RULE 5.1(h)And CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. V. 06-cv-0080A(Sc)

The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION,THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ;The States of: CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS each by Secretary of State and Attorney Generalrespectively; THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; New York State ATTORNEY GENERAL per CPLR §1012; THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et.al. TRIAL BY JURY IS

Defendants. DEMANDED OF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------x ALL ISSUES

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara.

The Amended Complaint has 221 paragraphs and Wherefore relief section

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

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

Plaintiffs individual suffrage proprietary property by dilution, devaluation, and



offset as a jus tertii class (1) additionally effected by long-term gerrymandering

since the 1972 reapportionment, (ii.) those Plaintiffs with real property are

especially affected by takings injury caused by multiple schemes to defraud

facilitated by local governments acting in conjunction with state(s) of the several

states and territories and federal malfeasance and both sets of Plaintiffs suffer (iii.)

theft of individual liberty.

That Plaintiffs complain of injury done by Defendants, their agents

statewide, and those yet named nationally and internationally conducting an

enterprise through patterns of racketeering activity defined 18 USC §1961 thru

§1968 with six (6) causes of action and twelve (12) injuries.

The enterprise in New York, centers the New York State BOE and its

agents, including every Municipal BOE and its agents, including Thomas Wilkey

as its Democratic Party co-director and member of the National Association of

Secretaries of State (NASS), are a legally mandated bi-partisan configuration

dependent upon appointed members of two different political faiths (the same

parties for more than one hundred years) are all defendants as a class herein too

numerous to name. By operation of law Defendants preclude non-partisan and or

non-majoritarian citizens. As such all bi-partisan Defendants and their agents

have an express fiduciary duty to check and verify the actions of each other, as

1 Jus tertii third party standing created by non/mis/malfeasant neglect of statutory fiduciary duty.



well as to detect, prevent and punish misrepresentation and fraud in provision of

suffrage for the benefit of each Plaintiff individually and class similarly situated

precluded from the process under color of law.

Plaintiffs allege Defendants on a state, multi-state, national and international

level are part of a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with exploiting vagaries,

loopholes and questionable devices associated with the Voting Age Population

(VAP) Formula created by Congress and the enterprise itself as if by operation of

law under color of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 2002 Help

America to Vote Act (HAVA).

That the enterprise reaps unjust enrichment by taking intangible and tangible

property by fraudulent concealment, extortion, theft and robbery benefiting from

mail and wire fraud while operating under color of the 1993 NVRA, 2002 HAVA

incorporated into the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA); and by operation of the

Racketeering Enterprise among enticements it harbors aliens defined per the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), uses the Great Society Program

provision of Medicaid (SSA), education, housing, employment and provides mail-

in registration and voting without oversight to Plaintiffs proprietary property and

business detriment.



That under HAVA as an extension of NVRA, the enterprise and its agents

facilitate illegal mail-in voter registration(2) devised in a scheme that can only be

enforced by the respective state of the several states in many of which its agents

are of the enterprise itself. That the DOJ has refused to become involved as a rule

rather than exception, and when the State authorities refuse to do fiduciary duties

as the only agency that may ascertain the validity of the registration and or voting

by mail-in voter registration and or absentee ballots nationwide, As such politically

motivated dereliction of fiduciary duty constitutes a component of the enterprise(3)

scheme for unjust enrichment that willfully facilitates, aids and abets to defraud

Plaintiffs, those similarly situated, and the Federal Treasury by devaluing and or

nullifying (offsetting) U.S. Citizen s proprietary vote investment, thereby thieves

and extorts expectation of suffrage effectiveness, real property, and individual

2 18 USC § 1341. Frauds and swindles - Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

3 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television -Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.



liberty; and notwithstanding the myth of good government appearing long

abandoned in New York, corruption is a bi-partisan endeavor, expectation of

effective voting remains the right that safeguards all other rights.

That NYS BOE is at the center of the enterprise with respect to various New

York state subdivision municipal boards of election who are each either co-

conspirators willfully acting or unwitting participants in the scheme to facilitate

registration, voting, and with use of the U.S. Mail funding the scheme by a pattern

of real property tax levy taking property differently outside NYC and other states

than within. That participants act under color of the VRA and related laws to aid

and abet illegal alien sanctuary per 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.), obstruct

INA process in the matter of facilitating illegal aliens to pose as US Citizens (4), to

obtain fraudulent documents (5), and then on the prime voters list used tangentially

every tens years to gerrymander as was done April 22, 2002. That the criminal

activity of the enterprise involves mail and wire fraud defined under 18 USC

§1341 and 18 USC §1343, and that for no less than fourteen years has been aided

4 18 USC § 1425. Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully- (a) Whoever knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship

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



and abetted by DOJ, FEC and now EAC, its agents in bi-partisan

administrations.

That anyone who is not a citizen, or is a citizen multiply registered at two

different locations with intent to vote, or is a U.S. Citizen declared civilly dead by

due process of law including but not limited to felons who have not regained civil

rights as well as those declared incompetent under supervision of the state, who

engages in use of suffrage documents and or votes, participates in the scheme to

defraud with such documents (6). That any document associated with use of the

social security number or other official means of identification that may be used

with intent to defraud the government, by passing as a US Citizen or legally

6 18 USC 1028 Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section (1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; (4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; (7) knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; (c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that (1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document; (2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or (3) either (A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or (B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section. (d) In this section (1) the term authentication feature means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers

or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified; (f) Attempt and Conspiracy. Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.



documented alien, are document matters that DOJ absolutely has authority and

jurisdiction over.

That DOJ and its agents inaction absent reasonable standard of care is

dereliction of duty, that appears politically motivated, is consistently done as a

pattern of dereliction while under the Clinton and current Bush administrations to

both conceal and facilitate the scheme to defraud.

That the scheme to defraud US Citizens that registers illegal aliens to vote as

if done by US Citizens under color of NVRA and HAVA involves solicitation of

foreign owned vendors to acquire, operate and manipulate votes cast on electronic

voting machines mandated by Congress, and that such schemes not only statewide

have an impact nationally and internationally as a matter of commerce under North

American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) whose agents promote open borders

and predatory trade practice with use of chattel indenture and peonage.

The schemes use the weakness of the VRA, whose safeguards apply only

for protected minorities in which DOJ has jurisdiction; however, does not afford

equal protection to those who are not protected minorities, operates as a reverse

discrimination facilitating the crime defined(7)

7 18 USC § 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises-(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform (b) As used in this section (i) unlawful activity means (2)extortion, bribery, in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act



That by reason of not having a central database, by reason of Don t ASK

Don t Tell harboring policies, by reason of non-compliance in application and

administration of the respective state constitution and related laws, by reason of

enticement and common purposes with federal funds certified without checks and

balances; by reason of the proximate cause of the commonality of criminal activity

plaintiffs are sufficiently directly injured by the unlawful expansion of the

registration pool, and by reason of harboring deprives Plaintiffs individual and

collective suffrage bargaining power, depresses suffrage power outside of the

enterprise.

That each Plaintiff whose proprietary property is affected associate together

in an ad hoc group to protect proprietary voting property, personal property, real

property, and intangible liberty, against defendants perversity in participating

knowingly and unknowingly as outlined above in a statewide scheme to defraud, a

nationwide scheme to defraud and international scheme to defraud under color of

the NVRA and HAVA, and as such Plaintiffs require protection relief against

interference in this action accordingly (8)

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

8 18 USC § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant- (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent



According to Local Rules Plaintiffs submit this RICO Case Statement that

includes facts upon which we are relying and which were obtained as a result of

the reasonable inquiry required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In

particular, the statement uses the numbers and letters as set forth by local rules, and

states in detail and with specificity the following information.

(1) State whether the alleged unlawful conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d).

RESPONSE: This civil action alleges violation of 18 USC §§ 1962 (a), (b), (c), and (d).

(2) List each defendant and state the alleged misconduct and basis of liability of each defendant.

RESPONSE:

a) The UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION created

under HAVA by bi-partisan consent not competition has by gross dereliction

of duty disbursed Federal Funds without proper oversight using the FEC

definition of VAP rather than by actual state law imposes a top-down form of

from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (c) Whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense;



state and national elections without Article 5 amendment;

b) THOMAS R. WILKEY its Director, having previously been the a Democratic

Party co-director of NYS BOE, pursuant to the Third Cause of Action aids and

abets illegal aliens to register and vote in Arizona and other states of the several

states as per paragraph 137.;

c) THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION co-authority

of the EAC in the matter of involvement in the implementation of the

unofficial definition of VAP for broad rather than narrow use as referenced

by the Amended Complaint footnote #11 referenced by paragraph 122 and in

the First Cause of Action Paragraphs 58 thru 122.

d) THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Voting Rights Section

per (VRA) under direction of Joseph Rich who retired in 2005, and now John

K. Tanner with assistant Wan J. Kim, all have failed to duly certify HAVA each

state compliance plan submission by measure of state law in the matter of VAP,

admitted such for New York on the record of USA v NYS BOE on March 23,

2006, referenced in Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207;

e) Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ preceded by John Ashcroft in the

Bush Administration, and Janet Reno under the Clinton Administration,

together have been politically motivated in the arbitrary enforcement of the

VRA, and especially the NVRA and HAVA to the detriment of Plaintiffs and



those similarly situated. Alberto Gonzalez first acted from 2000 thru 2004 as

counsel to President Bush and after the 2004 Elections as referenced in the

Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207;

f) Each State of the several states and territories by each Secretary of State with

authority and Fiduciary control over the respective State Board of Elections

responsible for compliance with the NVRA and HAVA as each similarly

devises a different interpretation of VAP and billing as referenced in the

Amended Complaint paragraphs 58 thru 207; and

g) Each state of the several states Attorney General responsible for protecting US

Citizen suffrage. Plaintiffs allege that CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEVADA,

ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS have falsely billed for HAVA funds and

have received an amount greater than each is entitled by using a broad

interpretation of the VAP rather than a narrow definition of CVAP in keeping

with state law referenced in paragraphs 58 thru 207.

h) THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (SOS) first with

Alexander Treadwell (who left to become chairman of the Republican Party and

now being filled by Stephen Minarik), replaced by sportscaster Randy Daniels,

now with an unnamed substitute with authority, jurisdiction and responsibility

to protect the civil rights of every citizen of the state of New York and to keep

the bi-partisan function of the State Board of Election and related boards



operating as such have failed to enforce oversight of the NYS BOE improperly

operating under Election law per EL §3-100, as well as non-enforcement of

open meetings law, has aided and abetted concealment of the enterprise that by

public disclosure of the bi-partisan decisions that have been degenerated in a

star chamber, would have been exposed;

i) New York State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER per CPLR §1012, like the

SOS in the matter of enforcement of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article

5A, Eliot Spitzer and Dennis Vacco before him are bi-partisan operatives

who are politically motivated to enforce law in a capricious manner for the

benefit of the bi-partisan enterprise, and that just as the Attorney General has

been found wanting in a pattern of lack of enforcement of fraud and abuse in

the Medicaid program, he is similarly exudes willful neglect in election matters,

j) THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, past and present two

bi-partisan co-commissioners and two co chairmen, two Counsels, two co-

Directors, one NVRA Officer, agents at the Office of General Services securing

equipment and services, and per the Fourth Cause of Action in the Amended

Complaint paragraphs 166 thru 182 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of

Action 183 thru 193 of the Fifth Cause of Action are at the Hub of the

Racketeering Enterprise billing for HAVA funds yearly since 2002 enactment.

k) That as per the Fifth Cause of Action in the Amended Complaint paragraphs



183 thru 193 as they are related to the Fourth Cause of Action 166 thru 182, the

New York State municipal subdivisions entitled a municipal board within

whose officers to numerous to name herein for the purposes of brevity in the

matter of the fiduciary duty to comply with EL §5-213, EL §4-100 along with

interrelated bi-partisan safeguard and oversight of elections, especially since

mere existence of a legal county party committee under EL §2-100 in most

municipalities is questionable, would detail plaintiffs contentions of

wrongdoing; and to the extent that the 1894 state constitutional mandated

firewall of municipal control over the original database has been breeched by

the operation of NVRA, HAVA and districting after the case WMCA v.

Lomenzo, 377 US 633 (1964), the need for safeguard and compliance becomes

that more urgent as a fiduciary duty to protect plaintiffs and those similarly

situated.

(3) List the alleged wrongdoers, other than the defendants listed above, and state the alleged misconduct of each wrongdoer.

RESPONSE:

For the reasons and occurrences cited in the Amended Complaint in paragraphs 1

thru 221: William J. Clinton, Albert Gore, Douglas Farbrother, George W. Bush,

Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Joseph Rich, John Turner, Wan J. Kim, The

Department of Homeland Security including Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE), George E. Pataki, Alexander Treadwell, Carroll Berman,



Edward I. Koch, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, National Association of

Secretaries of State, New York State Association of Counties, Lee Daghlian, Diane

Haslett Rudiano, Kathleen McFarland, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, The

League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National

Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Association of

Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the American Civil

Liberties Union, The Brennan Center for Justice. the city of New York borough

party committees, Defendant Municipal party committees, NYS Party Committees.

(4) List the alleged victims and state how each victim was allegedly injured.

RESPONSE:

a) JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Orleans County;

a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor; owns real

property in Orleans County used in the transaction of business, affected in the

matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real

property tax levy, has a related action in WDNY 05-cv-395 with a decision

pending in various motions since October 7, 2005 and Default Judgment since

the return date of February 28, 2006; has been directly affected by Defendants

breech of fiduciary duty at the center of the bi-partisan racketeering

enterprise, whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect,



prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting

inside and outside the state is combined with questionable imposition of

Electronic Voting Machines, that effects elections outcome within Orleans

County and statewide, as both involved in harboring illegal aliens, with aiding

and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow

definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories,

with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain

and penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and

HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to

New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL §4-138 (unlike

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

notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Orleans county

reports 10.42% Inactive Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter

registration database; however, acts in conspiracy with the racketeering

enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters

breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.

b) DAN DEL PLATO JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Genesee County, is

employed as a Hospital worker, owns real property in Genesee that is protected

under a five year U.S. Bankruptcy Court mandated plan in WDNY that is

affected by the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in



the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary

duty of NYS BOE at the center of the bi-partisan racketeering enterprise

whose control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent

fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside

and outside the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic

Voting Machines, effects election outcome within Genesee County and

statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and

abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow

definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories,

with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain

and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and

HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New

York and in turn the County of Genesee who under EL §4-138 impose election

costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark

and segregate amounts; that Genesee county with 7.30% Inactive Voters has a

duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however, acts in

conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA funds

disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-213

for detecting inactive voters.

c) GABRIEL RAZZANO is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Nassau County, a



sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real property

in Nassau County used in the transaction of business, affected in the matter of

concealment of Medicaid costs by the municipality in the annual real property

tax levy, and has been affected by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the

center of the bi-partisan racketeering enterprise whose control over the

central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and

misrepresentation, including multiple registrations and voting inside and outside

the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting

Machines, effects election outcome within Nassau County and statewide both as

a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting citizens

multiply registering and voting, and that if by a narrow definition of VAP were

used by other states of the several states and territories, with imposition of

EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and penalties

punishing real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and HAVA

mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to New York and

in turn the County of Nassau who under EL §4-138 impose election costs as a

real property levy as with Medicaid notwithstanding need to earmark and

segregate amounts; that Nassau county has a duty to maintain the original voter

registration database and with only 3.13% Inactive Voters, the county is due

proper reapportionment of interstate HAVA funds reimbursement which is



effected by the conspiracy by the racketeering enterprise in other municipalities

in expectation of HAVA funds disbursement to inflate the number of inactive

voters breech the fiduciary duty under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.

d) EDWARD M. PERSON JR. is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote Suffolk

County, a sole proprietor self employed as an independent contractor, owns real

property in Farmingville Suffolk County used in the transaction of business,

that has been adversely affected by local government extortion in matter of the

harbor of illegal aliens as well as the matter of concealment of Medicaid costs

by the municipality in the annual real property tax levy, and has been affected

by breech of fiduciary duty of NYS BOE at the center of the bi-partisan

racketeering enterprise whose control over the central database and fiduciary

duty to detect, prevent fraud and misrepresentation, including multiple

registrations and voting inside and outside the state combined with questionable

imposition of Electronic Voting Machines, effects election outcome within

Suffolk County and statewide both as a result is involved in harboring illegal

aliens, aiding and abetting citizens multiply registering and voting, and that if

by a narrow definition of VAP were used by other states of the several states

and territories, with imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as

a bill of pain and penalties punishing real property owners with the tax burden

of NVRA and HAVA mandated expenses would be greatly reduced if



reapportioned to New York and in turn the County of Orleans who under EL

§4-138 impose election costs as a real property levy as with Medicaid

notwithstanding need to earmark and segregate amounts; that Suffolk county

has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database and with only

6.11% Inactive Voters, the county is due proper reapportionment of interstate

HAVA funds reimbursement which is effected by the conspiracy by the

racketeering enterprise in other municipalities in expectation of HAVA funds

disbursement to inflate the number of inactive voters breech the fiduciary duty

under EL §5-213 for detecting inactive voters.

e) CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK is: a U.S. Citizen registered to vote in the

city of New York in the Borough of Brooklyn (NYC), a sole proprietor self

employed as an independent contractor, no longer owns real property in NYC

used in the transaction of business, suffers such loss as an extortion matter in a

similar pattern that should reopen the case in EDNY 99-cv-6480 as a

racketeering matter associated with a corrupt state judiciary as seen in Orleans

County, that also involves the unequal matter of concealment of Medicaid costs

by NYC in the annual real property tax levy; that NYC is a national sanctuary

for illegal aliens; wherein elections are paid for by general revenue from excise

tax and user fees, and that Strunk has been effected by breech of fiduciary duty

of NYS BOE at the center of the bi-partisan racketeering enterprise whose



control over the central database and fiduciary duty to detect, prevent fraud and

misrepresentation, includes multiple registrations and voting inside and outside

the state combined with questionable imposition of Electronic Voting

Machines, whose effects affects election outcome within NYC and statewide

both as a result is involved in harboring illegal aliens, aiding and abetting

citizens multiply registering and voting; and that if by a narrow definition of

VAP were used by other states of the several states and territories, with

imposition of EVM without a popular vote of the people as a bill of pain and

penalties punishes real property owners with the tax burden of NVRA and

HAVA mandated expenses, that would be greatly reduced if reapportioned to

New York in turn NYC being is exempt under EL §4-138 imposes election

costs by excise to general revenue as with Medicaid, notwithstanding a local

government empowered real property tax levy; that NYC has 10.28% Inactive

Voters has a duty to maintain the original voter registration database; however,

acts in conspiracy with the racketeering enterprise in expectation of HAVA

funds disbursement to inflate inactive voters breech fiduciary duty under EL §5-

213 for detecting inactive voters.

f) That Plaintiffs jus tertii fairly represent a class of U.S. Citizens similarly

situated inside and outside of NYC, have standing under the FCA as

whistleblowers beyond 18 USC 1964(c).



(5) Describe in detail the pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debts alleged for each RICO claim. A description of the pattern of racketeering shall include the following information:

(A) List the alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes which wereallegedly violated;

RESPONSE:

18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents)

18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens)18 USC §1341 (mail fraud)18 USC §1343 (wire fraud)18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully)18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim )18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents)18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) (interstate and foreign travel in aid of

racketeering Enterprise)18 USC §1957 (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from

specific unlawful activity)

(B) Provide the dates of the predicate acts, the participants in the predicate acts, and a description of the facts surrounding the predicate acts;

RESPONSE: Subsequent to the 1993 enactment of the NVRA continuously

every year before the enactment of the 2002 HAVA and now concurrently

both are involved in annual filing for HAVA reimbursement using the overly

vague VAP formula. That by operation of New York state election law and

believed of other states of the several states, that the system of bottom-up

and or top-down registration and voting compliance as determines

requirements for the number and placement of existing voting machines as



well as proposed EVM, is impacted by individuals being urged to register,

register while signing nominating petitions; and since there is no witness to

mail-in registration may be done by anyone at any time or place inside or

outside the respective state responsible for detecting, and preventing

misrepresentation and fraud.

(C) If the RICO claim is based on the predicate offenses of wire fraud, mail fraud, or fraud in the sale of securities the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Identify the time, place and contents of the alleged misrepresentations, and the identity of persons to whom and by whom the alleged misrepresentations were made;

RESPONSE:

1. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY MAIL FRAUD:

a) In the matter of the various New York municipal subdivisions engaged in

a billing pattern of Medicaid by real property tax levy is done without an

earmark segregation to conceal the amount from real property owners

and voters, who if they were informed would act politically and invest

their vote in other candidates who would relieve the burden placed upon

them under Social Services Law by local government

b) Billing of increased HAVA costs without segregation as pre-exists in the

Medicaid billing pattern and previous EL §4-138 levies, done to conceal

the scheme from real property owners and voters who if duly notified



would act politically and invest their vote for candidates promising

Election cost burden relief on owners per EL §4-138.

c) The NVRA mail-in registration Form found by those who would register

at all state and private agencies doing business with the state of each state

of the several states as well as with political committees acquiring ballot

access for candidates in the process of petitioning and building state party

organization.

d) That absentee ballot voting as an accessory associated with NVRA and

HAVA registration has been adopted by each state of the several states

and territories facilitates the pattern and scheme to defraud Plaintiffs.

e) Use of the U.S. Postal Service to bill EAC for falsified HAVA

Compliance figures using broad rather than narrow definition of VAP per

respective state laws, that the amended complaint paragraphs 194 thru

207 give detail in the case of how California, Texas and New York are

affected by a broad to narrow interpretation of VAP based upon rigorous

use of the respective state laws.

2. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY WIRE FRAUD:

a) Use of phones and communications by campaign workers and non-profit

organizations to notify illegal aliens and or illegal registered voters to

vote and or cast an absentee ballot.



b) Use of the news media by the beneficiary of illegal votes and registration

to intentionally tell lies in order to directly assist illegal aliens and those

not entitled to register to in fact register and vote illegally.

c) Use of the media to promote myths of the Florida election debacle in

conjunction with OSCE and other international intentions to interfere

with state and national elections.

3. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD IN EXTORTION USED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS:

a) State Subdivisions taking of real property owners who question Medicaid

and HAVA false billings on both the tax levy by concealment and

subterfuge

b) By government officials acting under color of authority with force of law

(D) State whether there has been a criminal conviction for violation ofeach predicate act;

RESPONSE: None that Plaintiffs are aware of.

(E) State whether civil litigation has resulted in a judgment in regard to each predicate act:

RESPONSE:

That on March 1, 2006 the DOJ filed a civil complaint in Northern District

of New York against the NYS BOE and associated entities in the case USA

v. NYS BOE 06-cv-263 is seen as prohibited friendly suit by glaring

disparities between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on



March 23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ

without proper parties and proper jurisdiction over subject matter appears as

a friendly suit.

(F) Describe how the predicate acts form a pattern of racketeering activity ;

RESPONSE:

1. Malicious refusal of NYS BOE to create a real-time voter registration

database:

a) That NYS BOE and bi-partisan agents in regards to 1962 (a)(b)(c)(d)

have since 1993 passage of NVRA until the present have intentionally

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

NVRA and now required by HAVA to be done by January 1, 2006

intentionally was not done.

b) That NYS BOE and its agents are in conspiracy with the Pataki

Executive as evidenced by 237 pages of Correspondence disclosed by

executive chambers in which 230 of 237 pages of correspondence are

alleged exempt from FOIL - requires release by court order,

c) That NYS BOE delay creates plausible denial to avoid any EL Article 17

enforcement or prevention of registration and voting fraud, in expectation

of Federal reimbursement now available under HAVA.

2. Inflated Registrations used for HAVA Billing



a) That NYS BOE delay intentionally inflated registrations for the purposes

of receiving greater HAVA reimbursement from EAC.

b) That NYS BOE coordinated the intentional inflated registrations with

various municipal sub-division boards of election bi-partisan agents.

c) That NYS BOE filed false HAVA compliance billings with EAC, the

DOJ has rubber stamped the submission and certified for EAC for

payment totaling about $221 million that was received by NYS BOE and

placed under the control of the State Controller and Commissioner of

Finance in a commercial Bank accruing interest,

3. Expenditure of Interest on HAVA Principal on Deposit

a) That according to public reports NYS BOE is expending the interest on

the principal held in escrow pending litigation in USA v. NYS BOE

NDNY 06-cv-263,

b) That 06-cv-263 is seen as a prohibited friendly suit by glaring disparities

between the evidence recorded on the transcript of the hearing on March

23, 2006 compared to the actual complaint tendered by DOJ appears as

a friendly suit.

4. Rigged insiders list of Electronic Voting Machines Vendors

a) That NYS BOE requires Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) from ES&S,

Sequoia, and Liberty international corporations with securities held by



foreign governments and or foreign citizens, were chosen even though

the same companies have been found lacking by Florida and other states

of the several states in meeting compliance, and in the home country of

origin Ireland as well refuses to use Liberty EVMs.

b) That NYS BOE in conjunction with agents of the various Municipal

Defendants, seemingly with the exception of Niagara and Cayuga

Counties, are involved in transactions with the foreign held electronic

voting machine vendors, under rules devised by NYS BOE, to secure

unjust enrichment, and autocratic control over patronage policy and

purse.

(G) State whether the alleged predicate acts relate to each other as part of a common plan. If so, describe in detail.

RESPONSE: Yes, the above predicates relate to each other as part of a

common plan:

1. in New York have two stages first to secure as much money from the

Federal Treasury as possible and in stage two to tighten bi-partisan control

over patronage policy and purse for the purposes of taking Real property by

extorting owners and at the same time secure top down control over

individual expectation of suffrage at every election using prime voter lists as

a crib sheet and notwithstanding the absolute myth of a secret vote does in



fact not exist as a matter of voting record from every election by paper tape

coordinated with voter number bi-partisan gerrymandering every tens

years by packing racking or stacking total person without regard to actual

eligible voters guarantee by consent not competition re-election of party

sinecures who in super majority like gangster run protection operations to

maintain the non-profit organizations a the local government level to loot the

Medicaid system and every line item on the cooked book budget, spread

walk-around-money buying votes and favors to fix and predetermine

elections.

2. At the National Level there is no accountability for what each state does

within or without and the Bi-partisan nature of the DOJ acting in a totally

politically motivated fashion in effect run protection for each of fifty

enterprises which are now coordinated for maximum bills of pain and

penalties generated by the Congress who also with the consent nature of

conducting elections in New York state and Plaintiffs are sure exists nearly

as corruptly in the other state of the several state especially California and

Texas feature in comparison in the sixth Cause of Action in paragraphs 194

thru 207.

3. At the International level through the auspice of the U.S. State Department

and Central Intelligence Agency as with the OSCE / ODIHR and other



organizations interfering in other sovereign countries, like the Council for

Hemispheric Affairs is overseeing and interfering in Central American

elections, and that somehow Hugo Chavez of Venezuela with copious oil

reserves, the new Fidel Castro of the hemisphere, has acquired interest in

Sequoia Industries whose employees in March counted the Chicago Election

Votes (9).

9 CHICAGO BALLOT CHAOS - NEW COMPUTER VOTE MACHINES MALFUNCTION, UNVERIFIABLEBy Christopher Bollyn American Free press Published March 27, 2006 - COOK COUNTY, Illinois Chicago s use of a flawed computerized voting system operated by a privately held foreign company reveals how meaningless and absurd the democratic process in America has become. Having observed voting systems across Europe, from Serbia, Germany and Estonia to Holland and France, this reporter has noted that the most honest and transparent elections are also the most simple.

The more complicated methods of voting, such as the unverifiable computerized voting systems widely used across the United States, lack the most essential element of democratic elections transparency.

The $50 million touch-screen and optical-scan voting system provided by Sequoia Voting Systems failed across Chicago and suburban Cook County during the March 21 Illinois primary. However, the leading corporate-controlled newspapers merely lamented the failures of the system without addressing its fundamental flaws or even reporting that the company running the election is foreign-owned.

The high-tech computerized voting system was cumbersome and slow, one mainstream Chicago newspaper reported. The machines failed across the county causing plenty of frustration and confusion for voters,the paper reported. The ballots and votes from more than 400 precincts were still uncounted two days after the election due to machine malfunctions and lost memory cartridges which contain the results.

Reports from other dailies noted that as of noon Wednesday, Chicago was missing memory cartridges from 252 polling stations while Cook County officials couldn t find the results from 162 suburban precincts.

Election officials tried to assure the public that although nobody knew where all the ballots and computerized memory cartridges were, they were most assuredly not lost.

I don t trust that, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said. This is Chicago. This is Cook County. We created vote fraud, vote scandal and stealing votes. We created that mechanism. It became an art form.

Ballot chaos is how another large Chicago newspaper described the situation in which the votes from hundreds of precincts could not be found or counted on Election Night.

We have accounted for the votes, Langdon Neal, city election chairman told the publication. What we haven t been able to do is count them.

In one precinct on the Near South Side, for example, the Sequoia optical scanner failed to register anything but Republican ballots. Although election officials tried to repair the machine four times, by the end of the day it had failed to register a single Democratic ballot in a precinct in which some 86 percent of the voters are Democrats.

When this reporter went to vote, the touch-screen machine went completely dead as the voter in front of me pressed the button to print. When the poll workers were asked if other voters had had similar problems with the equipment they said it had happened all day and showed me an unplugged machine that had broken down earlier.

When the polls closed at 7 p.m., American Free Press was at the Cook County Clerk s office to see how the votes were tallied.

Citizens in Chicago, as in most American cities, are, however, forbidden from viewing or participating in the any aspect of the vote-counting process.



The so-called counting of the votes is managed by some two dozen employees of Sequoia Voting Systems, a privately held foreign company. These employees, many of whom are not even U.S. citizens, have full access to the back room area, a sealed-off section of the 5th floor of the county clerk s office which is called the tally area.

In Chicago, the person in charge of the tallying of the votes was a British employee of Sequoia named David Allen from London. Allen, who ran the Sequoia War Room in an office next to that of Cook County Clerk David Orr, oversaw the tally room team, which included a dozen Venezuelan employees, who operated the hidden computer equipment that counts the votes.

As American Free Press has noted before, there are wire services such as the Associated Press, who could be seen having direct connections leading from their computers to the hidden mainframe computer of the Sequoia tallying system located behind the wall on the 5th floor of the clerk s office.

Senior executives from Sequoia Voting Systems and from its partner company, Smartmatic, such as company president Jack A. Blaine and Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, vice president of special operations, also had full access to the tally area.

Sequoia, which was previously held by the British-based firm De La Rue PLC, a company, which produces bank notes, travelers checks and cash handling equipment, was merged or combined with Smartmatic in March 2005.

Smartmatic, which has a U.S.-based office in Boca Raton, Fla., is headed by three young Venezuelans along with Blaine, a former vice president with Unisys. A dozen Venezuelans could be seen managing the most sensitive aspects of the recent election in Chicago.

Smartmatic, the parent company of Sequoia Voting Systems, obtained the company for a ridiculously low amount of money, Charles D. Brady, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital Inc., said at the time of the merger.

While De La Rue purchased 85 percent of Sequoia in 2002 for $35 million, it reportedly sold the growing global company for only $16 million in 2005. Tracey Graham, then president of Sequoia, said more than 30 organizations had expressed interest in buying her company, yet no names of other bidders were given citing confidentiality agreements.

The chief officers of Sequoia-Smartmatic are two 32-year old Venezuelans from Caracas, Antonio Mugica and Alfredo Anzola. Anzola also works as a Venezuela-based lawyer brokering international oil deals with the Cleveland law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey.

With the combination of Sequoia and Smartmatic, both proven innovators with accomplished track records in either the U.S. or abroad, we are creating the first truly global leader in providing voter-verified electronic voting systems, Blaine said in March 2005 when the merger was announced.There is, however, nothing verifiable about the Sequoia voting system used in Cook County. The voter has no way of knowing if his vote has been counted or how it was counted.

The absolute lack of transparency in U.S. voting systems yields unverifiable election results, which can only be accepted on faith. In Chicago voters are asked to trust the results produced by malfunctioning machines operated by a privately owned foreign company.

Asked about the nature of the foreign company that runs elections in Cook County, Scott Burnham, spokesman for Cook County Clerk Orr simply said, Ask Sequoia and hung up the phone. Asked about the ownership of the privately held company, Allen, who supervised the tally, refused to answer and handed the phone to Michelle Shafer, the company s vice president and spokesperson.

Pressed about Allen s citizenship, Shafer finally admitted that the Sequoia employee who oversaw the tally was, indeed, a British citizen who had been assisted by a team of Venezuelans.

Dimas Ulacio, one of the Venezuelan technicians who worked in the tally area spoke with American Free Press. Who really owns Sequoia? Ulacio was asked. Is Sequoia-Smartmatic truly a Venezuelan company or is it a British-owned company masquerading as a Venezuelan company?

Ulacio laughed but refused to answer. While a high percentage of the precinct results about 90 percent are usually reported within one hour of

the polls closing, the Sequoia system failed to produce any results for nearly two hours. Only 44 percent of the precinct results had been reported four hours after the polls closed.

The widespread failures of the Sequoia voting system in the Cook County election, Shafer said, made for a very typical Election Day in a jurisdiction where they are changing voting technology. Rather than blame the

machines, Shafer blamed human error. (Issue #14, April 5, 2006)



(6) Describe in detail the alleged enterprise for each RICO claim. A description of the enterprise shall include the following information:

(A) State the names of the individuals, partnerships, corporations,associations, or other legal entities, which allegedly constitute the enterprise;

RESPONSE: Liberty- each set of Board of Directors, as well as the entity

affiliates of the National Association of Secretaries of States : CT

Corporation System, Dun & Bradstreet, Saber Consulting, West,

Covansys, Hart InterCivic, IBM Government Industry, InfoSENTRY,

ManTech International, NIC, PCC Technology Group, Saber Consulting,

UNISYS, X.Systems, 3M Touch Systems, Accenture eDemocracy Services,

AccuPoll, Inc., Alpha Data Services, Diebold Election Systems, Inc.,

Election Data Services, Inc., Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Indra

Systems, Perfect Voting System, Sequoia Voting Systems (Sequoia),

UniLect Corporation, Caliper Corporation, ESRI, Inc., n-Tier Technology,

Quest Information Systems, VOTEC Corporation, VoteHere, Inc., Bureau

of National Affairs, Inc., CCH, Inc., Altria Corporate Services, Inc., CPS

Human Resource Services, ESRI, Inc. , Alpha Data Services, and the Board

of Directors of each.

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



RESPONSE: To control the outcome of elections on a state and national

level, and unjust enrichment; in the matter of EVM state laws are delivering

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

companies and have weakened the vote verification process.

(C) State whether any defendants are employees, officers or directors of the alleged enterprise;

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs believe there is an overlap among state officials

through the NASS however have not coordinated the overlap between

Defendants and above entities

(D) State whether any defendants are associated with the alleged enterprise;

RESPONSE: Defendants are associated by the nature of the mandate of

Congress to purchase EVM and central database under the vague broad

definition of VAP.

(E) State whether you are alleging that the defendants are individuals orentities separate from the alleged enterprise, or that the defendants are the enterprise itself, or members of the enterprise; and

RESPONSE: there is a commercial relationship between the Defendants and entities.

(F) If any defendants are alleged to be the enterprise itself, or members of the enterprise, explain whether such defendants are perpetrators, passive instruments, or victims of the alleged racketeering activity.

RESPONSE: The various Secretaries of states, Commissioners of the

various Boards are absolutely members of the enterprise, and especially



when acting on a bi-partisan basis by consent which omits the general

public notice and makes decisions in a star chamber.

(7) State and describe in detail whether you are alleging that the pattern ofracketeering activity and the enterprise are separate or have merged into one entity.

RESPONSE: Once the EVM are acquired there will not be a difference between

the entities and the public and private side of state and national government;

however at present plaintiffs do not know if the EVM entities are interdigitated

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

elsewhere except by press reports as with Chicago s March 2006 Election, that is

an important example in footnote #9.

(8) Describe the alleged relationship between the activities of the enterprise and the pattern of racketeering activity. Discuss how the racketeering activity differs from the usual and daily activities of the enterprise, if at all.

RESPONSE: In New York unlike in other states of the several states, that the

compliance process is tightly control by unelected bi-partisan insiders as

opposed to being done by non-partisan professional manner, or those elected

officials without an appearance of impropriety.

(9) Describe what benefits, if any the alleged enterprise receives from the alleged pattern of racketeering.

RESPONSE: Defendant natural persons as a matter of public employment operate

in a quid pro quo within the bi-partisan structure in New York, plaintiffs are not



familiar with the public officials of the other states of the several states and

territories, but note that if not operating in a non-partisan fashion lack the

necessary sunshine to escape the appearance of impropriety.

(10) Describe the effect of the activities of the enterprise on interstate or foreign commerce.

RESPONSE: The sale of EVM by agents of a foreign government especially

that of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, by active investment, empowers such

foreign government(s) with the capability to effect the outcome of state and

national elections, and creates the basis for every state of the several states to

become subject to the manufacturing requirements of countries and

government not under the authority and jurisdiction of the state and or

United States of America.

(11) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), provide thefollowing information:

(A) State who received the income derived from the pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt; and

RESPONSE:

1. In the state of New York, it is believed that only the State has received the

$221 million in HAVA dollars as yet, however since the 1993

implementation of NVRA the costs for conversion to a central database on a

yearly tax levy basis have been levied paid and dispensed not only to bi-



partisan employees of the various Municipal Boards and State Board but to

many private consultants and contractors as well whose names not known at

this time.

2. As for the other states of the several states, who have received compliance

money a long time before New York, money has flowed for purchase of

equipment and compliance software and database outsourcing- however

exact amounts are not known at this time.

3. That NYS BOE has received payment from EAC approximately totaling

$221 million and placed under the control of the State Controller and

Commissioner of Finance in a commercial Bank account now accruing

interest

4. That Plaintiffs are not aware of the exact total received by the other states of

the several states and territories, however in fact is part of the public record

having been published in the Federal Register, and are not aware of the how

the individual sums are being utilized to date.

5. The NYS Sub-division local governments since implementation of the

NVRA in 1993 and since HAVA in 2002 have been on an annual basis

pursuant to EL §4-138 levying the costs of NVRA, HAVA compliance

along with other election costs upon real property within the respective

municipality.



6. That private EVM entities, associated with NASS have received HAVA $$$

from other states of the several states and territories.

(B) Describe the use or investment of such income.

RESPONSE:

1. The $221 million received by the NYS BOE has accrued interest, and

Plaintiffs believe the interest is being spent for operations of NYS BOE

and related activities; plaintiffs do not believe any money has been

disbursed to the State sub-divisions yet.

2. Plaintiffs are not aware how the Election related levied funds paid for by

real property owners has been used; however, contend the funds became

fungible and could have been used for anything except NVRA, HAVA

and Elections costs because they were not earmarked or segregated.

3. Plaintiffs compare how local governments use of EL §4-138 levied

election funds that are questionably fungible in the respective

municipality, as Medicaid funds are paid after levy on real property

before a respective local government actually pays the New York

Commissioner of Finance for the Commissioner of Health overseeing

Medicaid funds, and as such there is not interim accountability



(12) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), describe in detail the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in or control of the alleged enterprise.

RESPONSE:

a) That in New York, the bi-partisan nature of the Board of Elections both

at the State and Municipal level, in which 47 municipalities by operation

of law are a nullity under application and administration of the state

constitution; however, appear to be maintained by partisanship much like

appears in a plantation system rather than Homerule autonomous entities

serving the people within,

b) That such a contorted configuration of municipalities shown by the New

York Municipal Subdivision History 1683 thru 2006 Chart in paragraph

175 of the Amended Complaint compared with total population and

persons eligible to vote within each municipality since 1964, and by

operation of law New York absolutely precludes participation by nearly

40% of those Registered and or those entitled to register and vote, and

c) That in New York there is an absolute blur in the difference between

public and private interests in the operation of elections conducted by

local government similarly overlaps state control over ballot access that

circumvents municipal authority under the state constitution, and very

much resembles the blur of authority in the management of the biggest



State Budget line item Medicaid that in 2005 spent $45.5 billion, and in

that regard January 2006 DOJ has been impelled to act, only after being

put through shear embarrassment to find that New York publicly and

privately have committed fraud abuse and profiteering that should be

characterized as racketeering as well as false filings with the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Treasury,

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

(13) If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), provide thefollowing information:

(A) State who is employed by or associated with the enterprise; and

RESPONSE:

1. From the NYS BOE for two tears alone Peter Kosinski and now since

late 2005 Stanley Zalen are active members of the NASS promoting

NVRA and HAVA, traveling nationally and associating with

international efforts around oversight and control of election done by

OSCE / ODIHR associated with equipment manufactures.

2. That outsourcing of database and election management privatizes

otherwise public fiduciary functions;

3. That without creating an actual cause of action under HAVA creates a

firewall protecting the enterprise fraud from normal 42 USC 1983

litigation requires RICO investigation methods.



4. That according to 18 USC §1961(1)(F)

5. That in regards to patterns of fraud:

a.) 18 USC 1961(1) multiple acts in violation of a single statute, and or

b.) multiple acts in violation of more than one statute

(i.)Any RICO pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering, and as

such the patterns existence may turn on the meaning of the term,

and

(ii.) Beyond individual real and personal property used in transaction of

proprietary business, whether individual suffrage is proprietary

property that as with any business may not be passed-on to

another, and the investment of such capital is spent at a primary

and general election that empowers the winning candidate with

authority to fulfill promises made during the campaign that

absolutely effect the individuals liberty and effectiveness of a

citizen in association with like minded individual citizens similarly

invested.

(iii.) In New York the prima facie evidence of multiple and or false

registrations under the NVRA and HAVA having destroyed the

protective firewall afforded in the 1894 State Constitution with

exclusive municipal control over the original database has been



eliminated as exampled in the Amended Complaint Background

examples in paragraphs 54 & 55, indicates the fiduciary duty of

NYS BOE to maintain a central database to check for and prevent

fraud and misrepresentation, would be similarly evidenced in every

state of the several states and territories.

6. Under the Hobbs Act 18 USC 1961(1) (b) applies when:

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

or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by extortion

or conspiracy to do.

(B) (1) the term (Robbery) means the unlawful taking or obtaining of

personal property from the person under color of official right.

(B) State whether the same entity is both the liable person and theenterprise under § 1962(c).

RESPONSE:

a) There is a quasi-public side of state entity persons in the form of Election

Board(s), Bureau(s) and Department(s) of Secretary of State, along with

the patronage structure created under Government control that enables

private participation by corporate entities whose employees and directors

collaborate both publicly by public request for proposals (RFP) and

privately at private lobby events generally not open to the public - as

evidenced by the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest



regarding the January 17 thru 20, 2006 Cooperstown New York meeting

in Otsego County of the Organization of County Boards of

Commissioners sponsored by the voting machine manufacturers and

vendors http://www.ntsdata.com/nyseca/index.htm using questionable

lobbying of municipalities, was witnessed by Dennis Karius, while at the

request of the EVM Vendors for example the Women s League were dis-

invited.

b) That in the matter of public disclosure regarding the state responsibility

to detect and prevent misrepresentation and fraud, is exampled by the

Florida Leon County elections supervisor who had determined that

Diebold had fraudulently maintained proprietary software which allowed

for fraudulent modification of vote results without detection, when

actually hacked was discovered, the software provider refused disclosure,

withdrew, and upon issuing new Request for Proposal (RFP) Sequoia and

ES&S when learning of the disclosure in the specification also withdrew

refusing to allow review of proprietary programs that would allow fraud

to occur undetected- just within the last two weeks Diebold has had

second thought and has in fact complied and provided machines to Leon,

but neither Sequoia nor ES&S have done so in New York under the star

chamber process, as they refused in Florida.



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

RESPONSE:

a) So-called Bi-partisanship by consent not competition barring participation by

nearly 40% of the electorate establishes an inherent conspiracy for control,

especially when not done without sunshine, as referenced by the SOS about

Executive sessions in the Amended Complaint on paragraph 181, in which

star chamber control over patronage policy and purse in New York that since

the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in WMCA has created the basis for

backroom government by consent rather not competition - must require strict

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

b) At the national level the private National Association of Secretaries of State

under its chairwoman, the duly elected SOS of New Mexico herein joined

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

interstate / international partnerships on basis that applies the glue for the deals

necessary for NVRA, OSCE/ODIHR and HAVA imposition to work outside of

elected representation and effective public oversight in the sunshine.

(15) Describe the alleged injury to business or property.

RESPONSE:



a) Disproportionate Dilution Diminished expectation of Vote effectiveness and

strength of plaintiffs suffrage capital affected differently on a municipal by

municipal basis, statewide and nationally;

b) The scheme to defraud absolutely offsets of votes imposed by citizen(s)

multiple voting, the civilly dead voting and any alien voting and or registering;

c) loss or diminishment of real property and personal property value as a result of

concealment and extortion involved in the local tax levy as under both EL §4-

138 and Medicaid cost imposition, without earmark and segregation;

(16) Describe the direct causal relationship between the alleged injury and theviolation of the RICO statute.

RESPONSE:

a) Congress has used a vague broad use of VAP rather than the narrow CVAP that

would expressly be dependent upon a respective state constitution and related

laws.

b) The Florida 2000 Election process was rigged to produce the end result of

HAVA starting in 1994 by the Clinton administration whose intent with use of

OSCE / ODIHR personnel was to probe the weaknesses and opportunities to

use the media to propagandize for passage HAVA to effect further top-down

control over elections.

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

4 provision of equal time place and manner provision under State plenary



control starting no later than 1991 when the New Europe Charter was entered,

circumvented doing an Article 5 constitutional amendment with NVRA, next

combined with bogus issues using the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)

strawman, that with the Dayton Accords new borders provisional voting scam

now being used in New Orleans following major population relocation due to

the Katrina Hurricane.

d) The EVM industry ongoing coordination with the bi-partisan nature of the

conduct of elections which in many states especially New York bars non-

partisan participation are working together to corner the permanent cash flow

for the annual bottom-line made available at each and every local to national

election as a captive profit center for private industry, even if nothing else as a

matter the appearance of impropriety undermining public confidence in

elections are none the less intent on controlling the substantive outcome as

vendors with an inside political track.

e) Absolute refusal of the State BOE and NYSAG to prevent harboring of illegal

aliens, illegal registration and vote fraud associated without a real time central

database.

(17) List the damages sustained for which each defendant is allegedly liable.

RESPONSE:a) As a matter of civil rights injuries under color of the NVRA and HAVA related

state law the amended complaint covers both the 14th amendment violation of



US Citizen rights unequally protect and treating plaintiffs and those similarly

situated by New York State Defendants and would also cover U.S. Citizen

treatment interstate by those state Defendants of the several states to numerous

to name and that Federal Defendants per the Bivens(10) ruling violate 4th 5th 8th

9th 10th 13th and 15th as are all alleged in the Amended Complaint twelve

injuries paragraph 208 thru 221,

b) That in New York under NVRA and HAVA there is a conflict of interest with

bi-partisan provision of Elections which bar non-partisan participation that

involves denial of equal treatment; that on its face requires strict scrutiny in

review of a product of fraud.

c) That each Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a jus tertii class in 47

of 58 municipalities with a board of elections within have no dedicated

representative voice in the state assembly for the Homerule interests of the

people within; until merged and or consolidated the municipalities are to be

deemed a nullity by proper administration and application of the state

constitution related laws.

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

fiduciary duty in the matter of need to verify citizenship and cross check for

10 Federal civil rights violation - BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) is a 4th and 5th amendment violation of civil rights by Federal officials as opposed to a 14th

Amendment violation by State officials, - differentiated from the RICO matter of Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Banks of Fla., Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 908 (11 Cir. 1998); see at 496-97 Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3285 (1985) as both apply differently herein.



multiple residency registration with a central database, that since no later than

implementation of the NVRA, the state of New York has promulgated dilution

and offset of Plaintiffs suffrage capital; and

e) As a simple compensable amount, as if the dollar figure were to be applied to

say equal the total spent on campaign finance matters, both public and private

expenditures for any general election by all candidate committees appearing on

the ballot, is not at all a nominal amount place upon plaintiffs and those

similarly situated as part of total damages, and would have to be offset by a

commensurate amount for alternative results for competitive expectation of

plaintiffs vote effectiveness;

f) In New York actual financial injury must be factored into long-term neglect of

the bi-partisan to correct and implement not only the need for an economy of

scale that economic merger and consolidation of municipalities, but for reform

of the Judiciary to provide equal plain speedy and efficient remedy in the

various Judicial Districts pertaining to real property but in the 20 year neglect of

budgetary reform and cost of government is a burden passed down to real

property owners differently on a municipal by municipal basis;

g) Easily, the loss of Plaintiffs vote investment capital without free and fair

elections under New York bi-partisan autocracy as a parallel compared to the

Medicaid fraud proof established, is believed to impose no less than an annual



10% surcharge over above the rate of inflation upon plaintiffs revenue and cost

of living so that a person with a mean per capita income of say $24,000.00 per

annum has a rate of loss of capital worth imposed at say $2,400.00 per year

compounded annually, pro-rated and accruing increasingly since 1996 that

would total an a significant sum;

h) Variation in the intrastate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138

differently than in NYC;

i) Variation in the interstate distribution of HAVA funds effects EL §4-138

differently than in NYC, however is alleged to be increased overall to the state

of New York;

j) The transfer of HAVA funds in the purchase of EVM effects the trade balance;

(18) List all other federal causes of action, if any, and provide the relevant statute numbers.

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs are not aware of any other than those six causes presented

here, which involves 42 USC 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 (1988); 31 USC 3729 thru

3733, and under the INA the Logan Act applies when aliens are enticed with social

services, education, housing employment and citizenship privilege and harbored,

given sanctuary without permission of Congress, violates 18 USC 953.

(19) List all pendent state claims, if any.

RESPONSE: We are not aware of any in the State of New York Supreme Court;

however, In California, paper voting is making a comeback. The Associated Press



reports in the Monterey Herald that seven California counties sued for using

disputed Diebold touch-screen machines have removed themselves from the

lawsuit by promising to use paper ballots in their next election. Alameda County,

on the other hand, has chosen on its own to return to paper, as noted in The Contra

Costa Times. In 2004, Alameda's previous vendor, Diebold, paid over two million

dollars to settle a lawsuit involving false claims made when the machines were

sold. The county hopes these problems "are behind them" as Election Day

approaches.

(20) Provide any additional information that you feel would be helpful to the Court in processing your RICO claim.

RESPONSE:

a) In regards to illegal provision of Medicaid to any illegal alien the state has

recently had $32.5 million offset by the HHS; although the same state agencies

are not involved, nevertheless the sub-division municipalities are presenting

exhibiting a similar pattern of tax levy as with the EL §4-138 whose ongoing

predicates are expected in provision of HAVA false billing.

b) That the city of New York in City of New York v. United States in SDNY Case

96-cv-7758 (JGK), and U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit 97-6162 (closed), has been

admonished by the Federal courts for its don t ask don t tell policy as an

unwarranted obstruction of INA in harboring illegal aliens;



c) However, despite the censure NYC continues the don t ask don t tell policy

especially in regards to provision of education, Medicaid, involving Federal

matching assistance to minors within the K thru 12 school system operating

under a state issued identification system (much like that imposed by HAVA)

with intent to circumvent the Social Security Act system to harbor illegal aliens,

who according to the NYS Court of Appeals Decision in the CFE case in NYC

minor aliens constitute of 80% of all children in the system (notwithstanding

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

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

d) That a seditious New York State Supreme Court Justice held the executive

policy to withhold of drivers licensure from illegal aliens as unconstitutional

and therefore a result there is no objective barrier for illegals to pose as US

Citizens in New York and elsewhere, and as such facilitates illegals registering

and voting;

e) That Additional information that would be helpful for the Court is set forth in:

1) the Chart of Challenged HAVA Funds Distribution Based upon the State of

New York Board of Elections 31 December 2004 Central Database for Voter

Registration sorted by Percentage of Inactive Persons registered to vote in

one or more municipalities maintained by a total of 62 questionable Boards

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F1

EXTREME MAKEOVER: ALBANY a state of dysfunction

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

By KEVIN WALTER News Editorial Writer4/30/2006 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060430/1071401.asp

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

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

"It was rough," remembered Connie.

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

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

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

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

2

shrug off their slumber and fight back, taking power and demanding meaningful reforms after they throw the bums out.

For their part, the Toledo family tried to stay, wanted to stay. Unable to find work after he was laid off from International Imaging - just eight months after the birth of the couple's third child -Tony cashed in his retirement savings and borrowed $25,000 from his parents to start a towing business. But he said that under the weight of the region's weak economy and New York's exorbitant worker's compensation costs, the venture collapsed. They had to go.

Here is the difference between the economies of Buffalo and Greensboro, N.C. Once Tony started looking for work there, it took only a couple of days to land a job and a relocation package. He now works for Golden State Foods, a supplier to McDonald's, and Connie works as an account representative for a national mortgage company.

Rachelle, now 18 and adjusted to her new life, is a college student (education costs are lower, the Toledos say). Finally, Tony's parents, also lifelong Buffalonians, packed up and headed South to be near their family.

It was an ordeal, its pistons driven by the Albany job-killing machine. Still, Connie said, the Toledos agree that their anguish never altered this fundamental fact: Because of this region's feeble economy and the obstacles New York puts in the way of business, they were left without an alternative.

"It was the best decision we could have made," she said.

Numbers set the stage

The numbers only begin to tell the woeful tale of New York, but they make a stark beginning. The figures - on tax burdens, public spending and population transfer, among others - outline a story of a government run amok and a state run into the ditch.

But numbers are cold. They only hint at the repercussions they have dealt to the residents of this woefully mismanaged state: fractured hopes, lost opportunities, divided families. The reasons behind those misfortunes are multiple and complex, but from a public policy standpoint, they distill to Albany's deluded belief that New York is still the Empire State, a realm so splendid that Americans will pay any price to live within its golden borders.

The numbers give the lie to that milk-and-honey fantasy, as well. Here are some, from Governing magazine's State & Local Source Book for 2005 (figures are per capita, unless otherwise noted):

* Total tax revenue, state and local, was the nation's highest, $4,645.

* Property tax revenue was fifth-highest, $1,402.

3

* Total spending was second highest, $10,376.

* State and local debt was second highest, $10,306.

* Welfare spending was highest, $1,699, even though the number of recipients per 10,000 residents was only 16th highest.

* K-12 education spending (state and local) was second highest, $2,001, even though school enrollment as a share of total population was fourth lowest. Spending per-pupil was highest, $12,059.

* The average pay of state and local employees was second highest, at $52,450.

* The state was 40th in "economic momentum," a ranking of one-year changes in employment, personal income and population. (It's not about cold and snow, either. Wyoming, Minnesota and New Hampshire ranked 16, 17 and 18. The Dakotas were 7 and 8.)

The consequences of such numbers are both pernicious and predictable. People are leaving. New York's share of the national population has steadily eroded, from 9.8 percent at mid-century to 6.5 percent last year, according to the U.S. Census.

Then, New York controlled 43 of Congress' 435 seats. Today it holds 29. That's a 32 percent decline. Less representation, less power; less power, less money.

Growth is slow

It's not that the state isn't growing; it's just that others are growing much faster, a trend that is expected tocontinue. Census projections are that from 2000 to 2030, New York will grow more slowly than all but four states. Meanwhile, some areas within New York - including Buffalo - are, in fact, shrinking, leaving fewer residents to pay the ever-rising tax bill.

New York is the alcoholic among the states, not simply unable to moderate its self-destructive behavior but uninterested in doing so. What's needed is an intervention. New York needs to treat not just the symptoms of its compulsion but the underlying disease. It needs to revitalize its enervated democracy by injecting healthy doses of competition - which is to say, fear - into the political process.

Independent redistricting, an effective Legislature committee system and a spirited opposition party are three of the most important reforms needed, but none will happen unless voters scream it into Albany's besotted face.

Otherwise, it's pass the bottle.

Families split up

4

It doesn't sound like a mother's fondest wish, but Kathleen Jarnot says she's glad her children moved away.

Glad is a relative term, of course. Jarnot would rather her children lived nearby, but jobs are scarce. Things would have been difficult for them had they remained in Western New York, where the children and their parents were born. So her son Jeff left for Virginia while daughters Susan and Jennifer headed west to California.

"We have wonderful colleges here, but the jobs are there, and I'm glad they went there," said Jarnot, who lives with her husband Daniel in Cheektowaga.

Daniel Jarnot understands that reality, as well, but he is less forgiving of it. Not only are his children far away, his only grandson lives in California.

"You lose the normal family life," he said. "I don't like it at all."

For his part, Jeff has few regrets about his move to Reston, Va., where he works in sales for Oracle, the software giant. Now 36, he worked in sales here for 11/2 years after graduating from the State University of New York at Potsdam, but soon realized opportunities for advancement were scarce in Western New York.

In 1995, while visiting a friend in Reston, he saw that the Washington Post's "help wanted" section was overflowing with ads. He quit his job, sent out six resumes and quickly landed a new position after just two interviews.

"In Buffalo, you could spend a long time finding a job," he said.

Jarnot has lived in Virginia for 11 years and, but for lingering sorrow over leaving an area he still loves, never looked back. Why would he? He is selling a house whose value has risen 300 percent since he bought it in 1997. In Cheektowaga, the sale price of the average single-family home rose just 14 percent over the same period, according to the Buffalo Niagara Association of Realtors. That's less than one-twentieth the rate of increase.

Badly out of step

New York didn't get this way by accident. In almost every way - economically, culturally, politically, municipally - the state is in a class by itself. It contains within its borders extremes of wealth and poverty. It was, and continues to be, a primary port of entry for immigrants. It includes a spectacularly complex city that is far-and-away the nation's largest, an economic engine and power base unto itself.

As one former state legislator observed, it's no surprise that a state so steeped in diversity - and in so many forms of it - would look different at the governmental level.

5

But it's one thing to expect the occasional departure from national norms, and far more consequential when government becomes a compendium of radical departures, most moving it in damaging directions for its people's welfare.

How consequential? Enough to spawn a Legislature so deviant it has been crowned as the country's most dysfunctional.

That's a disorder with its own consequences, including a penchant for restricting the flow of information from, to and within the Legislature, and for delivering squeaky-wheel policies that benefit favored groups even as they drive out jobs, opportunity and population.

Much of the reason for New York's idiosyncratic government traces to downstate, a region of enormous political clout, vast disparities of wealth and about zero interest in Albany. Overwhelmingly Democratic, it elects liberals who have so weighted state government to the left that Republicans - never too conservative to begin with - are satisfied with playing me-toopolitics.

Instead of offering a competing, perhaps healthier, vision of state government, the putatively conservative party has at best surrendered and at worst joined the opposition. New York Republicans are the ideological prisoners of their political adversaries, and content to be so.

Unchecked Republican control could be awful, too, of course (see Washington). The problem arises from the failure of a democratic imperative: a vigorous opposition.

A spending machine

With virtually no political competition to restrain the wild horses of the Democratic left, state government is a runaway spending machine devoted first to self-preservation, second to its sugar-daddy sponsors and, lastly, to the New Yorkers they are sworn to represent (and then, often with an asterisk attached). Consider:

* Spending: Even with two-thirds of the government in Republican hands (the party owns the Senate and has held the governor's office since 1995), state spending has nonetheless risen by an average of 6.5 percent a year, 21/2 times the average rate of inflation.

And that's with the conservatives holding sway. During the 12 years Mario M. Cuomo was governor, when Democrats held the balance of power, annual spending increases averaged a dizzying 11.6 percent percent, though the ratio to inflation was about the same.

And remember: Those feverish growth rates are for a state whose per-capita spending is already the nation's second highest.

* Self-preservation: New York lawmakers are expert at drawing "designer districts" - with oddly drawn boundaries whose purpose is to deliver to incumbents of both parties legislative districts that only a cadaver could lose.

6

In complying with the constitutional requirement to ensure proportional representation, states must draw new districts after each census. Like many states, though, New York turns what should be a civic act into a political one, bending lines to pack enough partisans into any given district that a candidate of the wrong party has no chance of winning. Democrats keep the Assembly and Republicans the Senate.

As Barbara Bartoletti of the New York State League of Women Voters told a local audience this year: "Your elected officials get to choose you before you choose them."

That's only the start of how lawmakers in New York maneuver to protect their electoral flanks. Strategically lax rules on lobbying, fund-raising and ethics give them a huge advantage over challengers, enough to discourage many potential opponents even from running.

In addition, New York is one of the few states with an unregulated system of "member items" -tax dollars given to individual legislators to distribute as they see fit. It's a kind of legalized vote-buying.

* Favored groups: If you're a health care worker, a trial lawyer or one of a few other special interests, good news. The levers of influence are within your grasp. If you're but a taxpayer, or a small business owner trying to make it in an unfriendly state, you'll have to get in line. Your problems may not be completely irrelevant to lawmakers (then again, they may), but they are of decidedly less interest.

A couple of examples: Until Congress invalidated an antiquated state statute last year, car companies could be held liable, sometimes for millions of dollars, if one of their leasing customers injured someone while driving the vehicle. Part of the reason that law remained on the books is the political clout of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, which wanted to retain a law that gave them easy access to potentially rich lawsuits. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a lawyer, is associated with a personal injury law firm.

Even more scandalously, the state's most powerful health care labor union, SEIU Local 1199, drove a massive increase in the state's Medicaid program a few years ago. Sitting at the public negotiating table as Gov. George E. Pataki and the two legislative leaders hammered out the bill was the union president, Dennis Rivera. The reason: State leaders, especially Pataki, were intimidated by the public beating Rivera and his wealthy organization could give them. Rivera and his interests cut to the front of the line.

* The public interest: Fair-minded people would acknowledge that the 1999 expansion of Medicaid, which created an insurance program known as Family Health Plus, included a legitimate public component - even if it was rammed through the Legislature for political reasons with no hearings, no debate and no real sense of its implications. The program, serving New York's working poor, had a March enrollment of more than half a million people.

Ah, but that asterisk. The program was, at its inception, an expensive payoff to an unelected powerbroker. Hofstra University law professor Eric Lane is more caustic about it. A former chief

7

counsel to the State Senate minority and primary researcher on the report that tagged the Legislature as "dysfunctional," Lane calls the Rivera power grab a "sleaze job."

If an essential part of lawmakers' job is to be good and honest stewards of New Yorkers' tax dollars, then they failed. It's not a recent problem, either.

High taxes a burden

It didn't take Gary Newton long to figure out he was going to have to leave Western New York to pursue a career in agriculture. Unable to find work after he graduated from the State University of New York at Geneseo with a bachelor of science degree, he left Niagara County for the Peace Corps.

He returned to Middleport two years later but stayed less than half a year. With his best job prospect setting out rat bait in Niagara Falls, he left again, this time to pursue his doctorate.

That was 27 years ago. In more than a quarter century, things haven't changed in upstate New York. Or in Albany, which he believes shares responsibility for the region's economic blight.

"I have cousins and an aunt and uncle still in Western New York," said Newton, a researcher and professor at Prairie View A&M University near Houston. "They complain about the high taxes."

High is right, especially compared to Texas, with no income tax and property tax rates that would make a New Yorker swoon. Newton and his wife own an 1,800-square-foot house that sits on half an acre. Their combined property tax bill - county, city and school - is $1,500.

A quarter century on, Newton says he still misses the area, and as recently as a year ago was looking for ways to return. A possibility at SUNY-Geneseo didn't pan out, so it's on to year 28.

Excelsior.

A history of corruption

A thread of corruption runs through the history of government in New York, especially over the past century or so. And while today's corruption is less about criminality than it is about sustaining a purposefully anti-democratic power structure, the roots of the tree reach deep into the soil of a feloniouspast.

Tammany Hall is a prime example. The corrupt Democratic political machine that ruled New York City politics for decades was a de facto influence on Albany, as well.

Under the influence of Tammany Hall and its then-leader, William Marcy Tweed - "Boss Tweed" - the governor and Legislature passed laws specifically designed to give Tammany greater ability to ply its corruption, including the outright thievery of public money.

8

If that kind of overt criminality has largely bleached out of state government, its stain lingers in a conspiracy of practices designed to stifle democratic debate by concentrating power in the two legislative leaders.

Other, more legitimate reasons may also help explain that kind of autocratic power structure. By some observers' reckoning, for example, the state's vast scale of social and economic diversity requires a strong leadership model to prevent the chambers from splintering into hostile factions.

Nevertheless, the parallels between the Legislature and the corrupt political boss system are evident. In each, the leader calls the shots, and the followers - that is, the remaining 215 state legislators - do as they're told, or else they're punished. They don't ask too many questions and they don't have too much power, but they hold safe seats, draw healthy paychecks and, for better or worse, leave some kind of mark on the history of New York.

"You can see Tammany Hall, without the corruption," said Lane.

A network of abuses

The Brennan Center for Justice detailed this and other government disorders two years ago in an explosive report called "The New York State Legislative Process: An Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform." The report, which famously (and accurately) tagged the New York State Legislature as the nation's "most dysfunctional," contained a laundry list of offenses that empower the leaders, penalize taxpayers and insulate the institution from the competition of adversaries and, worse, of ideas.

These include:

* A sham system of legislative committees that rarely considers pending bills and whose staffs are beholden to each chamber's leader.

* An approval system that discourages or prevents debate on pending legislation.

* Unequal funding of legislators' staff costs, depending on their political party.

* Iron control by each leader over which bills make it to the floor for a vote. That ensures that only bills the leaders favor can become law, and given the unhealthy influence leaders exert over their timorous members, that every bill that comes to a vote passes.

Most broadly, the report cites five fundamental values served by a well-functioning legislature -representativeness, deliberativeness, accessibility, accountability and efficiency - and concludes that New York's Legislature flunks all of them. The report is available online at www.brennancenter.org.

9

The report caused a flurry of activity in Albany, where the state budget, late for 20 consecutive years, arrived on time in 2005, as it did this year. And some legitimate reforms followed, including an end to "empty-seat voting" in the Assembly. That's the process by which lawmakers who sign in for the day were automatically counted as having voted with the majority unless they make a point to show up and vote otherwise. The Senate's response was muddier, but Bartoletti, of the League of Women Voters, said she's seen no substantive change.

But the history of Albany reform is to do as little as possible, declare a new day and go about business as usual. That's what has happened since the detonation of the Brennan Center report.

Departing is such sorrow

It pains Thomas Mullane that he had to leave his native Buffalo. And it distresses him that he may never be able to return to an area he calls home to "some of the nicest people in the world."

But in North Carolina, Mullane found professional success that he says would never have been his had he remained in the economic wasteland of upstate New York. He also found lower taxes, a friendlier business climate and citizens who do not make a lifelong project of hindering their region's progress.

Mullane, his wife Kim and their two young children left Buffalo for Winston-Salem last May. The 39-year-old insurance investigator saw no prospect of professional advancement anywhere in upstate New York and made the wrenching decision to leave behind not only the city he loves, but his larger family.

It was the right choice, he said. In Winston-Salem, his family settled into a 2,100-square-foot home, about 25 percent larger than the home he left but with a tax bill almost 60 percent smaller.

"It's amazing to me," said Mullane, who keeps up on Buffalo. "Taxes are still in the forefront of the news there, but they're not a story in North Carolina. They're just not an issue."

As with the Toledo family, the Mullanes' move had a domino effect. Not long after he left, his wife's parents made the jump, too, partly to find work and partly to be near their grandchildren. One family fled New York, pulling another in its wake.

Mullane says his mother still hopes he'll return to this area, but he's doubtful.

"I love Buffalo," he said, "and I like New York State . . . If they just made it friendlier to live there . . ."

e-mail [email protected]

EXHIBIT G


Forjone Declaration Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)

JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE, et.al. Plaintiffs}

v.

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and THOMASWILKEY, et.al.

Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE RESPONSE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEFENDANTS COUNSEL S NOTICE OF MOTION TO

DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Accordingly, I, John Joseph Forjone, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

1. I am a Plaintiff pro se without being an attorney and produce this response

declaration in opposition to the state of New York s Secretary of State Randy Daniels (now

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

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sullivan s Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended

Complaint filed pursuant to the Court s May 4, 2006 Text Order of all Defendants herein to

respond by June 1, 2006 accordingly.

2. That declarant is the co-chairman along with Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk of

the AD HOC NYS People s Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds

Distribution Equity Nationwide without an attorney as a jus tertii association and individually

jus tertii pursuant of a declaratory judgment in the matter of overly vague and broad use of the

Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow

respective state law determinant definition of Voting Age Population (VAP), as well as

being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA).



3. This Declaration is filed in conjunction with the Co-chairmen Relators Law

Memorandum in Opposition to Dismissal and in support of a Declaratory Judgment and

equity relief with a Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance

plans in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and

penalties to be levied under the FCA.

4. On 19 September 2005 in conjunction with the Medicaid tax Levy Case Forjone

et.al. v. Leavitt et.al. WDNY 05-cv-395, Samantha Marie Forjone and I submitted an

application to the NYS Secretary of State, Defendant Randy Daniels, in the matter of FOIL

and NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 5A protection involving municipal overreaching by

Orleans County, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 1.

5. The New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A is as follows:

ARTICLE V-A.

MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS.

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

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



days after a change has been made in its officers file with thesecretary of state a sworn statement showing such change. Every such

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

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

§ 55. Anonymous communications prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any such corporation or association to send, deliver, mail or transmit to any person in this state who is not a member of such corporation or association any anonymous letter, document, leaflet or other written or printed matter, and all such letters, documents, leaflets or other written or printed matter, intended for a person not a member of such

corporation or association, shall bear on the same the name of such corporation or association and the names of the officers thereof together with the addresses of the latter.

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

§ 57. Additional penalties. In addition to the penalties provided by section fifty-six of this article, a violation of the provisions of this article may be restrained at the suit of the people by the

attorney-general.

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

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

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

EXHIBIT 2.

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

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



EXHIBIT 1



EXHIBIT 2



EXHIBIT 3


Strunk Declaration Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)


v.


Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK RESPONSE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEFENDANTS COUNSEL S NOTICE OF MOTION

TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

1. I am a Plaintiff pro se without being an attorney and produce this response

declaration in opposition to the state of New York s Secretary of State Randy Daniels (now

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

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sullivan s Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended

Complaint filed pursuant to the Court s May 4, 2006 Text Order of all Defendants herein to

respond by June 1, 2006 accordingly.

2. That declarant is the co-chairman along with Plaintiff John Joseph Forjone of the

AD HOC NYS People s Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate / Interstate HAVA Funds

Distribution Equity Nationwide without an attorney as a jus tertii association and individually

jus tertii pursuant of a declaratory judgment in the matter of overly vague and broad use of the

Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) Federal funds disbursement formula without the narrow

respective state law determinant definition of Voting Age Population (VAP), as well as

being relators under the False Claims Act per 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 (FCA).



3. This Declaration is filed in conjunction with the Co-chairmen Relators Law

Memorandum in Opposition to Dismissal and in support of a Declaratory Judgment and

equity relief with a Court order of the DOJ to go back and review all HAVA state compliance

plans in light of the declaratory judgment for the purposes of HAVA funds offset and

penalties to be levied under the FCA.

4. On 29 September 2005 Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier and I submitted an application

to the NYS Secretary of State, Defendant Randy Daniels, in the matter of FOIL and NYS

Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 5A protection involving municipal overreaching by the city of

New York, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 4.

5. An unnamed agent of the Office of the Secretary of State responded to the

application shown as EXHIBIT 4 with an unsigned letter denying both FOIL and any

obligation to respond under NYS Chapter 6 Article 5A, with the identical language of

EXHIBIT 2.

6. On 14 May 2006 in conjunction with the WDNY 05-cv-395 case following the

receipt of the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and sanction by Defendants counsel Jeremy

Colby who represents the County of Orleans, and Dudek the County Legislature

Administrator who also serves as a Member of the Board of Directors of the New York

Municipal Insurance Reciprocal (NYMIR) and NYMIR Insurance Risk Assessor, and in

WDNY 06-cv-80 also represents various Municipalities who are underwritten by the NYMIR

who had referred Jeremy Colby to represent its clients as approved counsel in lieu of each

respective County Attorney, and in the matter of investigating a conflict of Interest with that

in mind as such I obtained a copy of the latest published NYS Department of Insurance Audit

of NYMIR for the Year 1999, a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 5.



7. The NYMIR website is linked to that of the NYS Association of Counties,

physically the Directors of both entities occupy the same headquarters near Albany Municipal

Airport.

8. According to the NYS DOI 1999 Audit of NYMIR shown as EXHIBIT 5, the

Table of Contents on page 2 in the matter of Conflict of Interest on Page 15 Item Paragraph

Item G the report states quote:

9. The NYS DOI 1999 Audit of NYMIR, shown as EXHIBIT 5, in the Summary and

Comment Section on page 24 reiterates quote:

10. On 5 April 2006 Newsmax.com published an Article entitled Non-Citizens

Expected to Get Voting Rights in NYC reported by Carl Limbacher, a copy herewith marked

EXHIBIT 6.

11. On 28 April 2006 the Office of the New York State Attorney General issued a

press release entitled STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE

REGARDING MAY 1 "NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR IMMIGRANT

RIGHTS , a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT 7.



12. On 12 May 2006 I received from Plaintiff Gabe Razzano a copy of the NYS AG

FOIL Response letter #03363 dated 25 September 2003 therein with a copy of 1 October

2002 Assurance of Discontinuation settlement in lieu of litigation between NYS AG and ADC

Contracting and Construction, Inc. who had employed illegal aliens and covered in the

October 3 Press Release by the NYSAG, a copy of the letter herewith marked EXHIBIT 8.

13. In light of the RICO Statement in the Forjone v EAC case WDNY 06-cv-80

requiring demonstration of a pattern of conduct by Attorney General Spitzer as part of the

enterprise in support of Harboring Illegal Aliens as a part of Racketeering Activity in

violation of :

18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity inconnection with identification documents) 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens)18 USC §1341 (mail fraud)18 USC §1343 (wire fraud)18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully)18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim )18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents)18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) (interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering Enterprise)18 USC §1957 (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from specific unlawful activity)

14. As such I have done a first approximation statistical study of the annual press

releases by the NYS AG Spitzer from 1999 thru 2006 currently totaling 1922.

15.The two categories studied are AG Spitzer's political decisions to act in the matter

of Medicaid Fraud and recovery of Alien Labor "wages" . With particular note is the rate of

percentage change as a result of the whistleblower Medicaid Fraud case Forjone v Leavitt

WDNY 05-cv-395, wherein both the Medicaid and HAVA cases both involve harboring of

illegal aliens by the AG et.al.; the chart follows:



EXHIBIT 4



EXHIBIT 5

REPORT ON EXAMINATION

OF THE

NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INSURANCE RECIPROCAL

AS OF

DECEMBER 31, 1999

DATE OF REPORT DECEMBER 21, 2000

EXAMINER VERONICA DUNCAN-BLACK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO. PAGE NO.

1. Scope of examination 2

2. Description of Reciprocal

A. ManagementB. Territory and plan of operationC. ReinsuranceD. Significant operating ratiosE. Abandoned propertyF. Custodian agreementG. Conflict of interestH. Accounts and records

3

478

1313141515

3. Financial statements

A. Balance sheetB. Underwriting and investment exhibit

18

1820

4. Losses and loss adjustment expense 22

5. Market conduct activities 22

6. Compliance with prior report 22

7. Summary of comments and recommendations 23

STATE OF NEW YORKINSURANCE DEPARTMENT

25 BEAVER STREETNEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004

December 21, 2000

Honorable Neil D. LevinSuperintendent of InsuranceAlbany New York 12257

Sir:

Pursuant to the requirements of the New York Insurance Law, and in compliance with the

instructions contained in Appointment Number 21592 dated September 7, 2000, attached hereto, I have

made an examination into the condition and affairs of the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal as of

December 31, 1999 and respectively submit the following report thereon.

The examination was conducted at the Company’s home office located 377 Oak Street, Garden

City, New York 11530.

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

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

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

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

York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

Wherever the designation “WRM” or the “Manager” appear herein without qualification, they

should be understood to refer to Wright Risk Management Company, Inc., Manager for the New York

Municipal Insurance Reciprocal.

2

1. SCOPE OF EXAMINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Examiners Handbook of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners:

History of ReciprocalManagement and controlCorporate recordsFidelity bond and other insuranceTerritory and plan of operationMarket conduct activitiesGrowth of ReciprocalBusiness in forceReinsuranceAccounts and recordsFinancial statements

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

and recommendations contained in the prior report on examination.

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

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

description.

3

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECIPROCAL

The New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal is an insurer, as defined in Section 107(a)(37) of

the New York Insurance Law and organized pursuant to the provisions of Article 61 of the New York

Insurance Law. As provided by the provisions of Section 6102(b) of the New York Insurance Law the

declaration creating a municipal reciprocal was approved by Superintendent on August 23, 1993. The

Reciprocal was licensed on August 31, 1993 and commenced operations on the same day.

The Reciprocal was organized to provide a market source for New York State counties, towns,

villages, cities or district corporations organized and existing under the Finance Law of the State of New

York. NYMIR’s policyholders engage in the business of inter-insurance on the reciprocal plan, through

an Attorney-in-Fact. Each policyholder is a subscriber and only policyholders may be subscribers. The

subscribers share proportionately in all losses, expenses, and profits of the reciprocal, based on the

percentage their premium represents to the total written premium by NYMIR. To provide surplus,

NYMIR requires each subscriber, as a prerequisite to the initial purchase of an insurance policy, to

contribute to the surplus of NYMIR in accordance with such plan as developed by its Board of Governors.

Subscribers are required to contribute 20% of their initial surplus contribution or 8% percent of gross

premiums in each of the first five years, or at their option accelerate such contributions.

In accordance with Section 6102(12) of the New York Insurance Law, NYMIR has selected not to

be subject to coverage by the Property/Casualty Insurance Security Fund under Article 76 of the New

York Insurance Law. Accordingly, NYMIR issues assessable policies which provide for unlimited

contingent several liability for assessment of its subscribers.

4

A. Management

(i) Board of Governors

Pursuant to a declaration executed by the Superintendent of Insurance and Section 6102 of the

New York Insurance Law a board of governors was elected to act on behalf of the subscribers with powers

to supervise and control the Attorney-in-Fact and to control investment of the assets of the reciprocal

insurer, along with such power as may be conferred by the articles of association and the Subscribers’

Agreement. The Articles of Incorporation and the Subscribers’ Agreement specify that the board of

governors should consist of no fewer than nine members. As of December 31, 1999, the board of

governors was comprised of thirteen members.

As of December 31, 1999, the members of the board of governors together with their residence

and principal business affiliations were as follows:

Name and Residence Principle Business Affiliation

Kenneth Charles AndrewDewitt, New York

Town Councilman,Town of Dewitt

Robert James BondiMahopac, New York

County Exective,Putnam County

Stanley John DudekMedina, New York

Chief Administrator,County of Orleans

Robert Watson ElliotCroton, New York

Mayor,Village of Croton-On-Hudson

Sandra Lynn FrankelRochester, New York

Supervisor,Town of Brighton

John Joseph GilfeatherRed Hook, New York

Supervisor,Town of Red Hook

Gale Marie HatchIlion, New York

Village Clerk/TreasurerVillage of Ilion

5

Name and Residence Principal Business Affiliation

John Russell LapointePutnam, New York

Supervisor,Town of Putnam

John Charles LayneAirmont, New York

Mayor,Village of Airmont

Dominic Francis MazzaAvon, New York

County Administrator,Livingston County

Thomas Richard MoranJava Center, New York

Supervisor,Town of Java

Jon Raymond SteadJohnstown, New York

Clerk of the Board,Fulton County

William John WoodCortland, New York

City Clerk,City of Cortland

The minutes of all of the meetings of the board of governors held during the examination period

were reviewed. The review indicated that the board held twenty regular meetings during the period,

January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999, and that such meetings were well attended by the members.

The principal officers of the Reciprocal as of December 31, 1999 were as follows:

Name Title

Dominic F. Mazza PresidentJohn Gilfeather Vice- PresidentGale Hatch SecretarySandra Frankel Treasurer

(ii) Attorney-in-Fact Agreement

The New York State Local Government Service Foundation, Inc. (“NYSLGF”), a New York not-

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

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

6

contracts necessary for the operations of NYMIR. In March 1995, a formal agreement was executed by

NYMIR to confirm the appointment of NYSLGF as the Attorney-in-Fact.

The members of the board of directors and the officers of NYSLGF as of December 31, 1999 are

as follows:

Directors

Jeffery HaberEdward FarrellRobert Gregory

Officers

G. Jeffery Haber PresidentEdward Farrell Vice-PresidentRobert Gregory Secretary and Treasurer

(iii) Management Agreement

Pursuant to a management agreement dated August 27, 1993, Wright Risk Management (f/k/a

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

assist the Attorney-in-Fact and the board of governors in the performance of their responsibilities pursuant

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

with an effective date of July 1, 1998, for a five year term. In accordance with the terms of the new

agreement, the general scope of services to be rendered by the Manager includes staffing and facilities,

underwriting and policyholders services, engineering and management services, claims and loss control

services, and accounting services. The agreement also states that WRM shall receive a fee of 15.5% of all

gross written premiums, except that the fee shall be 17.5% of gross premium for any new business for the

first year only.

7

In addition, the management agreement contains a provision regarding the settlement of claims.

This provision, however, is not specific as to WRM’s responsibility for the run-off of NYMIR’s claims in

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

necessary steps to amend its management agreement to provide more precise wording in regard to WRM’s

responsibility for the running-off of both known and incurred but not reported claims in the event that the

management agreement is terminated.

B. Territory and Plan of Operation

As of the examination date, the Reciprocal was licensed in the State of New York pursuant to

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

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

Paragraph Kind of Insurance

4 Fire 5 Miscellaneous property 6 Water damage 7 Burglary and theft 8 Glass 9 Boiler and machinery 10 Elevator 13 Personal injury liability 14 Property damage liability 19 Motor vehicle and aircraft

physical damage 20 Marine and inland marine

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

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

to policyholders in the amount of $1,800,000.

8

The Reciprocal is licensed to write business only in the State of New York. Most of its business is

produced either directly or through a network of brokers.

It was noted in the prior report on examination that the Reciprocal was accepting policy

applications and collecting premiums for certain lines of business that it was not licensed to write (boiler

and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine insurance) and remitting such premium amounts to

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

refrain from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers, and that they devise an alternative method of

enabling their policyholders to obtain boiler and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marine

coverage.

It was noted during this examination that the Reciprocal has partially complied with the above

recommendation. The Reciprocal is now licensed to write boiler and machinery and inland marine

business. The Reciprocal, however, continues to accept applications and premiums for fidelity and surety

insurance and a certain parts of inland marine insurance for which it is not licensed. It was noted that the

premium collected for these lines of business have been reduced substantially. It is, however, again

recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the prior report on examination recommendation in that

the Reciprocal should refrain from collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers, and devise an

alternative method of enabling its policyholders to obtain fidelity and surety, inland marine (earthquake)

insurance coverages.

C. Reinsurance

The Schedule F data as contained in the Reciprocal’s annual statements filed for the years within

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

9

The examiner reviewed all ceded reinsurance contracts effected during the examination period.

All of these contracts contained the required standard clauses, including insolvency clauses meeting the

requirements of Section 1308 of the New York Insurance Law.

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

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

the New York Insurance Law. The clause in the contract reads as follows: “ In the absence of applicable

law, either party may offset mutual debts and credits.” It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend the

captioned agreement to include the following wording, “In the event of the insolvency of either party to

this agreement then offsets shall be allowed to the extent permitted by the provisions of the New York

Insurance Law Section 7427”.

A review of the Reciprocal’s boiler and machinery reinsurance agreement shows that such contract

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

Association of Insurance Commissioners Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual states the

following:

“…if a contract entered into, renewed or amended on or after January 1, 1994 has not beenfinalized, reduced to a written form and signed by the parties within nine months after the commencementof the policy period covered by the reinsurance arrangement, then the arrangement is presumed to beretroactive and must be accounted for as a retroactive reinsurance contract.”

A review of Schedule F, Part 3 of the Reciprocal’s annual statement shows that the amounts ceded

and recoverable under this agreement are not material and no change has been made to the financial

statements in this report. It is, however, recommended in the future that the Reciprocal comply with

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

Manual and record its reinsurance transactions accordingly.

10

As of the examination date, the Reciprocal had the following working excess of loss and quota

share reinsurance program in place:

Type of Contract Limit and Retention

Property

First Property Excess of Loss

Four LayersAutomatic facultative reinsurance andFacultative property reinsurance100% Authorized

Limit of $50,000,000 blanket limit risk or peroccurrence excess of $100,000 blanket limit risk per riskor per occurrence, subject to an occurrence limit of$1,250,000.

The captioned property automatic facultative reinsurance treaty provides four layers of coverage.

Layer one is placed at 100% percent. The second, third and fourth layers are placed at 75%, 86.67% and

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

facultative property agreement directly placed with American Re-Insurance Company.


Boiler and Machinery

Equipment Breakdown (Boiler and Machinery)Quota Share Excess of loss Treaty

100% AuthorizedSection ALimit of up to 95% part of $5,000,000, net loss perpolicy per accident.

Section BLimit of $25,000,000 net loss per risk per occurrenceexcess of $5,000,000, net loss per policy per accident.

11


Casualty

First Casualty Excess of Loss (Policy limitsequal $1,000,000)

100% Authorized Limit of $750,000 ultimate net loss each and everyoccurrence excess of $250,000, ultimate net loss eachand every occurrence.

Casualty Excess of Loss( Umbrella Policy)

100% AuthorizedGeneral LiabilitySection (i)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained for an amount of $900,000 in excess of$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000 eachoccurrence, per person or organization personaladvertising and products completed operations annual(aggregate) and the first $2,000,000 annual (aggregate).

Section (ii)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 inexcess of $1,000,000 each occurrence, per person ororganization personal and advertising injury andproducts completed operations annual aggregate(general) and amounts of up to $18,000,000 excess of$2,000,000 annual aggregate (general).

AutomobileSection (i)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of$100,000 as respects the first $1,000,000, eachoccurrence.

Section (ii)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 inexcess of $1,000,000, each occurrence.

12


Public Officials LiabilitySection (i)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000, any oneclaim and the first $1,000,000 annual aggregate.

Section (ii)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 inexcess of $1,000,000, any one claim and amounts of upto $9,000,000 in excess $1,000,000 annual aggregate.

Law Enforcement LiabilitySection (i)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount of $900,000 in excess of$100,000 in respect to the first $1,000,000, eachoccurrence and the first $1,000,000 annual aggregate.

Section (ii)100% quota share participation of the Reciprocal’s netretained liability for an amount up to $9,000,000 inexcess of $1,000,000 each occurrence and amounts ofup to $9,000,000 in excess $1,000,000 annual aggregate.

Casualty catastrophe excess of loss (clashcover)

100% Authorized Limit of $1,000,000 excess of $1,000,000, ultimate netloss each occurrence.

The reinsurer’s liability is limited to $1,000,000 in anyone occurrence and is limited to $3,000,000 in respect toall losses in any one contract period.

Health Care Facility

Health care facilities professional liability

100% Authorized A maximum limit of 90% of 1,000,000 any one loss anyone insured, subject to $3,000,000 in the aggregate anyone insured.

13

D. Significant operating ratios

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

examination:

Net premiums written in 1999 to surplus as regards policy holders 96.14%

Liabilities to liquid assets (cash and invested assets less investments in affiliates) 68.47%

Premiums in course of collection to Surplus as regards policyholders 1.59%

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

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

The underwriting ratios presented below are on an earned/incurred basis and encompass the five-

year period covered by this examination:

Amounts Ratios

Losses incurred $14,059,463 37.74%Loss adjustment expenses incurred 12,416,912 33.34Other underwriting expenses incurred 10,008,819 26.87Net underwriting gain (loss) 763,444 2.05

Premiums earned $37,248,638 100.00%

E. Abandoned Property

Section 1316 of the Abandoned Property Law requires insurance companies to report to the

comptroller’s office annually on or before April 1 any properties that are deemed abandoned and have

14

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

they have any abandoned property to report.

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

comptroller’s office as required by Section 1316 of the Abandoned Property Law for any of the years

under examination.

It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the Abandoned Property Law and file the

required reports.

F. Custodian Agreement

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

custodial agreement. A review of the Reciprocal’s custodial agreement indicated that the agreement was

lacking several protective covenants that this Department deems necessary to safeguard the Reciprocal’s

assets, as follows:

1. The bank shall have in force, for its own protection, Bankers’ Blanket BondInsurance of the broadest form available for commercial banks and will continue tomaintain such insurance. The bank will give the insurer 60 days written notice of anymaterial change in the form or amount of such insurance prior to termination of thiscoverage.

2. Maintain records sufficient to verify information that the insurer is required toreport in Schedule D of the Annual Statement blank of the Insurance Department of theState of New York.

3. Furnish the insurer with the appropriate affidavits in the form as may beacceptable to the New York Insurance Department in order for the securities referred to insuch affidavits to be recognized as admitted assets of the company.

4. There should be a provision in the agreement that would give the insurer theopportunity to secure the most recent report on the review of the custodial system ofinternal controls, pertaining to custodian record keeping, issued by internal or independentauditors.

15

It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its custodial agreement to include the above

provisions in order to provide its assets with the necessary safeguards.

G. Conflict of Interest

The Reciprocal adopted a policy statement pertaining to conflict of interest for its directors and

management. It was, however, noted that the Reciprocal failed to provide conflict of interest statements to

its directors and officers for the calendar years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

It is recommended that the Reciprocal require its directors and officers to complete conflict of

interest statements on an annual basis.

H. Accounts and Records

i. Cash

In reviewing the cash on hand and on deposit it was noted that a discrepancy existed between the

Reciprocal’s authorized signature listing and the banking institution’s listing for specific cash accounts.

The Reciprocal’s cash represents an important part of its assets and it is extremely vital that the proper

internal controls be in place.

It is recommended that the Reciprocal review and update its authorized signatories with the

appropriate banking institution.

16

ii. Regulation 30

A review of the Reciprocal’s compliance with the Department Regulation 30 was performed as

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

be categorized under investment expenses, loss adjustment expenses, taxes, general expenses, and

acquisition, field and collection expenses. Management has indicated that, “NYMIR pays contractually

agreed upon fees to two entities: Wright Risk Management Company and The New York State

Government Services Foundation.” NYMIR records it entire management fee paid to WRM in its

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

and acquisition, field and collection expense or other underwriting expense. The annual statement for

NYMIR does not include any allocation of fees paid to the entities for the administrative functions that

carried out on behalf of NYMIR.

Based upon the Management’s representation and a review of the expenses reported in its filed

annual statements, it appears that the Reciprocal did not comply with Department Regulation 30. It was

also noted that the Reciprocal did not provide a proper allocation of its expenses as required by the

National Association Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) - Annual Statement Instructions. The annual

statement instructions provide specific instructions for the allocation of expense payment made to any non-

affiliated entity that provides management, administration, or services in whole or part to a Reciprocal’s

business or operations.

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

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

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

17

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

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

18

3. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

A. Balance Sheet

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

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

AssetsLedgerAssets

Non-ledgerAssets

Not-AdmittedAssets

AdmittedAssets

Bonds $19,439,603 $ $ $19,439,603Cash & Short-termInvestments 2,456,782 2,456,782Agents’ balances or uncollected premiums:Premiums and agents’ balances in course of collection 170,289 53,944 116,345Premiums, agents’ balances and installments booked but deferred and not yet due 612,271 612,271

Reinsurance recoverable on loss and loss adjustment expense payments 13,472 13,472Interest, dividends and real estate income due and accrued 330,270 330,270Fees 420 46 374Recoverables __________ (426) _________ (426)

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

19

Liabilities

Losses $ 7,865,917Loss adjustment expenses 4,177,190Contingent commissions and other similar charges (311,131)Other expenses 200,104Unearned premiums 2,420,374Excess of statutory reserves over statement reserves 1,285,000Total liabilities $ 15,637,454

Surplus

Gross paid in and contributed surplus $ 3,721,046Unassigned funds (surplus) 3,610,191

Surplus as regards policyholders, December 31, 1999 7,331,237

Total liabilities and surplus $ 22,968,691

20

B. Underwriting and investment exhibit

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

January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999.

Statement of Income

Underwriting Income

Premiums earned $ 37,248,638Deductions: Losses incurred $ 14,059,463 Loss adjustment expense incurred 12,416,912 Other underwriting expense incurred 10,008,819Total underwriting deductions 36,485,194

Net underwriting gain 763,444

Investment Income

Net investment income earned 3,674,232Net realized capital gains 50,958

Net investment gain 3,725,190

Other Income

Miscellaneous 26,776

Total Other Income 26,776__

Net Income $ 4,515,410

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

21

Capital and Surplus Account

Surplus as regards policyholders, December31, 1994 per prior report on examination $ 2,468,098

Gains in Losses inSurplus Surplus

Net income $ 4,515,410 $Unrealized capital gains 282,074Change in not admitted assets 53,990Change in excess of statutory reserve over Statement reserve 1,257,000Surplus paid in 3,176,854Change in capitalization receivable 1,788,511Prior year adjustment ___________ 11,698__

Total gains and losses $7,974,338 $3,111,199

Net gain in surplus 4,863,139

Surplus as regards policyholders, per report on Examination as of December 31, 1999 $ 7,331,237

22

4. LOSSES AND LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSES

The examination amount for loss and loss adjustment expense reserves, $7,865,917 and

$4,177,190 respectively, are the same as those reported by the Reciprocal as of December 31, 1999. The

examination analysis was conducted in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and

practices and was based on statistical information contained in the Reciprocal’s internal records and in its

filed annual statements as verified by the examiners.

5. MARKET CONDUCT ACTIVITIES

In the course of this examination, a review was made of the manner in which the Reciprocal

conducts its business and fulfills its contractual obligations to policyholders and claimants. The review

was general in nature and is not to be construed to encompass the more precise scope of a market conduct

investigation which is the responsibility of the Market Conduct Unit of the Property Bureau. No problems

were encountered during this review.

6. COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR REPORT ON EXAMINATION

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

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

ITEM PAGE NO.

A. Territory and Plan of Operation

It is recommended that in the future the Reciprocal should refrainfrom collecting premiums on the behalf of other insurers, and thatthey devise an alternative method of enabling their policyholders toobtain boiler and machinery, fidelity and surety, and inland marinecoverage.

The Reciprocal has not complied with this recommendation.

8

23

ITEM PAGE NO.

B. Maintenance of Subscribers’ Separate Account

1. It is recommended that NYSIR comply with Section 6112(a) ofthe New York Insurance Law and with Item 5.2 of thesubscribers’ agreement and keep a separate account for eachindividual subscriber.

The Reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.

12

2. It is recommended that NYSIR comply with Item 5.3 of thesubscribers’ agreement and render a statement to each subscribershowing a summary of collective transactions of the Reciprocaland also a statement of subscriber’s separate accounting.

The Reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.

12

C. Losses and loss Adjustment Expenses

It is recommended that the Reciprocal should report all losses andloss adjustment expenses gross of all unfunded deductibles.

The reciprocal has complied with this recommendation.

16

7. SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ITEM PAGE NO.

A. Management

It is recommended that the Reciprocal take the necessary steps toamend its management agreement with Wright Risk Management toprovide more precise wording in regard to Wright Risk’sresponsibility for running off both known and incurred but notreported claims in the event that the management agreement isterminated.

7

B. Territory and Plan of Operation

It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the prior reporton examination recommendation in that the Reciprocal should refrainfrom collecting premiums on behalf of other insurers and devise analternative method of enabling its policyholders to obtain fidelity andsurety, and inland marine(earthquake) insurance coverages.

8

24

ITEM PAGE NO.

C. Reinsurance

It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its first casualty excessof loss and casualty excess of loss agreement to include theappropriate offset language pursuant to Section 7427 of the NewYork Insurance Law.

9

It is recommended that in the future the Reciprocal comply withChapter 22 of the NAIC accounting practices and procedures manualand record its reinsurance transactions accordingly.

9

E. Abandoned Property

It is recommended that the Reciprocal comply with the AbandonedProperty Law and file the required reports.

14

F. Custodian Agreement

It is recommended that the Reciprocal amend its custodial agreementto include the provisions as provided in Section 2(F) herein in orderto afford its assets the necessary safeguards.

15

G. Conflict of Interest

It is recommended that the Reciprocal require its directors andofficers to submit conflict of interest statements on an annual basis.

15

H. Accounts and Records

i It is recommended that the Reciprocal review and update itsauthorized bank signatories with the appropriate banking institution.

15

ii It is recommended that the Reciprocal undertake a study to determinethe proper amounts to allocate between expenses classified pursuantto Department Regulation 30, Part 107.3 and comply with the NAICAnnual Statement Instructions accordingly.

16

iii It is also recommended that the Reciprocal comply with Regulation30, Part 107.4(e)(1) and provide proper supporting documentation forits expense allocation.

16

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Veronica Duncan-Black

Senior Insurance Examiner

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS. ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

VERONICA DUNCAN-BLACK, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the foregoing report submitted

by her is true to the best of her knowledge and belief.

/S/ Veronica Duncan Black

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this day of 2001.



EXHIBIT 6



Non-Citizens Expected to Get Voting Rights in NYCNewsMax ^ | April 5, 2006 | Carl LimbacherPosted on 04/05/2006 12:16:42 PM PDT by Icelander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



EXHIBIT 7



Department of Law120 BroadwayNew York, NY 10271

Department of LawThe State CapitolAlbany, NY 12224

For More Information:(518) 473-5525

For Immediate ReleaseApril 28, 2006

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE REGARDING MAY 1 "NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS"

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

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

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

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

Employers need to carefully consider what reasonable limitations on their employeesparticipation are truly necessary to the functioning of their businesses. Employers and employees are urged to cooperate to avoid violations of law.

---- 30 ----



EXHIBIT 8.

Plaintiffs:

John Joseph Forjone [email protected] Delplato Jr. - [email protected] Razzano - [email protected] Person Jr. [email protected]

Defendants Counsels:

Mary Pat Fleming U.S. Attorney's Office Federal Centre 138 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202

Peter B. Sullivan New York State Attorney General 107 Delaware Avenue Fourth Floor Buffalo, NY 14202

David W. Kloss Kloss & Stenger 69 Delaware Avenue Suite 1003 Buffalo, NY 14202

Jeremy A. Colby Webster Szanyi, LLP 1400 Liberty Bldg. Buffalo, NY 14202

Joseph F. Reina Erie County Department of Law 69 Delaware Avenue - Suite 300 Buffalo, NY 14202

Michael E. Davis Monroe County Department of Law 39 West Main Street - Room 307 Rochester, NY 14614

Kathleen M. Dougherty Onondaga County of Department of Law John H. Mulroy Civic Center 421 Montgomery Street - 10th Floor

Syracuse, NY 13202

Thomas Simeti County of Rockland Department of Law 11 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956

Carol Fumanti Arcuri Office of the Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue 6th Floor - Room 600 White Plains, NY

10601

Aaron J. Marcus Broome County Attorney's Office 44 Hawley Street P.O. Box 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902

Michael G. Reinhardt Ontario County Attorney's Office 27 North Main Street -4th Floor Canandaigua, NY 14424-1447

John V. Hartzell Jefferson County Attorney's Office 175 Arsenal Street Watertown, NY 13601

Alan R. Peterman Hiscock & Barclay, LLP One Park Place 300 South State Street P.O. Box 4878 Syracuse, NY 13221-4878

Tina M. Wayland-Smith Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC 60 East State Street Sherrill, NY 13461

Francine A. Chavez NM Attorney General's Office P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504

Wylie E. Kumler Office of the Attorney General of Texas 300 W. 15th Street - Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701

Diana L. Varela Assistant Attorney General Attorney for State of Arizona 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926

Thomas J. Cawley, Esq. Sullivan County Department of Law County Government Center 100 North Street -P.O. Box 5012

Monticello, NY 12701

Aven Rennie, Esq. Mcgavern, Mcgavern & Grimm, LLP 1100 Rand Building 14 Lafayette Square Buffalo,, NY 14203

Stephen M. Sorrels Feldman, Kiefer & Herman, LLP 110 Pearl Street - Suite 400 Buffalo, NY 14202

Joshua J. Hicks Senior Deputy Attorney General Civil Division 100 North Carson Street Carson City, NV. 89701-4717

Eric J. Wilson Assistant Attorney General the State of Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-

4096

the state of CALIFORNIA, Secretary of State 1500 11th Street Sacramento, California 95814

Bill Lockyer Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-255 26

Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr. Assistant County Attorney- Suffolk County Attorney s Office H. Lee Dennison Bldg. 100 Veterans

Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099

Ester Miller, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Nassau County Attorney s Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501

For the information of:

Todd D. Valentine Esq. New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben St. Albany, NY, 12207Robert K. Dornan - 31341 Andres Pico Road San Juan Capistrano, California 92675


WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)


v.


Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFF STRUNK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MAKE A CONSOLIDATED REPLY OF

EXPANDED LENGTH WITH EXHIBITS Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

1. That I am a plaintiffs pro se without being an attorney, who was the party who

entered the remark with the Court in regards to request for a Special Master, Stay in lieu of

any associated report and for a consolidated response to the Defendants several motion to

dismiss the amended complaint recorded as such at docket item 73.

2. Subsequent to the Court text order of defendants to response to the Remark very

numerous responses were received accordingly between.

3. Permission to submit a consolidated Reply of expanded length with exhibits to

Defendants Responses shown at Docket Items 76 thru 96 as provided pursuant to the Court

Stay Order and Text Orders shown Docket items 24, 27 and 75 respectively.

4. I herewith submit the original of my consolidated reply entitled Plaintiff Strunk

Consolidated Reply to Defendants Responses to the Remark Request for a special master,

stay and consolidated response to Defendants MTD the Amended Complaint declared

Forjone v. EAC - WDNY 06-cv-80

Strunk s Reply to Defendants Response to Remark - Page 1 of 42


WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 06-cv-80-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the False Claims Act matter of relators: (RJA/HBS)


v.


Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Plaintiff Strunk Consolidated Reply to Defendants Responses to the Remark

Request for a special master, stay and consolidated response to

Defendants MTD the Amended Complaint

I am Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se without being an attorney, hereby declares and

certifies under penalty of perjury that this is my consolidated reply to Defendants various

Responses to the Remark request for a special master, stay and consolidated response to

Defendants MTD the Amended Complaint shown as Docket Item 73, that by leave of the Court

on 12 June by text order of defendants were to respond by 5 July, as the excerpt of the Docket

item 75 below shows.

06/09/2006 73 Plaintiffs Request for a Stay of Response to Motion of Several State Defendants and for Consolidated Response to Motions of Municipal Defendants (Attachments: # 1Certificate of Service) (JDK, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/12/2006 75 TEXT ORDER Defts to file response to plaintiffs' motion, item number 73, on or before 7/5/2006. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 6/12/2006. (Baker, J.) Modified on 6/12/2006 (Baker, J.). (Entered: 06/12/2006)

I reply to each and every Response to the Remark chronologically according to the order of

Docket entry provided from June 12 thru July 6 with a Reply Summary thereafter as follows:



06/13/2006 78 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by County of Sullivan.(DLC) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

1. Mr. Thomas J. Cawley on 1 June responded to the 4 June text order of defendant

to respond to the Amended Complaint and as such the Sullivan County Attorney requested

permission to file a MTD the Amended Complaint belatedly.

2. To wit neither I nor any of the Plaintiffs, I have spoken with have objection to the

appearance and filing of the MTD belatedly.

3. Sullivan County is an extremely important party to this case and is centered at the

controversy referenced by Mr. Colby below in regards to the need to bring the Federal and State

provision of plain speedy and efficient remedy up to date as well as the fight that I and my

associates have been waging to protect the people s suffrage, first amendment provision of

speech in the legislature and autonomous Homerule effectiveness in real property and other

matters long abandoned since Nelson Rockefeller greased the skids for kleptocracy backroom

dealing statewide and nationally.

06/14/2006 77 DECLARATION signed by Peter B. Sullivan re 73 Remark filed by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012, The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012 filed by The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012, The Secretary of the State of New York, New York State Attorney General per CPLR 1012. (Sullivan, Peter) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

4. Mr. Sullivan on 14 June responded promptly with leave of the court to my remark

request for a special master, stay and consolidated response to the various Defendants' MTD.

5. If correlation in the FOIL delay with filing deadline may simply be failure to meet

the 5 day deadline with a 5 week response that would somehow require NYS CPLR Article 78 to

apply is laughable. Especially when in fact Plaintiffs got a response with no answer, that

although late was an extraordinary response points to an enigma.



6. The lack of vital records is germane to the statutory, corporate, quasi corporate or

even simple association of its agents showing the public fiduciary nature of Each agent bound to

the people they serve by oath when missing or transferred to the care private entity association or

lobby group requires a statutory response of both State Defendants under CPLR 1012, whether

or not one is a Republican and one is a Democrat running for Governor, we are suppose to have a

government of laws not men.

7. The NYS Association of Counties is a very influential lobbying group with its

own non-profit insurance company NYMIR originally based in Nassau County now serving

some 600 municipal clients, and that beyond the aegis Department of Insurance, both the SOS

and the NYSAG also oversee such through Corporate and Charities Bureau.

8. When a significant number of entities are clients of the New York Municipal

Insurance Reciprocal herein, the Court as well as Plaintiffs must be apprised of the relationship.

9. To the extent that it appears that the unelected insurance carrier board of directors

directs the affairs of each local government unbeknownst to the people resident within such

entities increasingly suffer loss of real property as a result, especially stretches credulity when

records held by a private entity exempt from FOIL.

10. On the face of the Amended Complaint in the best of all possible worlds the NYS

SOS and AG are statutory defendants under CPLR 1012, each is bound to perform statutory

tasks of office in a nonpartisan manner, and as such one certainly expects a statutory defendant

to have a duty to determine whether or not any suspect county / municipal is in compliance by

operation of law in application of the State Civil Rights Law, and not merely leaving loose

oversight in application of Election Law to a semi private State Board of Elections that bars

participation of nearly 50% of all U.S. Citizens entitled to register and vote that all relates to both



the State Constitution and statutory obligation of each municipal / county / agent defendant.

11. Is it hubristic contempt not to assist the Court to determine if each entity is

properly configured to apply for Federal funds under HAVA in the first place?

12. When there is appearance of impropriety in a county / municipality maintaining

boards of elections within under questionable circumstances isn t it the duty of the Secretary of

State and Attorney General to investigate and report to the public interest in the matter?

13. In part we use the False Claims Act because the state of New York to date has no

False Claims Act for partisan reasons going to that impropriety.

14. Mr. Sullivan argues in paragraph 8 that Amended Complaint be decided from the

fours corners principle. Notwithstanding Mr. Sullivan s reference in paragraph 6 to the current

motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in which he speaks is already affirmed in his MTD as

unintelligible.

15. As such, counsel may not have both sides of his argument, for my understanding

of the four corners principle requires any subject document be intelligible for it to apply- or does

counsel now withdraw the MTD.

16. Mr. Sullivan argues in paragraph 9 that expenses for a special master would be

borne by parties pursuant to FRCvP Rule 53(h) therein objects at the suggestion. But does he

also object to State Defendants performing the role required under CPLR 1012?

17. If defendants refuse to do their duty, the expense of a special master is absolutely

to be borne solely by their gross negligence.

18. In that context of the foregoing discussion I certainly don t see how it is

unreasonable to assume that Plaintiffs would have been able to amend the complaint in even

more concise a manner if the Secretary of State had responded to the 27 March FOIL instead of



waiting until after the May 1 filing deadline to make the May 6 statutory response and or the

NYS Attorney General had devoted more effort to his fiduciary responsibilities and heightened

care of both the Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A and related laws to be measured by

expressed terms of the State Constitution mandates - however ignored.

06/16/2006 80 DECLARATION signed by Jeremy A. Colby re 8 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint,,,, Emergency Stay Motion filed by County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren in Further Support of County Defendants' Request to Enjoin Plaintiffs as Vexatious Litigators. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/16/2006)

19. Mr. Colby on 16 June responded to my remark representing an ever growing

number of municipalities whose appearance it seems is that of the NYMIR insurance carrier

providing liability coverage of public servants bound by oath of office and undertaking required

by statute.

20. On 30 May I filed the Amicus referenced by Mr. Colby at Second Circuit after

both: having been denied intervenor status in Eastern District by Judge Gleeson also taken on

appeal; and I was motivated if at all possible, to keep the State legislature honest to force

submission of an amicus on the EL §6-124 Judicial Convention matter by 2 June 2006.

21. To wit the State Legislature amicus was late and my Amicus was on time. The

Clerk of the Court phoned me on 31 May urging that I file a T1080 motion supporting

paperwork by 1 June 2006.

22. To wit I did and motion was approved on 2 June for Amicus status. On 2 June the

Clerk told me to arrange a reservation for court room seating at the 7 June oral argument.



23. To wit I did, and was seated next to Joel Graber of the NYS AG office on 7 June;

a copy of seat designation herewith marked EXHIBIT A-1.

24. As I had expected the State legislature was not only tardy on the matter of

meeting the amicus invitation deadline, but split along Democratic partisan lines in favor of

taking more real property upstate from the sheeple by expanding the Democratic Party class

preference.

25. The kleptocracy is observed to outrageously operate with bipartisan consent not

competition, a duopoly acting as one monopoly, that would have judicial primaries imposed

favoring the wealthy upstate and downstate as well.

26. Here in Brooklyn as observed elsewhere in the State the kleptocracy has operated

for four decades without State oversight, still continues to flout the law as the trial evidence in

the Torres case shows flourishes in the city of New York with impunity.

27. The Attorney for the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal, whose bottom-

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

interest to maintain each client municipality dressed in habit only- the state constitution takes

precedence over any habitual statutory abuse of authority that may have existed say in 1821.

28. However nearly two hundred years later we need to sort out fact over fiction,

despite protestations from agents of the New York State Association of Counties business lobby;

29. Where both the Secretary of State and Attorney General each take their oath

seriously under CPLR 1012 are bound to clarify that statutory authority, and if not, certainly the

New York State Court of Appeals would have sorted out the expressed State Constitution where

any statutory boundary applies under State Constitution Articles III, VI, and IX for local

government, accordingly also applies to 28 USC 112 and or modification.



30. Certainly with the demise of Vaudeville entertainment and weekend racing at

Monticello, that still curiosity surrounds why Defendant Sullivan County occupies both the 3rd

Department in Northern District, however is sequestered in Southern District as if by the

gambling lobby were part of 2nd Department no small discrepancy when considering the long

bout of new found tribal exhumations of late that has found by apparent sober séance a vision

quest for tribal offspring, that has focused offshore investments to conjure and allege trespass to

the six nations treaty of 1784.

31. The state of New York remains at the heart of offshore investment and China

policy to this day, as it had been starting before it inception in 1683. To try to separate

international from domestic, past from present, would render RICO matters inexplicable.

32. Although I believe Mr. Colby would speak off the record differently than for

express goals of the NYMIR employer; however, based upon the actual record of this and related

proceedings, he appears conflicted for his clients.

First in retrospect of Forjone v Leavitt WDNY 05-cv-395, Mr. Colby represents

Mr. Stanley Dudek that was Administrative Director of the Orleans County Legislature

who promptly resigned from that post when duly served with the complaint therein.

However continues to maintain his NYMIR Board of Directors employment as Risk

Assessment Underwriter for all 600 insured municipalities, and as such as then draws

attention to the arbitrary lack of Orleans County real property assessment oversight.

Second, the difficulty of initiating this case with so many defendant parties in the

matter of the simple relationship of Bottom-up suffrage and Homerule to that of the

questionable top-down regimen being imposed under NVRA and now HAVA, I know

would challenge even the largest law firms, how else would such all encompassing issue



be properly addressed otherwise? Plaintiffs are operating on a shoe string budget, and I

don t believe there is a college degree among us, certainly is no defense, but is reason

enough to understand how this case was initiated in such an unorthodox way to protect

individual propriety property and liberty. I contend that not one of us is frivolous in this

or any other matter;

I certainly wouldn t be here otherwise, as a long personal court record since 1996

is there to support. We have each affirmed and verify herein that our suffrage first

amendment guarantee is preservative of individual liberty and that our posterity is at

stake. So with all that in mind we had to effect proper due process for all state defendants

of the several states to form a class of the various states under provisions of the False

Claims Act related to HAVA according to current State and Federal Rules, and

Therefore we had to devise a way to invite voluntary joinder of all New York

subdivision municipalities as willing defendants, even going so far to direct alternate

appearance service away from the clerk of the court so that each municipal attorney

would have to voluntarily appear without further action on plaintiffs part.

As such all but a few have joined and as the record shows Mr. Colby between

February 17 until the Docket item #8 on March 13, 2006 appeared at the behest of each

County Attorney of Allegany, Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston,

Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Putnam, Tioga, and Warren County, and that at

the direction of all fourteen attorneys filed an emergency motion to Stay that resulted in

the Order shown as Docket item 24 on 29 March.

Third, beyond the fact of all Fourteen County attorneys voluntarily appearing in

the case, that under the stay without permission of the Court, Mr. Colby then solicited



eleven more County Attorneys to voluntarily appear using his services totaling twenty-

five clients as listed in Docket item 80 above.

Fourth, beyond the fact of Mr. Colby soliciting eleven additional clients insured

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

Colby s personal gain for what we contend is his professional transgression against not

only his clients while in contempt of Court cannon of ethics, by his actual vexatious

harassment of plaintiffs to take our property wants our liberty taken too.

Fifth, without getting into the response to each motion to dismiss by the various

counties reserving such as it relates to HAVA specifically and the matter of VAP (Voting

Age Population) associated with harboring of aliens, as if America in HAVA applied to

the American Western Hemisphere instead of just U.S. Citizens 18 years or older without

being civilly dead.

Mr. Colby has got Fulton County as a NYMIR insured client that is expressly

different than any other municipality in the state of New York mix of Subdivision

because it is the expressed lower limit of size for determining the legitimacy of any

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

mandates that Hamilton and Fulton shall elect together however don t, and

That we contend that Hamilton is not even entitled to any Board of Elections at

all, MUST depend upon that created under Election Law only in Fulton. I spoke with the

Fulton County Attorney, the Honorable Arthur Spring, in early March after receiving his

notice of acceptance of alternative service acknowledged 28 February 2006 (a copy

herewith marked EXHIBIT B-1); and

During the phone call, Mr. Spring told me that the matter of actual appearance in



Buffalo must be determined by the undertaking insurance carrier (later determined to be

NYMIR when Mr. Spring s secretary returned my subsequent phone call left on the

answer machine, told me the carrier s name is New York Municipal Insurance

Reciprocal.)

33. I deny what Mr. Colby in paragraph 4 wrongly states quote In other words, Mr.

Strunk suggests that the Western District of New York does not exist. There are no other

words , and

34. As such I repeat the foregoing with the same intent and purpose, however omit

same for brevity and assert that there is similarity as in formation of any sovereign nation with

that of Vermont from that of New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Vermont was a

fully autonomous and sovereign country for fourteen years before joining the union goes to my

understanding of the ripeness principle that delineates when matters are subject to judicial

review and when they aren t.

35. I believe Federal deference to any state constitution definition of county

legitimacy per se is a ripe equity matter that goes to judicial provision of plain speedy and

efficient remedy.

36. Therefore, ripeness of the issue mandates a hearing in conjunction with that of the

NVRA and HAVA matters devised by Congress that have so affected provision of the people s

bottom-up suffrage in every Homerule municipality under the state constitution still with plenary

control over suffrage expressly guaranteed by Article 1 Section 4 of the US Constitution.

37. The 1947 statute 28 USC 112 defers to state legislative authority given it by the

respective state constitution, and is notwithstanding the New York Legislature gerrymandered

nugatory kleptocracy, nevertheless must follow the express terms of the state constitution - this



Court must make a declaratory judgment in this regard.

38. Arguendo, Congress has no authority to regionalize state associated Federal

judicial process without taking express authority with regard to the state constitution and

associated due process as one continuous interrelated inseparable whole.

39. Now in 2006, forty plus years after WMCA v Lomenzo with county Homerule

consolidated under a CEO mayor in the city of New York, renders all New York Districts

discombobulated; and therefore Congress, the state Legislature as well as this Court must take

direction from the respective state constitution.

40. However this Court in a res novo original case, not a pendent matter, may choose

not to listen to the New York State Court of Appeals when there is no precedent effecting

Federal jurisdiction.

41. In a de facto manner, Western District of New York as well as every other District

exists per se, but we contend each must be in compliance with the State Constitution expression

of County, isn t done.

42. This is a matter of form follows function not as Mr. Colby wrongly alleges as

form over function (substance).

06/22/2006 81 DECLARATION signed by Aaron J. Marcus filed by County of Broome, County of Broome Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Stay (No. 73) filed by County of Broome, County of Broome. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Aaron) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

43. Mr. Marcus on 21 June filed a response to my Remark in opposition to Plaintiffs

request for a special master and stay of a consolidated response to the various MTD. Although

Mr. Marcus alleges he doesn t understand what plaintiffs are requesting he opposes it no matter

what it is; except for the matter that a consolidated response seems to make sense to him as

expressed at paragraph 15.




same for brevity and assert that To the extent Mr. Marcus is new to this matter this reply may be

helpful for him.

06/23/2006 82 AFFIDAVIT re [75] Order, Set Deadlines Affidavit of Alan R. Peterman, Esq. in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Special Master by County of Lewis. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Peterman, Alan) (Entered: 06/23/2006)

45. Mr. Peterman representing Lewis County adopts the arguments of Mr. Sullivan

from the submission shown as Docket item 77, and the position of Broome County affirmation of

Mr. Marcus shown as Docket item 81 is adopted only to the extent that payment of a special

master would be borne by defendants, and without mention of DOJ appearance would otherwise

not oppose a special master.


same for brevity and assert that I take exception to the point by Mr. Peterman in his paragraph 4

metaphorical description of the complaint and amendment were it limited, for in comparison of

the characteristics as somehow being an environmental hazard that would further muddy the

waters without also seeing the benefit of stirring such waters and to drain the swamp too.

47. If to the contrary, the borders of the legitimate municipalities were redrawn to

meet the requirements of the State Constitution, in fact granted that act would certainly be

hazardous to the existing kleptocracy.

48. However, such consolidation and or mergers would beneficially cleanup the

political/economic environment that is making life unlivable here in New York, so much so, that

unbearable misery is chasing productive generations elsewhere in record numbers, while the

kleptocracy outrageously gives safe harbor to illegal aliens for reaping unjust enrichment.



06/29/2006 84 AFFIDAVIT re [75] Order, Set Deadlines Affidavit of Thomas Simeti, Esq. in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Special Master and Extension of Time by County of Rockland, County of Rockland filed by County of Rockland, County of Rockland. (Simeti, Thomas) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

06/29/2006 85 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by County of Rockland re 84 Affidavit, (Simeti, Thomas) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

49. Mr. Simeti on 29 June in response to the remark adopted the argument made by

Mr. Sullivan for NYS Defendants shown as Docket item 77, also concurs with opinions of Mr.

Peterman at Docket item 82 and the affirmation (sic) Declaration of Mr. Marcus on behalf of

Broome County, and without mention of the DOJ appearance, is in opposition to a special master

or additional time to respond to various MTD.


same for brevity and assert that Rockland County is a State Constitutionally compliant / non-

conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering is entitled to a Board of Elections within,

and that the process of determining current statutory compliance of other 47 municipalities

alleged in violation of state constitution would significantly benefit from NYS Defendants

fulfillment with duties associated with CPLR 1012, and or a special master as the court would

deem necessary to provide both width and depth of certainty to render a decision herein.

06/30/2006 86 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 73 Remark to Plaintiffs' Letter Dated May 31, 2006 by County of Genesee, County of Chemung, County of Steuben, County of Yates, County of Seneca, County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, County of Saratoga, County of Washington, County of Ulster, County of Delaware, County of Allegany, County of Cayuga, County of Clinton, County of Essex, County of Fulton, County of Herkimer, County of Livingston, County of Montgomery, County of Oneida, County of Orleans, County of Oswego, County of Putnam, County of Tioga, County of Warren. (Colby, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

51. Mr. Colby on 30 June in support of his declaration of June 16 shown as docket

item 80 filed in opposition to my request for relief in the remark at docket 73. Therein adopts the



arguments set forth in Dockets items 77, 81 and 82 without mention of the appearance by DOJ.


same for brevity and assert that this filing by Mr. Colby is more measured and unique from his

previous filings and apart from other counsels argues the show cause order is not pre-mature, and

further argues in three points at page 2 that notwithstanding mention of the proposed RICO

statement that somehow a lack of information as to the nature of Defendants compliance with

state law should pose no special hardship for plaintiffs to be able to respond, and

53. That Mr. Colby speaking for his clients does not oppose plaintiffs consolidated

immediate response to the extent that County Defendants specific arguments are addressed; and

as a third point offers Plaintiffs counsel on how to prepare and organize limits on who may be

named a party to the proposed RICO statement.

54. That Mr. Colby on 1 June filed the MOL in support of the MTD the amendment

complaint shown as Docket 67, and that admittedly his clients would be greatly affected by the

findings of the NYS Defendants while performing their duty under CPLR 1012 accordingly.

55. That Mr. Colby may represent the entity clients in whatever form they may be

deemed to be associated in, however what is an absolute surety, is that the interests of the people

resident within are not served by Mr. Colby s efforts nor are they assisted to find out in a plain

speedy manner in hopes of obtaining any efficient remedy without the relief requested by

Plaintiffs being granted by the Court accordingly.

56. What Mr. Colby has failed to mention is that Plaintiffs FCA based complaint is

centered around the various states questionable filing for HAVA funds alleged done with

malicious use of VAP involving inter alia harboring of aliens, a federal felony consistently

having gone unpunished as seen in the record of the, proceeding of the Honorable Robert K.



Dornan out in California in 1996 and thereafter with malicious complicity of Newt Gingrich,

Thomas Foley and others bent of aiding and abetting such felonies participated without

immunity protection in the enterprise,

57. Thereby is to be proof at trial of both pattern and conduct of nullifying and

offsetting racketeering activity affecting plaintiffs franchise as well as those similarly as a class

yet to be determined.

58. That when the so-called central databases on a state by state and federal level are

rendered virtual, and there is a due diligence worthy of public service to compare the actual

record with that database,

59. That there has not been proper Fiduciary statutory oversight and heightened

standard of care adequate to prevent a product of fraud, is the case starting not later than 1993

with implementation of NVRA; and

60. Therefore, with time being of the essence as the events unfold, Plaintiffs needed

to file both a timely complaint with all its obvious shortcomings explained below, and now the

proposed RICO statement that would not have been necessary had there been Fiduciary due

diligence in effect.

61. As for the New York state Constitutional authority granted to each and every duly

constituted municipality to reapportion the respective political districts by March 1, 2006,

regretfully that time deadline is passed for all but those having appeared before 1 March; and

62. By our record of defendants counsels appearance only a handful of duly

constitute municipalities appeared in time - one of whom is Fulton that must elect together with

Hamilton nothing is done nor does NYMIR and or NY Association of Counties dependent

upon a steady cash flow annually want to have any compliance with the state constitution in the



matter of municipal provision of Homerule bottom-up suffrage and effective autonomous

representation in the state legislature and state political parties either at the state executive or

municipal committee level.

63. It appears to me that the only relief available for ensuring compliance absent

waiting another five years of unbearable corruption until the State Legislature with a new Federal

apportionment would somehow miraculously act spontaneously.

64. Notwithstanding if Mr. Spitzer were somehow to endeavor by his second term as

governor to circumvent the state legislature as promised, without cooperation of the legislature or

until that autocracy decides to reverse forty years of non-compliance of its own making, then it is

the Federal Court system under authority developed after Baker v Carr of 1962 for Tennessee

political districts that must take this res novo matter and make the renewed VRA section 5 real.

07/05/2006 88 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Remark filed by County of Onondaga. (Attachments: # 1Certificate of Service)(Dougherty, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

65. Ms. Dougherty on 3 July responded without adopting any specific argument and

or position of other defendants nevertheless is in opposition to a special master as well as the

additional time to which respond to the various motions for making a response.

66. However, does not oppose a consolidated immediate response separate from the

issue of a special master for the purposes of expediting review of sufficiency of the amendment

complaint.


same for brevity and assert that Onondaga is a State Constitutionally compliant / non-

conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering nevertheless is entitled to a Board of

Elections within that in the process of determining the current statutory compliance of the other

47 municipalities alleged in violation of the state constitution would significantly benefit by



either New York State Defendants fulfillment with duties associated with CPLR 1012 and or a

special master as the court would deem necessary to provide both width and depth of certainty

to render a decision herein.

07/05/2006 89 DECLARATION signed by Carol F. Arcuri re 73 Remark filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester with attached Certificate of Service filed by County of Westchester, County of Westchester. (Arcuri, Carol) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

68. Ms. Arcuri on 5 July in response to the remark joined in and adopted the

argument made by NYS Defendants in Point II of their Memorandum shown as Docket item 29

as well as the Declaration with MOL for the MTD dockets items 60 and 61, and the Declaration

of Mr. Marcus on behalf of Broome County, without mention of the DOJ, in opposition to a

special master combined with a motion to dismiss of its own on the basis of alternate service.


same for brevity and assert that I deny Ms. Arcuri s allegation in paragraph 10 that regarding

adequate notice of wrongdoing by Westchester despite plaintiffs clearly establishing that it is a

State Constitutionally compliant / non-conforming municipality regarding gerrymandering

nevertheless is entitled to a Board of Elections within that in the process of determining the

current statutory compliance of the other 47 municipalities alleged in violation of the state

constitution would significantly benefit by either New York State Defendants fulfillment with

duties associated with CPLR 1012 and or a special master as the court would deem necessary to

provide both width and depth of certainty to render a decision herein.

07/05/2006 90 DECLARATION filed by County of Columbia, County of Columbia in Response to Plaintiffs' Application filed by County of Columbia, County of Columbia. (Sorrels, Stephen) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

70. Mr. Sorrels on 5 July responded to my remark with a general opposition to any

relief requested by Plaintiffs in regards to a special master, stay pending a special master report



and a consolidated response to defendants MTD to date. Mr. Sorrels adopts the arguments of Mr.

Colby with various NYMIR clients, Mr. Marcus of Broome, Mr. Peterman of Lewis, and Mr.

Simeti of Rockland.


same for brevity and assert that

72. I believe it was in January 2006 that the attorney for Columbia County called me

in reference to my attempt to no avail to obtain a set of summons in order to service his and other

counties in the related case Loeber v. Spargo NDNY 04-cv-1193, and what did I mean by my

reference to the term gaming the system regarding HAVA billing.

73. At that time I assured him that the use of the word gaming, as in the bad man

principle , was meant to connote walking the broad line within the vague legal area created by

Congress in HAVA, was not formally intended to be used in regards to his RICO understanding

of the term that seemed to concern him the most.

07/05/2006 91 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Special Master and for Consolidation of Plaintiffs' Response filed by State of Arizona. (DLC) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

74. To the extent that Ms. Varela has adopted the argument of Mr. Sullivan as to a

special master and or additional time required for due process associated with duties under CPLR

1012, the appearance of Ms. Varela although quite welcome and substantive in regards to the

ongoing conflict between EAC and Arizona s plenary responsibility to safeguard elections visa

vi Proposition 200.


same for brevity and assert that Plaintiffs welcome and support the great state of Arizona s

efforts to defend U.S. Citizens suffrage under express use of the VRA that affirmatively protects

against felonious theft of U.S. Citizen Rights - unlike what is being done in other named states



including the state of New York.

76. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the affirmative aspects of proposition 200, the

entire registration database must be made retroactive to all Arizona registered voters not just

those newly registering and or voting for the first time, as must be the case nationwide in each

state of the several states.

77. I believe a prudent application of special master provisions to protect U.S. Citizen

bottom-up suffrage in New York is a matter of 9th 10th and 11th amendment protection with

immunity from interference by Arizona and or any other state or foreign diversity challenge for

that matter; and therefore Arizona s challenge to our request for substantive due process ignored

by New York State Defendants is to be stricken aside from the HAVA / FCA matter.

78. However, of benefit to Arizona and other states of the several states, is the proper

configuration of New York bottom-up versus top down suffrage that must be settled before a

declaratory judgment on use of the VAP formula if at all; and

79. Further, in the event proper bottom-up configuration of New York subdivisions is

deemed paramount then it must be decided first to resolve the proper redistribution and or offset

of HAVA funds; and

80. Then furthermore, this case would proceed accordingly whether with a proper

determination of New York subdivision provision of suffrage by Mr. Sullivan s clients as is their

duty under law, and or otherwise done by a special master, may very well result in Arizona

HAVA funds increase that it otherwise would not have received under certain categories of

HAVA reimbursement- that is unless the Court deems a national special master needed rather

than fiduciary duty done by DOJ and EAC.

81. Separate and apart from the Special Master issue, Arizona s position on matters



autonomous to New York U.S. Citizens must be respectfully ignored or even stricken, that until

the State Defendants reverse their gross dereliction of duty they are unable to represent the

interests of the People of the State of New York in a non-partisan manner.

82. However in contrast to the extent that Arizona respectfully submits on page 3

counsel to construe plaintiff request for consolidation I agree and have not heard disagreement

from the other Plaintiffs.

07/05/2006 92 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 73 Request for Appointment of a Special Master and request for a Stay to Respond to each State and County through a consolidated response pending determination of the parties filed by State of New Mexico. (DLC) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

83. Ms. Chavez has adopted both the argument of Mr. Sullivan as well as that of Mr.

Colby as to all other relief and sanctions against me and other Plaintiffs who I do not speak for

without mention of the response by DOJ.


same for brevity and assert that the onerous nature of the New Mexico response absolutely

requires plaintiffs be afforded an opportunity to respond to New Mexico motion to dismiss

separate and apart from this reply to the response to the remark requesting a special master and

or additional time required for due process associated with duties under CPLR 1012, that the

response in regards to special master must be entirely stricken from the record as violative of

U.S. Citizens autonomous rights here in New York.

85. On Page 3 Ms. Chavez confirms that we have not duly served the amended

complaint and as such Plaintiffs in keeping with the stay and voluntary appearance scheme

described above, await direction by the Court, and would duly serve the amended complaint

accordingly.

86. However, due to the voluntary nature of the New York state subdivision



appearance we believe is unnecessary, disruptive to the court calendar and counterproductive to

our efforts to both streamline and consolidate this action, which if it proceeds under the FCA /

HAVA matter, Plaintiffs know is far more complicated than the simple procedural matters before

the Court.

87. However, the recalculation process would involve an order that such be

preformed by the DOJ and EAC rather than by us.

07/05/2006 93 REPLY/RESPONSE to re [75] Order, Set Deadlines RESPONSE BY FEDERAL DEFENDANTS filed by the United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1)(Fleming, Mary) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

88. Ms. Mary E. Fleming of the DOJ WDNY Office and Mr. T. Christian Herren Jr.

Attorney from the DOJ Voting Rights Section in Washington D.C. representing the Federal

Defendants on 5 July jointly filed a MTD the Amended Complaint (Docket Item 91) and as such

we reserve our right to respond at a latter date with leave of the Court.

89. In addition Ms. Fleming and Mr. Herren Jr. on 5 July also filed a response to the

remark; therein they consider frivolous my request for a special master and associated stay.


same for brevity and assert that the DOJ just made an appearance blocked my efforts in Albany

to seek to expose the concealment to keep the people in each municipal entity in the dark also.

91. Why is it too much to ask government at every level to operate according to law

and to provide every citizen with an intelligible answer to be able to form an informed judgment?

92. That when a person seeks information on the conduct of government at the local

clerks office and is told to ask the Department of State and is then told by the DOS to go to a

private lobby group who is manipulating due process from behind the scenes and is immune

from FOIL requests well the DOJ better sit up and take a lesson herein.



93. Moreover the DOJ has no basis to interfere in the affairs of the State of New York

unless it would want to start rigorously enforcing both the voting rights and INA for a change in

my lifetime.

94. Otherwise, the DOJ comments on Plaintiffs request of process in state matters of

operation of law and Homerule autonomy are beyond DOJ authority and must be stricken from

the record in as far as they are not germane to the decision of this court as to whether it will order

the NYS Defendant to perform their Fiduciary duty or be subject to pay for the task performed

by a special master jointly acceptable to Plaintiffs.

95. In the matter of Ms. Fleming and Mr. Herren Jr. Support a consolidated response

to the various MTD on a briefing schedule determined by the court we concur subject to the

wisdom of the court in this matter. I have been a criticizing DOJ process since 1999, and started

speaking with Joseph Rich in 2003 before he retired walking where few go.

96. This case is about a FCA theft of HAVA funds by a malicious racketeering

enterprise, initiated by conduct and unjust enrichment starting not later than with implementation

of NVRA in 1993 and no one in government wants to hear that, especially the gatekeepers DOJ.

07/05/2006 94 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Remark, [75] Order, Set Deadlines Motion to Appoint Special Master filed by The City of New York, The duly elected Borough President of Brooklyn Marty Markowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kloss, David) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

97. Mr. Kloss representing the city of New York (NYC) and Borough president

Markowitz on 3 July filed response to the remark therein merely reprise the adequacy of both the

Complaint and whether or not the Amended Complaint would survive Federal review of rules.


same for brevity and assert that the matter of the transparency of the municipality of NYC is

clearly challenged in the original Complaint and continued in amendment. Mr. Kloss has not



established a direct interest other than passage of time how verifying the compliance of 47 or so

municipalities or what ever they are outside of NYC would adversely impact NYC when in fact

NYC is already alleged to violate the one-third of the senators provision of State Constitution

Article III as a res novo matter to which Mr. Kloss nor anyone else especially NYS DOS and Ag

have responded to.

99. The fact that there is a clear well established pattern of conduct by a racketeering

enterprise here in NYC, although at the municipal government level at the center, to the extent

that enterprise members have been found some to have been convicted and incarcerated since no

later than the mid eighties, the facts must be put before this court in the matter of malicious

facilitating of harboring the presence of illegal aliens in NYC.

100. The malicious intent is well beyond the one-third of the senators Rule, it effects

illegal unjust enrichment not only at the state legislative, executive and judicial level but in the

illegal creation of EL §2-104 illegal county committees of state parties referenced in the Amicus

Exhibit submitted herein by Mr. Colby, and that the enterprise by use of illegal aliens to nullify

and offset U.S. Citizen suffrage and autonomy rights associated with proprietary property here in

NYC is most certainly actively engaged in racketeering here Brooklyn and other NYC boros.

101. As further example of the Don t ask Don t Tell policy as to illegal aliens

continuing since no later than the 1980 Federal Census starting with Mr. Edward I Koch is done

as a continuous unbroken pattern of felonious conduct harboring and facilitating illegal aliens to

vote through the present Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

102. Mayor Bloomberg on 5 July testified under oath at the US Senate Judiciary

Committee hearings on so-called Immigration reform with Mr. Specter presiding in Philadelphia.

103. In the first instance Mayor Bloomberg testified under oath that HE had and has



direct knowledge on the retail and wholesale provision of false documents and harboring with

intent to commit a felony in NYC and that he has not done nor will assist Homeland Security in

preventing such crimes complained of herein by me and other Plaintiffs as a class similarly

situated being injured by not only the violation of the State Constitution but by substantive

racketeering acts being in effect no different had they been done by agents of Tyson Foods and

or Mohawk Industries both are extreme examples of an Ultra Vires enterprise racketeering and

felonious fraud injuring and targeting U.S. Citizens specifically (a copy of the New York Post

Article published 6 July is herewith marked EXHIBIT C-1); and

104. Further the Associated Press on 5 July publishes Mayor Bloomberg s hubristic

statements as a slap to the face of all U.S. Citizens, is treason against the nation as a whole, and

shows how entrenched the enterprise is and how long it has been operating with impunity. A

copy of the article herewith marked as EXHIBIT C-2, reports that Mayor Bloomberg said New

York City is home to more than 3 million immigrants and that a half-million of them came to the

country illegally, said:

"Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders ... our city's economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported," Bloomberg said. "The same holds true for the nation."

105. Even in the matter of a broad application of hardship provisions for illegal aliens

Section 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §1182(i), that allows for

any illegal alien petitioner to establish extreme hardship for a "qualifying relative." goes to the

anchor baby issue, and

106. That Mayor Bloomberg s statements are outrageous admission under oath that

requires action herein against his transgression, and are indicative of the pattern of conduct that

goes to theft of U.S. Citizen proprietary property involved by the illegals and the enterprise



acting in concert has been established by 2nd Circuit in addressing an issue of first impression, in

which the circuit said it could not review such a denial because it was a "discretionary judgment"

committed to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Zhang v. Gonzales, 04-2503-ag.

107. Just because Mayor Bloomberg wrings his hands in concern, as done on WABC

radio recently, because of his questionable fears that without illegal aliens grooming his

membership and use of country club greens, may somehow threaten his golf game, does not

negate the fact that U.S. Citizens from the inception of this nation are quite capable of doing

dirty work and as I personally do hang sheetrock, clean out septic tanks, picking crops and cut

grass, despite the Mayor s rationalization otherwise.

108. That given his latest admissions under oath Mr. Bloomberg needs to be a

Defendant herein proposed Racketeering matter before this court review as prima facie evidence

of breach of his Fiduciary duty in very much the same was as for the factual allegations against

both SOS and NYSAG are failing I n their fiduciary duty to U.S. Citizens resident in New York.

109. I emphasize that the one area of law in which both have a clear fiduciary duty to

enforce Plaintiffs civil and fundamental rights is located under State Civil Rights Law and

whereby Mr. Bloomberg as has been the case of mayors before him obstructs just in that regard,

can not be over emphasized.

110. As with the mandatory existence of the Secretary of State (SOS) historically since

the April 20, 1777 founding of the state of New York, as the Federally essential State voice

mediating the external affairs of the State per se is the essential party defined in Federal Law and

State Law that by operation of the Constitution under article I, II and VI, predates that of the

Attorney General and under girds the legitimacy and broad definition of Fiduciary Duty

separate and apart from that of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer the Attorney General.



111. Plaintiffs have alleged no less than substantive violation of NYS Civil Rights Law

Chapter 6 Article 5A (CRL), by both SOS Daniels and NYSAG Spitzer, and with even more

machinations have materially participated as willing participants in the enterprise and

racketeering activity with harboring of Illegal Aliens associated with plaintiffs injury directly

along with those similarly situated, and

112. That when public officials maliciously substantively deny due process in regards

to the sanctity of the municipal provision of suffrage for the people resident within who have in

effect been reduced to peons on plantations not municipalities subject to princes and

principalities violate US Citizens 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th 8th 9th 10th 13th amendment rights as guaranteed

and protected for equal treatment under the 14th herein denied by the SOS and NYSAG.

113. Other than express requirements of the State Constitution and related law the

Pattern of offending conduct by Secretary of State and secondarily that of the Attorney General

is to be found in the Fiduciary Duty under NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A- that

each and every supposed municipality since the 1777 founding must be duly recorded and

maintained, whether as a quasi-corporation, full corporation and or association as defined by the

statute. That the CRL clearly establishes a clear standard of review and performance for both the

SOS and NYSAG who are alleged to have not only failed, but have acted individually in a

partisan manner in breech of their oaths of office.

114. The Recent conviction of Clarence Norman in the matter of the Brooklyn

Democratic Committee business should have been on the immediate agenda of both the SOS and

NYSAG, beyond that of the District Attorney.

115. However, policing outrageous conduct wasn t on the agenda and is still ignored as

if EL §2-104 and §4-100 matters were of little or no consequence to the State s future.



116. The Brooklyn Democratic Party or any other municipal / county like party

committee under EL §2-104 is not similarly situated with a Homerule municipality, must not

exist in the first place and therefore has no authority except under that created under EL §2-100

there should not be any New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, Staten Island County committee

within NYC must only have one (1) EL §2-104 committee with all the necessary Assembly

Districts leaders and Election District structure duly elected according to law, shamelessly

violated and ignored by both the state and federal courts to plaintiffs detriment and injury.

117. An FRCvP Rule 9 special master is required to straighten out the mess that NYC

is presently injuring everyone statewide reimbursed under Rule 53(h) absent other relief.

118. That beyond the CRL matter, if this is not the place to be vituperative I don t

know where else to do it with any meaning and effect. It appears that had Mr. Spitzer

distinguished himself while at the Manhattan District Attorney Morgenthau s office, he would

have taken the bosses job or become a Judge like Sonia Sotomayer.

119. However as the son of a Democratic Party fund raiser, beyond just being a rich

mans son like Mr. Trump, Mr. Spitzer politically seeks the lowest common denominator while

serving the elite with a vengeance. That by extortion threatens the struggling middle class that

would drag them into costly court actions for obtaining out of court settlements, knowing juries

would throw such cases out.

120. As such like Mr. Sheldon Silver, Mr. Spitzer serves the same Wall Street crowd

who s Mid-Hudson and Suffolk County courtiers demand arbitrary governance by consent not

competition.

121. However Mr. Spitzer, unlike Mr. Silver who merely has to sit in his chamber just

says no, must as an Attorney General without portfolio actively pander to the privileged and



Suffolk country club oligarchs whose backroom obsessions include cheap green fees on golf

courses polluted by the chemical industry.

122. The public record is replete with proof that Mr. Spitzer has rearranged subsidy for

the greens with cheap labor, 9th hole vistas clear of residential clutter with manicured wind break

plantations stocked with chirping birds and wildlife free from commoners and taxes whose elite

divisive entities are guarded by the Charity Bureau.

123. NYC needs the same standard of review as an out of control nugatory entity that

the duopoly has used to loot U.S. Citizen Property upstate.

07/06/2006 95 REPLY/RESPONSE to re [75] Order, Set Deadlines Motion to Appoint Special Master filed by State of Texas. (Kumler, Wylie) (Entered: 07/06/2006)

124. Mr. Kumler on 5 July in the Texas Response to the Remark similarly has adopted

both the argument of Mr. Sullivan as well as that of Mr. Colby along with other Defendants as to

all other relief and sanctions against me and other Plaintiffs who I do not speak for, however fails

to mention the response of the DOJ.


same for brevity and assert that Mr. Kumler has not replied to the matter of Texas 2004 HAVA

over billing using inflated registrations as recorded by the Texas Board of Elections on its own

statistics website, and that Mr. Kumler has not established a direct interest in the state of New

York subdivision compliance matter for a request of Special master in lieu of the NYS DOS and

AG performance of their Fiduciary duty therefore should be deemed advisory at the most for Mr.

Kumler has not established any equity hardship other than passage of time.

07/06/2006 96 DECLARATION re 73 Remark filed by County of Madison, County of Madison Affidavit in Opposition filed by County of Madison, County of Madison. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wayland-Smith, Tina) (Entered: 07/06/2006)



126. Ms. Wayland-Smith representing Madison County on 6 July filed a combined

MTD the Amended Complaint and opposition to plaintiffs request for relief detailed by the

remark shown as Docket item 73 updating the MTD and associated filing from 17 May shown as

Docket items 40 through 42. In doing so argues for dismissal with prejudice that Plaintiffs

provide response to Madison County absent mention of the subject of a consolidated response

unlike that even done by Mr. Colby.


same for brevity and assert that Ms. Wayland Smith appears for Madison voluntarily in

whatever form its agent may associate, not only is in non-compliance with the state constitution,

is not entitled to a Board of Elections and or any EL §2-104 county committee within.

128. Like Mr. Colby s representation of his clients Ms. Wayland-Smith does not

represent the interest of the people resident within there is a substantive fundamental conflict

of interest to be resolved.

The Honorable Robert K. Dornan (US Congress from 1977 thru 1997)

Requests Leave to Intervene as of Right

129. Since I made the remark shown as Docket item 73, on 12 June the Honorable

Robert K. Dornan phoned me in conjunction with a 17 April 2006 letter I sent cold to his

California address (a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT D-1 inviting him to testify on his own

behalf regarding the 1996 contested election featured in John Fund s book Stealing Elections .

130. The 1 May Amended Complaint filing was without Mr. Dornan s involvement.

131. Because his case went through the California State appellate court system and

then was deferred to the U.S. House Congressional Committee to resolve the outcome with a

supposed plenary investigation of fraud, the record there is flawed intentionally, and



132. When presented herein will established both a pattern and conduct involving not

only that the NVRA motor voter but creation of HAVA will prove certain establishment of the

fraud enterprise both harboring and participating in felonious registration and facilitation of

voting by illegal aliens and aliens in general beginning in California no later than with

implementation of the NVRA Motor voter registered voters there and elsewhere; and alleges

corporations are actually billing the Federal treasury for grant money to do such crimes.

133. I did not have enough detail to include specifics of the enterprise in 1996 in the

proposed RICO Statement other than general reports by press and journalists.

134. As such the fortuitous response by Mr. Dornan clarifies the chain of events, by

trial, public record and investigation by authorities to meet the requirement of civil RICO now

on-going with HAVA False Billing as relates to felonious facilitation of aliens and illegal aliens

to participate in state and federal elections.

135. Participation in such fraud on a large scale with facilitation and protection under

public officers and the media control, that predicates done openly with impunity is fraud that has

both nullified and offset U.S. Citizens suffrage and autonomy and or expectation of an effective

participation on a targeted basis and

136. that now with HAVA nearly in place the rush by seditious public officials for

imposing the American Union without borders is so mature, that I am willing to allege with

certainty that the HAVA battle to arrest state control over suffrage is actually drawn upon

elimination of national and state border lines under secret agreements entered unilaterally by Mr.

Bush as done with the Dubai secret deals, now has created a new American Union eliminating

borders between the U.S.A. with Mexico to the south and Canada to the North.

137. My perception of what is happening before our eyes has become so mainstream



that to characterize an interpretation of Help AMERICA to Vote Act is to literally be just what it

says. To help Americans without regard to nationality as a borderless regional component

known as North America and Central America including the USA Canada and Mexico to vote as

if U.S. Citizens were nation less, and rather than to be known as Help U.S. Citizens Vote Act .

138. Based upon the Arizona Proposition 200 battles between Arizona and the EAC

and DOJ, there are other states that have awakened to the matter too not joined herein.

139. Arizona wants to ask anyone to prove U.S. Citizenship before registering and

voting accordingly and the EAC considers it somehow violates the Help America to Vote Act

as if the American Union crowd includes Mr. Wilkey- by not considering US Citizens only.

140. It is that simple. The entire border control effort by concerned US Citizens trying

to protect U.S.A. sovereignty has run a snag with Mr. Bush s one-world corporate friends, who

would be properly termed the universal golf and country club set.

141. There are very wealthy groups who collectively control and operator without need

or want of borders, and as such operate globally as if they do not exist or should be eradicated.

142. The U.S.A. and states borders within for protection of US. Citizens are

recognition of each citizen s individual rights that come from a god not of flesh and blood

governments, principalities and princes, separate from tyranny of the majority.

143. As in the union organizing song one must ask. Which side are you on? National

borders under a constitutional republic which protects individual rights separate from those of

the majority because they come from a god or as the Demoncans / Republicrats or Monopolistic

duopoly operating like the fabled wizard of OZ / 1984 big brother insisting all the while that we

have a Constitutional Democracy with not only majority rule where only government determines

what individual rights are. Because since the efforts of sedition since the sixties, god is deemed



dead and as such so would the utility of the U.S. Constitution and Union as well is that simple.

144. Mr. Dornan has expressed to me in several phone conversations startling proof

meeting federal rules of evidence that involves Newt Gingrich, Thomas Foley, and various other

duopoly members of Congress that have until now facilitated illegals and the alien vote.

Remarkably as with any high crime, misdemeanor, bribery are certainly the most seditious acts.

145. However, the crime of treason is the worst crime expression of treachery in the

U.S. Constitution; it seems without a statute of limitation per se.

146. Mr. Dornan has convinced me by numerous phone conversations that the

corroborating evidence available in the public record including at the Immigration Naturalization

Service now known as I.C.E., the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, makes the proposed

RICO statement solid, and spans racketeering enterprise activity from 1993 under NVRA

through to the present HAVA alleged false claims on both state level national and international

level and as such Mr. Dornan issued a letter for me to serve accordingly, a copy herewith marked

EXHIBIT D-2.

147. The Press has reported the influence of aliens upon the on-going effects of

districting in Texas in a Washington Times Article entitled Washington Times: Fallout felt

from Texas redistricting ruling by Hugh Aynesworthy who reports, a copy herewith marked

EXHIBIT D-3 ; and

148. In the matter of the on-going invasion of aliens in California and the efforts to

provide suffrage there as was done from 1993 onward through the disenfranchisement proven in

the Dornan 1996 Election debacle, a 7 July 2006 Reuters News article entitled Powerful Latino

DJs to Mount Immigrant Voter Drive reports on the matter still being done for nearly fifteen

years with impunity, a copy herewith marked EXHIBIT D -4.



EXHIBIT A-1

EXHIBIT A-1



EXHIBIT B-1

EXHIBIT B-1



EXHIBIT C-1MIKE'S 'GREEN CARD' ALARM

By STEPHANIE GASKELL Post Correspondent

July 6, 2006 -- PHILADELPHIA - Fake green cards are a "dime a dozen" on the streets, Mayor Bloomberg testified yesterday before a Senate Committee - after a Post investigation revealed how easy it is to buy the forged documents.

Bloomberg testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee field hearing held by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that it's all too easy to get - and use - the fake documents.

"Fake green cards are a dime a dozen," Bloomberg said in an emotionally charged, 16-minute speech at Independence Hall.

"You can buy one for $50 to $100. Fake Social Security cards are also easily obtained. And for $125 cash, you can get both cards."

"Such a deal!"

The Post reported yesterday that one of its reporters was able to get a high-quality, forged green card and Social Security card for $110 - in under three hours.

Bloomberg said yesterday he wasn't surprised by the paper's findings.

In fact, he joked that Post reporter Douglas Montero, who was able to buy a set of fake cards in Queens, paid too much.

"It looks to me like they paid retail because my understanding is that, for half the price, they could've gotten just as good a green card or Social Security card or driver's license," Bloomberg told reporters after testifying.

"The truth of the matter is, you can buy fake IDs everyplace for next to nothing," he said.

Bloomberg blamed the federal government for turning a blind eye.

"The federal laws prevent employers from being able to check to see whether the ID is legit," he said, referring to legislation passed in 1986 that required employers to request identification, but didn't give them the authority to verify whether it's real or forged.

Bloomberg said the current laws are a joke.

"As a business owner, I know the absurdity of our existing immigration regulations all too well," he said.



"Employers are required to check the status of all job applicants but not to do anything more than eyeball their documents."

He added, "In fact, hypocritically, under a federal law that Congress wrote, employers are not even permitted to ask probing questions."

A clearly frustrated Bloomberg urged Congress to create a better identification card for workers - one that can't be forged.

"In theory, we already have such a card - it's called your Social Security card. But being a government product, naturally its technology is way behind the times," said the billionaire mayor.

"By taking advantage of current technology, we can provide the federal government with the tools necessary to enforce our immigration laws," he said.

The mayor added that he'd like to see the federal government create a biometric card that contains the individual's fingerprints or DNA.

"I want to be clear - this is not a national ID card, as some have suggested," Bloomberg said. "This is simply a Social Security card for the 21st century."

Bloomberg also said there must be "stiff penalties for businesses that fail to conduct checks or ignore their results."

But Bloomberg also said the city's economy would collapse if illegal immigrants were deported en masse.

He testified that the Big Apple is home to more than 3 million immigrants, and a half-million of them came to the country illegally.

"Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders . . . our city's economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported," Bloomberg said.

"The same holds true for the nation."

Bloomberg had harsh words for a recent amendment added to a House appropriations bill that would link security to whether a city or state reports illegal immigrants to the government.

Currently, the city reports illegal immigrants only if they are arrested for a crime.

"There is already too much politics in homeland security funding, which is one reason why New York has consistently been shortchanged of the money we need to protect our city," Bloomberg said.

"But this would really take the cake." With Post Wire Services [email protected]

EXHIBIT C-1



EXHIBIT C-2

Bloomberg: Economy would fail if illegal immigrants were deported

By KIMBERLY HEFLINGAssociated Press Writer

July 5, 2006, 11:22 AM EDT

PHILADELPHIA -- The economy of the country's largest city and the entire nation would collapse if illegal immigrants were deported en masse, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a Senate committee hearing Wednesday.

Testifying before the panel in Philadelphia, Bloomberg said New York City is home to more than 3 million immigrants and that a half-million of them came to the country illegally.

"Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders ... our city's economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported," Bloomberg said. "The same holds true for the nation."

The hearing, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was one of several being held nationwide as Congressional Republicans take to the road to discuss overhauling the nation's immigration laws.

Specter and fellow senators are trying to build support for a Senate bill that would allow a majority of the illegal immigrants in the country to eventually become legal permanent residents and citizens after paying at least $3,250 in fines, fees and back taxes and learning English.

A competing bill passed by the House focuses on enforcement and has no provision for illegal immigrants or future guest workers.

Bloomberg encouraged Congress to offer those in the country illegally an opportunity to earn permanent status.

"Members of the House of Representatives want to control the borders. So do all of us here," Bloomberg said. "But believing that increasing border patrols alone will achieve that goal is either naive and shortsighted or cynical and duplicitous. No wall or army can stop hundreds of thousands of people each year."

The House and Senate have passed differing legislation on immigration and must negotiate a final bill to be sent to President Bush, who supports a guest-worker program and path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Republicans in Congress plan several hearings around the country on immigration. EXHIBIT C-2



EXHIBIT D-1

EXHIBIT D-1



EXHIBIT D-2

EXHIBIT D-2



EXHIBIT D-3

Washington Times: Fallout felt from Texas redistricting rulingBy Hugh Aynesworthy

THE WASHINGTON TIMESPublished July 3, 2006

DALLAS -- Last week's Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the 2003 Tom DeLay-led Texas redistricting coup was a distinct victory for the Republican Party, but it could spawn some interesting fallout.

There was only one instance in which the court said the Republican gerrymandering could not be upheld -- District 23, which sprawls from San Antonio to far West Texas. The court criticized the redrawing of a second district, District 25, which meanders from Austin to the Mexican border, and said it expected that district would be somewhat redrawn.

Despite the fact that the redrawing of district lines took months to accomplish -- resulting in the defeat of a half-dozen Democratic congressional incumbents throughout the state -- a panel of judges overseeing the changes is making sure they are determined well before this November's elections.

Within hours of the ruling, a federal judge from Texas' Eastern District ordered that all participants in the lawsuit claiming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated must have new maps and arguments submitted to the court within two weeks. Oral arguments are scheduled for Aug. 3 in Austin.

In making District 23 voter alignment comply with the Voting Rights Act, some predict that several additional districts will have to be retooled.

"Anyone who thinks there isn't going to be a ripple effect when countless counties are traded with other congressional districts is not seeing the big picture," said Rep. Henry Bonilla, the current District 23 congressman.

Despite slight realignment in several other districts to make the Bonilla district acceptable, the new map is not expected to alter the course of growing Republicanism throughout Texas. The worst that could happen from the Republican viewpoint, several political analysts say, is that Mr. Bonilla might lose the reconstituted 23rd District.

Most Hispanics in Texas still vote Democratic, and Mr. Bonilla has not been overly effective at courting them. However, he has repeatedly predicted he will win his seat again, if by a smaller margin.

The Republican redistricting effort in 2003, strongly guided by Mr. DeLay, reconfigured District 23 to protect Mr. Bonilla, who had barely eked out a victory against Laredo Democrat Henry Cuellar in 2002.

It shifted about 100,000 Hispanic voters in Webb County -- Mr. Cuellar's stronghold -- out of Mr. Bonilla's 23rd District to a newly configured district to the east of Laredo, the 28th.

Though the court said the dilution of Hispanic voters from Mr. Bonilla's district was unlawful, it did not suggest how the situation should be rectified.

Both Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Cuellar prefer that they not be thrown in the same district. "Laredo is not the only magical place where you can get Hispanic voters," Mr. Cuellar said last week. Meanwhile, Democrat Lloyd Doggett, of the 25th District, expects there will be major changes in his

district also. "I don't think this is a matter of mere tweaking," he said.

EXHIBIT D-3



EXHIBIT D-4

Powerful Latino DJs to Mount Immigrant Voter Drive By REUTERSPublished: July 7, 2006

Filed at 10:04 p.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two Latino radio hosts credited for mobilizing hundreds of thousands this year in pro-immigrant protests said on Friday they would join the drive to increase the Hispanic and immigrant vote in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

Los Angeles disc jockeys Piolin (Tweetybird) and El Cucuy (the Bogeyman) said they will work with the National Council of La Raza and other organizations to push Latino immigrants living in the United States to become U.S. citizens and register to vote in time to cast ballots in 2008.

Immigration promises to be one of the big issues in the 2006 mid-term congressional elections and the 2008 presidential election as the future of some 12 million undocumented immigrants divides Congress and President George W. Bush's Republican Party.

An estimated 8 million Latinos are legal residents in the United States who qualify for naturalization as U.S. citizens, including 3 million in California alone, activists said.

National Council of La Raza president Janet Murguia said Spanish-language radio DJs could help add at least another 3 million Latino voters to the 7.5 million who cast ballots in 2004, helping to elect more pro-immigration politicians.

``With the huge march on March 25, the Los Angeles DJs showed the power to mobilize the community,'' said El Cucuy, whose real name is Renan Almendarez Coello, referring to the 500,000 marchers who rallied in Los Angeles on March 25 in what is believed to be the nation's largest pro-immigrant protest.

``The big difference now is that we are united and fighting for the same objective,'' said Piolin, also known as Eddie Sotelo.

Both Mexican native Piolin and Honduran-born El Cucuy said they had once been illegal immigrants in the United States.

Reuters/VNU

EXHIBIT D-4

ATTACHMENT (VII)(D) Pg.1of2

Voting Access Rights Strugglei'

·f-.,.-

::-...."

u.s. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Office of W Assistant Atsomey General Washington. D.C. 20530

JAN 10 2006

The Honorable Eliot SpitzerAttorney GeneralThe Capitol

, Albany, New York 12224-0341

Todd Valentine, Esq.General CounselNew York State Board of Elections40 Steuben StreetAlbany, New York 12207

Dear Messrs. Spitzer and Valentine:

I have authorized the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of the United States against the State ofNew York as well as the New York State Board of Elections, et al, pursuant to Sections 301 and303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of2002 ("HAVA'j, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481 and 15483(a).Section 401 ofHA VA, 42 U.S.C. § 15511, authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action infederal district court for such declaratory and injunctive relief as is necessary to carry out therequirements of TitIe ill ofHAV A.

Section 301 ofHAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15481, sets forth voting systems standards for all,. states for each voting system used in an election for Federal office. Among other things, Section

301 requires that voting systems provide a mechanism for a voter to verify and, where necessary,correct his or her ballot, notify a voter of an overvote, produce a permanent paper record with amanual audit capacity, comply with federal error rate standards, and provide for accessibility forvoters with disabilities or with alternative language needs. Section 301 became effective onJanuary 1, 2006. '

Section 303(a) ofHAVA, 42 VB.C. § 15483(a), requiresall states except a state whichdoes not maintain voter registration for elections for federal office to implement a single,uniform, official,centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list for use inelections for Federal office; Among other things, this list must be defined, maintained andad:ministered at the state level, must contain the name and registration information of every

76

Pg. 2 of 2

-2-

legally registered voter:in the state, must have a unique identifier for each voter, must becoordinated with other state databases, must meet list maintenance, technological security andaccuracy requirements, and must meet verification requirements for all new registered voters.Section 303(a) became effective in New York on January 1, 2006, since New York: applied to theU.S. Election Assistance Commission for a waiver of compliance.

As you are aware, attorneys from the Civil Rights Division have met with the staff of theState Board of Elections, as well as staff from the State Legislature, on several occasions over thelast two years to discuss New York's efforts to comply with HA VA's mandates. At thosemeetings, as well as :innumerous telephone conversations, and also in written correspondence,we have expressed our concerns about the lack of progress made by New York in moving towardrunHA VA compliance. It is beyond dispute that New York is notnow in compliance with eitherthe statewide voter registration list requirements of Section 303(a) ofHA VA, or the votingsystem standards of Section 301 ofHA VA. In fact, based on information we received at ourmost recent meeting on December 2, 2005, it .is clear that New'York is not close to approachingfull HA V A compliance and, in our view, is further behind :in that regard than any other state inthe country.

We are hopeful that we will be able to resolve this matter through a negotiated consentdecree rather than through costly and protracted litigation. We request that you contact us. assoon as possible to indicate whether the State is willing to enter into negotiations fora fair andequitable settlement of this matter that will remedy these violations. To that end, we areprepared to meet with the State promptly to discuss terms of a possible consent decree. We areprepared to file a complaint if the matter is not resolved expeditiously.

Please contact Brian Heffernan (202-514-4755) :in our Voting Section, concerning theState's intentions or for any questions you may have. We look forward to working with you toachieve a prompt resolution of this. matter.

Sincerely,

cc: Honorable George E. Pataki

77

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No.

)

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF )

ELECTIONS; PETER S. KOSINSKI )

and STANLEY L. ZALEN, Co-Executive )

Directors of the New York State Board of )

Elections, in their official capacities; and, )

STATE OF NEW YORK; )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, the United States of America, alleges:

1. The Attorney General of the United States hereby files this action on behalf of the

United States of America to enforce the requirements of Sections 301 and 303(a) of the Help

America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), with respect to the conduct of elections for Federal office

in the State of New York. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481 and 15483(a).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345,

and 42 U.S.C. § 15511.

3. Venue for this action is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 1391(b).

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff United States of America seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant

- 2 -

to Section 401 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15511, which authorizes the Attorney General to bring this

suit to enforce HAVA.

5. Defendant State of New York is a State of the United States of America and is

subject to the requirements of HAVA, including specifically those requirements with respect to

voting system standards and a computerized statewide voter registration list in elections for

Federal office. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481, 15483(a), 15541.

6. Defendant New York State Board of Elections (the “SBOE”) is a subdivision of

the Executive Department of the State of New York and is responsible for, among other things,

taking official action on behalf of the State to comply with the requirements of HAVA. N.Y.

Election Law §§ 3-100, 102, 104, 107; 2005 N.Y. Laws, Chapters 24 and 181.

7. Defendants Peter S. Kosinski and Stanley L. Zalen are the Co-Executive Directors

of the SBOE and each is sued in his official capacity. Defendants Kosinski and Zalen are

responsible for coordination of State responsibilities under HAVA. N.Y. Election Law § 3-100.

8. The State of New York is scheduled to conduct two elections for Federal offices

in 2006: a primary election for Federal offices in the State on September 12, 2006, and a general

election for Federal offices in the State on November 7, 2006.

HAVA’S VOTING SYSTEM AND VOTER REGISTRATION LIST MANDATES

9. On October 29, 2002, HAVA was signed into law by the President. 42 U.S.C. §§

15301-15545. Title III of HAVA (Sections 301 to 303) includes certain “uniform and

nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements” which apply in

elections for Federal office. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481-15483.

10. Section 301 of HAVA, entitled “Voting Systems Standards,” contains

- 3 -

requirements that “[e]ach voting system used in an election for Federal office” must meet no

later than January 1, 2006. Section 301 applies to all States. 42 U.S.C. § 15481.

11. Among other things, Section 301 of HAVA requires that voting systems used in a

election for Federal office must:

(a) provide a mechanism for a voter to verify and, where necessary, correct his or

her ballot, including notification of, and the opportunity to correct, any overvote, 42

U.S.C. § 15481(a)(1);

(b) produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity, 42 U.S.C. §

15481(a)(2);

(c) provide for accessibility for voters with disabilities in a manner that provides

the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence)

as for other voters, 42 U.S.C. § 15481(a)(3);

(d) provide for accessibility, consistent with the requirements of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., for voters with alternative language needs,

42 U.S.C. § 15481(a)(4);

(e) meet a specific error rate standard in counting ballots established by the

Federal Election Commission, 42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(5); and,

(f) have a uniform and nondiscriminatory definition of what constitutes a vote

and will be counted as a vote for each type of voting system, 42 U.S.C. § 15481(a)(6).

12. Section 303(a) of HAVA, entitled “Computerized Statewide Voter Registration

List Requirements,” requires that “each State, acting through the chief State election official,

shall implement in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, a single, uniform, official,

- 4 -

centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list defined, maintained, and

administered at the State level." Section 303(a) applies to all States that require voter

registration for elections for Federal office. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a).

13. Among the requirements of Section 303(a) of HAVA for the statewide voter

registration list are the following:

(a) The list shall serve as the single system for storing and managing the official

list of registered voters throughout the State, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A)(i);

(b) The list must contain the name and registration information of, and must

assign a unique identifier to, each legally registered voter in the State, 42 U.S.C. §

15483(a)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii);

(c) The list must be coordinated with other agency databases within the State, 42

U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A)(iv);

(d) Any election official in the State, including any local election official, must

be able to obtain immediate electronic access to the information contained in the list, and

all voter registration information obtained by any local election official must be

electronically entered into the computerized list on an expedited basis at the time the

information is provided to the local official 42 U.S.C. §§ 15483(a)(1)(A)(v)-(vi);

(e) The State must provide the necessary support so that local election officials

are able to enter voter registration information on an expedited basis, 42 U.S.C. §

15483(a)(1)(A)(vii);

(f) The list must serve as the official voter registration list for the conduct of all

elections for Federal office in the State, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A)(viii);

- 5 -

(g) Election officials shall perform list maintenance with respect to the

computerized list on a regular basis, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15483(a)(2) and 15483(a)(4);

(h) The State must coordinate the list with State agency records on felony status

(where required by State law) and death, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(2)(A)(ii);

(i) The State must ensure that the name of each registered voter appears on the

list, only voters who are not registered or not eligible are removed from the list, duplicate

names are eliminated from the list, and eligible voters are not removed from the list in

error, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15483(a)(2)(B) and 15483(a)(4);

(j) The list must provide that no application for voter registration shall be

accepted or processed unless it includes a driver’s license number, for persons who have

a driver’s license number, or the last four digits of the social security number, for persons

who do not have a driver’s license number. For persons who do not have these numbers,

the State must assign a unique identifier, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(5)(A);

(k) The State must enter into agreements to match information from the list

against the State motor vehicle authority database, and the federal social security number

database, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(5)(B).

14. New York is covered by and was required to comply with the requirements of

Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA with respect to elections for Federal office on and after

January 1, 2006. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481(d), 15483(d)(1)(B), 15541.

15. The State of New York has recognized that it has not taken the actions necessary

to achieve timely compliance with the requirements of Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA, for

example, in reports issued by the State chief law enforcement officer. See Voting Matters II, No

- 6 -

Time to Waste, A Report from the New York State Attorney General's Office, available at

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/feb/feb07a_05.html.

FEDERAL FUNDING PROVISIONS OF HAVA

16. Pursuant to HAVA, the federal government for the first time in our Nation’s

history provided federal funding to State governments for the conduct of elections for Federal

office.

17. The State of New York has received roughly 221 million dollars in federal funds

under HAVA. This funding includes the following:

(a) $16,494,325 pursuant to Section 101 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15301, for

activities to improve the administration of elections;

(b) $49,603,917 pursuant to Section 102 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15302, for the

replacement of punchcard or lever voting machines;

(c) $153,414,430 pursuant to Section 251 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15401, for

meeting the requirements of Title III of HAVA;

(d) $1,354,703 pursuant to Section 261 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15421, for

assuring access to the voting process for individuals with disabilities; and,

(e) $161,597 pursuant to Section 291 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15461, for assuring

access to the voting process for individuals with disabilities;

18. Pursuant to Section 102(d) of HAVA, if the State of New York fails to replace

some or all of the punchcard or lever voting machines in the State in time for the primary

election for Federal office in September 2006, HAVA contemplates that the State must return

some or all of the $49,603,917 in federal funding received pursuant to Section 102, to the extent

- 7 -

of the non-compliance with that provision. 42 U.S.C. § 15302(d).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - SECTION 301 OF HAVA

19. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through

18 of this Complaint.

20. The State of New York presently does not have voting systems in place for the

conduct of elections for Federal office which comply with all of the voting system standards set

forth in Section 301(a)(1)-(a)(6) of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15481, including a uniform and non-

discriminatory definition of what constitutes a vote for each category of voting system used in

the State.

21. The State of New York’s existing voting systems for use in elections for Federal

office do not comply with Section 301 of HAVA in several respects, including but not limited to,

the requirement that voting systems provide accessibility for persons with disabilities, and the

requirement that voting systems produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity.

22. Pursuant to New York State law, the SBOE has a number of specific

responsibilities regarding voting systems used in the State. This includes, but is not limited to,

responsibilities for: examination and approval of voting systems, promulgation of regulations

regarding voting systems, contracting for acquisition of voting systems, review of the choice of

voting systems by local jurisdictions, calculation of the distribution of federal funds under

HAVA for purchase of voting systems, and notification to the state comptroller to release funds

for payment of purchase contracts for voting systems. 2005 N.Y. Laws, Chapter 181.

23. Defendants have failed to take the actions necessary for the State to meet the

- 8 -

requirements of Section 301 of HAVA in a timely manner. These failures include, but are not

limited to, the following:

(a) The SBOE has not approved for use in the State, as required by State law, any

voting system which complies with the requirements of Section 301 of HAVA;

(b) The SBOE has not promulgated, as required by State law, any final rules and

regulations which govern voting systems in the State; and,

(c) The SBOE has not contracted or allowed, as required by State law, for

procurement of any voting systems in the State which comply with the requirements of

Section 301 of HAVA.

24. As a result of the failure of the Defendants to take the actions necessary for

approval and acquisition of voting systems, as set forth in Paragraphs 22-23 above, no voting

system is available for purchase or lease and use in each polling place in each local jurisdiction

in the State of New York which conducts elections for Federal office that meets the

requirements of Section 301 of HAVA.

25. The failure of defendants to take the actions necessary for approval and

acquisition of voting systems, as set forth above, constitutes a violation of Section 301 of the

HAVA, 42 U.S.C. §15481.

26. Unless and until ordered to do so by this Court, Defendants will not take timely

actions necessary to ensure that voting systems meeting the standards set forth in Section 301 of

HAVA will be available and used in all jurisdictions in the State of New York by the time of the

first election for Federal office in the State in 2006.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - SECTION 303(a) OF HAVA

- 9 -

27. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through

18 of this Complaint.

28. Pursuant to New York State law, the SBOE is responsible for the development and

implementation of the statewide voter registration list as mandated by Section 303(a) of HAVA,

42 U.S.C. § 15483(a).

29. Defendants have failed to take the actions necessary for the State to meet the

requirements of Section 303(a) of HAVA in a timely manner. These failures include, but are not

limited to, the following:

(a) Defendants have not published rules and regulations, required by State law,

governing the implementation and operation of the statewide voter registration list;

(b) Defendants have not issued the Request for Proposals (RFP) or other

document necessary under State law for contracting with an entity or entities to develop and

implement a statewide voter registration list;

(c) Defendants have not established the technical requirements, or built the

technical infrastructure, necessary for implementation of the statewide voter registration list;

and,

(d) Defendants have not entered into an agreement with the federal Social

Security Administration and established the necessary infrastructure to match information from

the statewide voter registration list against the federal social security number database.

30. As a result of the failure of the Defendants to take actions as set forth in Paragraph

29 above, there is no statewide voter registration list in the State of New York which complies

with the requirements of Section 303(a) of HAVA.

- 10 -

31. The failure of the Defendants to take the actions necessary for the development

and implementation of a statewide voter registration list in the State of New York, as set forth

above, constitutes a violation of Section 303(a) of HAVA.

32. Unless and until ordered to do so by this Court, the Defendants will not take timely

actions necessary to ensure that a statewide voter registration list meeting the requirements of

Section 303(a) of HAVA is operational throughout the State of New York.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff United States of America prays that this Court:

A. Declare that the Defendants are not in compliance with Sections 301 and 303(a)

of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481 and 15483(a), with respect to implementation of HAVA’s voting

system standards and computerized statewide voter registration requirements in elections for

Federal office;

B. Enjoin the Defendants, their agents and successors in office, and all persons

acting in concert with any of them from failing or refusing promptly to comply with the

requirements of Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA;

C. Order the Defendants, their agents and successors in office and all persons acting

in concert with any of them promptly to develop a plan, within 30 days of this Court’s order, to

remedy the demonstrated violations of Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA, fully and completely

in time for the first election for Federal office in 2006.

Plaintiff further prays that this Court order such other relief as the interests of justice may

require, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.

Dated: February ___, 2006

ALBERTO GONZALES

Attorney General

By:

/s/

_______________________

GLENN T. SUDDABY WAN J. KIM

United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division

By:

/s/ /s/

_______________________ _______________________

BARBARA D. COTTRELL JOHN K. TANNER

Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Voting Section

James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse

445 Broadway, Room 218 /s/

Albany, NY 12207-2924 ________________________

(518) 431-0247 (telephone) T. CHRISTIAN HERREN JR

(518) 431-0429 (facsimile) [email protected]

Bar Roll No. 101411 BRIAN F. HEFFERNAN

[email protected]

Room 7254--NWB

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

(202) 514-4755 (telephone)

(202) 307-3961 (facsimile)

- - --. - ..l. : 1 -i032S&416 May. 27 2868 06:SPM P2

' c t Ef 2E :3:06e Carl Persop 212-307-02+7 ?* 3

Wixh wfsrcncc w rhc NAM lrpon Sa;lun 111 Bcrc@~& P a l A Sytt#m qfU.9 G U W ~ W pr~-qpqh 3 di1: 10 WC USCE 3P00 Coparhha Ducmnent". mi 1 r~iU camct in wumir~ dUf the s v e d SEDW QL'thO Unirai SW with ~ L L ' D B ~ buttom- up m~rrol iu provision of doctioar *men not m y to tbe awmds, md k v f o m l h w r;urrioarr perroi- w ch: s c d States btc d y ndvivury and were nor &f d n g ?

I.- in W o a V EIeetoral R@~~rfcrrcr in Paat G &CW ofUbjuuUrs in Wooaru r l s ~ d ~ w ~ ~ ~ cr-0401 h m 24 July MCH rhr. NNASS %Icom CSCF inrmwhud OW~SS. ..", with whzJ sty OV# tnat of the &&w S&SU law with jlniudictim boa he NASS opnrtc to gram swb m t b h f y with tbe - ~ x o J ? d do tk OSCE &DUCK b v c w abide by thu pnrtic* stme w f b ~ it itrw -5 wthority?

F& in Soction YI Orher Fhdnp Pm E in @ toRII~@lom of Ihgrhritict w&at if my alkgatiaw were -ti* aad mraniDo?ful? As you am OWLYC yry ~~ mwt b gmudd in subrmMivt duo pisccaa, aad when my olficitrlu tbil to tblluw -& erithaut being wpuloci by OSCE is m . 0 ~ ot'a d~ &won i t s e 1 f . d i s e v o a ~ ~ r m concern- OSCX jervwldnlytofurthadicnrpt ~ v n ( i b t ' i r r db? t k c h prwws done by OSCE p c d ; d m y my ~lsnm hi gem1;~lr: bccau~~: 2k?Cliods lwva b#n coaduacd b e ~ ~ f y sinix 1 789, wc arc o l ~ t m mcrghg dammcy. wad any i n l d b u x is jeditiaus at L#rt uodcx F d d Isw.

Tkd u s o f W c&d dmbauc by the OSCE or my o t b ~ -W orgmixation vduthu far mznumcirl 'activity? soliciting LUt4 or poliLicrl i M - r e p h i by s w andfcxkidkwira v e r y ~ p r i v a c y r ~ t b b ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ t s m e t u p s L ; W h d J L s t h c O g E ygvurl~ tu A with &C Ii*?

IboHsb#1LI~yioj~bytlu:iJ~opc#zionofdcaioasdrrpmchhsw amcum OW c ~ n f i b c e that dl U.S. C i W have in the clocljloll pmaais; und

; ~ r s ~ I t e q ~ a r r r r u w w t i o r r r Y o u r H o r a a r \ o b r c ~ ~ ~ ~ s b o ~

WEBSTER S z m LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Jeremy A. Colby Partner

Admitted in NY and MA

December 17,2009

VIA E-filing Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn - ___ _ - -- -- -- - -- - - - - James-7. Foley-U.S. courthouse 445 Broadway, Room 509 Albany, NY 1 2207

Re: Forjone v. State of California et al. Case No.: COG-cv-1002

Dear Judge Kahn: v

I I Our firm represents 25 of the county defendants, all of whom are listed at Docket I No. 70. 1 write to request a telephone status conference in this matter (several

attorneys are outside New York). Several motions to dismiss have been pending since 2006. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

***Request for a conference is DENIED without prejudice.

U.S. D i s t r i c t Judge D a t e d : December 30, 2009

Albany, NY

/s/ Jeremy A. Colby -

Jeremy A. Colby

1400 Liberty Building ~kffalo, New York 14202 Tel: (716) 842-2800 Fax: (716) 845-6709

[email protected]

APPENDIX Forjone v California 10-822

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX Forjone v California 10-822