;i

F->
C...)

A C o R N ( & m d ~ W s f ~ ~ f. a r Refarm Now) ACORN Institute, I c , and NEW YORK n. ACORN HOUSING INC.

w~ mj; j, -.A
,
I >J

..:.,,

c

-.-

PMntita
v.

-..; , r7t u': . ...? , -... .,,...,: :- ! ,.. , '<.-:.<'
..-,
?

=-... L.

c-3
4.C

-.."!
-v-..

., . %

r\3

0
g

2

,

= -3
CZ
0

0

cz3

3,

''1 . -..; '. . -9
'

--

r= 2

-.
F

:e

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

X

m

~

~

h

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

~

N

~

~

M

A

P L Q g $ E T A l B m ~ m * ~ t h e ~ ~ ~ d ~ g r i : ~
SH-Appearance, affirmed J~smwry 20,2010 will move tbis Court to intervene ass e x - r e b menerdef-t USA. Cirrnd ~ ~ ~ Y Cftficn befort District Judge W i o r k Gershon st a time afforded by tbe Court if necessay at the United States Courthouse, at 225
designated by the court,or as soon thereah as counsel can be heard.

~PlaeEaErrstBm~NewYork,mtfme:dhyandmoslthin201O,atatimtandcourbrrnnn

B d y n , New York; Email: chi-ws
Ce1I-845-90 1-6767 c w - E a r l :Sbunlr 8in eese

Darius Charney, Esq. Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Peter D. Leary USAAG US Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7322 Washington, DC 20530 Andrew Cuomo New York State Attorney General Office of Attorney General 120 Broadway 24th Floor New York New York 10271

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------x ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) ACORN Institute, Inc., and NEW YORK ACORN HOUSING INC. Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of AMERICA et al.. Defendants and Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse. 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Ex-relator-Intervener-Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------x

Case No.: 09-cv-4888

(NG) (LB)

Christopher-Earl: Strunk In Esse AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A EX-RELATOR INTERVENER-DEFENDANT U.S.A. CITIZEN AND STATE OF NEW YORK CITIZEN. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF KINGS ) I, Christopher–Earl: Strunk in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1. Affirmant place for service is 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn,

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

-1-

2.

Affirmant files this Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion to

Intervene as a Ex-relator Intervener-Defendant United States of America (USA) Citizen and State of New York Citizen with FRCvP Rule 19(a) and 19(b). 3. That Affirmant filed a letter motion on December 16, 2009 (See

Exhibit A) requesting permission to file with Local Rule (LR) 50.3.1(d), to which on December 21, 2009 Defendants’ Local Counsel F. Franklin Amanat of the Department of Justice responded (See Exhibit B) in opposition to granting such request, and then on December 22, 2009 at the hearing before Judge Nina Gershon Affirmant was instructed to submit a motion through the Court Clerk Pro Se Office with particular attention to respond to the DOJ Response; that with LR 50.3.1(d)(2) is to be filed by January 21, 2010. 4. Based upon information and belief, Affirmant contends this petition

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

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

1

-2-

by a Pro se litigant. In that Judge Nina Gershon was assigned Strunk v. United States House of Representatives, No. 99-CV-2168 (NG/MDG) as a matter related to census tract effect upon federal funding for HUD projects under the 1990 Census allotment of “capped” U.S. House Seats dismissed as to Defendants’ FRCvP Rule 12 motion, and as related to the meritorious Bivens / State Action injury complaint Strunk v. Department of Housing & Urban Dev’t, No. 99-CV6840 (NG/MDG) that was dismissed sua sponte for failure to comply with the order to amend the complaint with Rule 8 without including any Brooklyn Democratic Party Defendants that in retrospect involve Party Boss Clarence Norman, presently in prison, and ex-Assemblyman William F. Boyland Sr. of the 55th AD, whose vendetta against Affirmant’s HUD housing project were essential parties notwithstanding anything the Court would desire otherwise; nevertheless the Court’s desire to protect the Brooklyn Democrats compounded Affirmant’s injury suffered there in Bedford Stuyvesant not only as to Affirmant but to Affirmant’s family too. 5. Further, that Affirmant’s marriage and family had been irreparably

harmed in the process and despite efforts to rebuild economically, Affirmant was then further injured as complained of in the related case Strunk v the New York State Insurance Fund et al. EDNY 02-cv-1193 as a Bill of Pains and Penalty (Bill of Attainder) enforced against Affirmant in that in perpetuity Affirmant is banned

-3-

from ever getting General Contractor insurance in the State of New York (a monopoly) again without personally paying an outrageous levy for an entity, in which the entity owner / manager had no employees and Affirmant was a minority stockholder involved as a DBA General sub-contractor who fully paid the State Fund in the HUD project and historically for years of coverage; and that Affirmant contends to this very day on the merits the HUD and State Insurance Fund cases should have been heard as a Bills of Pains and Penalty matter as a State action injury that if the premise for the preliminary injunction herein holds as a permanent injunction, the State Insurance Fund complaint should be restored to calendar, as Plaintiff(s) herein directly involved with Defendant U.S. Housing and Urban Development et al. and co-defendants challenged herein in the ongoing appearance of impropriety in the friendly political relationship to Plaintiff ACORN et al. 6. Further, every case Affirmant ever filed that went before Judge Nina

Gershon is related to failure to guarantee individual rights with available remedy. 7. Further, when a Affirmant related case re-emerged in 2007 as to the

RICO enterprise fraud involving Alvin Dworman’s Sub-prime Mortgage scheme developed after the 1986 Savings and Loan collapse with the Resolution Trust Corporation carried out a land grab in our community using then HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo’s plenary rules for Freddy and Fanny government backed mortgages combined with Secretary Cuomo’s mandate after 1998 that NYC HPD

-4-

and NYC Housing Development Corporation divest a large number of hoarded properties for an inside dealing relationship with Goldman Sachs whose partner in such deals was Timothy Geithner then Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and in which the enterprise formed still dismantles real property in Bedford Stuyvesant under the rubric of the Community Reinvestment Act that includes the ACORN affiliated entities. 8. That Affirmant contends that the ACORN plaintiffs close partisan

political dealing as unregistered lobbying agents against State Lobbying Law with State officers such as Senator Velmanette Montgomery in the NY 18th SD (whose 2009 Committee assignments are: Agriculture; Crime Victims, Crime and Correction; Education; Finance; Health; Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities; Rules.) and against whom Affirmant campaigned as a Republican in the 2008 State 18th Senate Campaign, requires close scrutiny by the State Attorney General and or Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes in the lobbying and other serious suffrage matters as was done by then Brooklyn District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman in regards to Vote Fraud (See Exhibit C). 9. Further, that all my current political gerrymandering appeal cases are

presently in Second Circuit Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. 08-4323-cv (Thomas J. Spargo is presently in prison) and Strunk v USPS et al. 08-3242-cv are both rooted in the denial of equal treatment and substantive due process for individual rights

-5-

that challenge the appearance of mere privileges afforded by men not Almighty God all started here in Eastern District in 1999. 10. Further, Affirmant is a Plaintiff in four on-going cases before District

Judge Richard J. Leon in the Washington District of Columbia with application for two others as well; and additionally with two related original proceedings at DCD Circuit, one of which awaits Affirmant’s motion for more specific proof as to 28 USC §144 and 28 USC §455. 11. Further, Affirmant is a plaintiff in the NYS Election Law § 16-100

matter in New York State Supreme Court of Kings County case Strunk v Paterson et al. with Index No.: 29642-08 active before the Honorable Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt; and that awaits discovery in the DCD case 08-cv-2234, along with response from the Defendant NYS BOE disregard of FOIL requests, and in which State Action by Andrew Cuomo and ACORN et al. are subjects in the alleged little RICO matter complained of in provision of the 2008 General Election. The States action affords Affirmant FRCvP Rule 19(b) IntervenerDefendant status herein; and 12. Furthermore, in that regard on November 24, 2009 Affirmant

appeared in an Order to Show Cause hearing before Justice Schmidt for a Protective Order against potential reprisals in the 2008 General Election matter that involves ACORN close dealing with the Brooklyn Democratic Party et al. and that

-6-

mysteriously the Transcript of the hearing has been lost by the Court Reporter whose delay action is affirmed to in the loss matter (see Exhibit D). 13. The activities of ACORN affiliated organizations are a compelling

State interest as to persons within such entities with the Benevolent Orders Law, Corporation Law, Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A among other New York laws as to actions by members and employees; especially with the various Lobbying Laws (2) apply to all state of New York government officials statewide in every county, municipality, towns, and or villages with over 50,000 residents; and that Affirmant contends ACORN et al. closely deal with the all too numerous public benefit agencies and entities with unelected boards of directors that circumvent citizen scrutiny over vast areas of governance and public policy. 14. That based upon direct observation during February 2007 Affirmant

contends that ACORN et al. by its agents are Lobbying State and Local Government officials in violation of the New York State Lobbying Law and related Municipal Lobbying Law as related to the enterprise complained of therein. 15. That Affirmant’s Intervention as of right is governed by Rule 24(a),

which provides the right to intervene is unconditionally granted by federal statute with 18 USC 1964(c) and FCA, when a non-party right to intervene shows that: (d) The term “organization” shall mean any corporation, company, foundation, association, college as defined by section two of the education law, labor organization, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, state agency or public corporation.
-72

a) Affirmant’s motion to intervene is timely filed by Local Rules as herein; b) Affirmant has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action in that the Usurper Barack Hussein Obama’s impropriety as the prior attorney to ACORN and its affiliates in affiliation with SEIU and crony Eric Holder, who are all part of a continuing enterprise that have maliciously orchestrated a friendly constitutional tort herein to: circumvent due administrative process under existing contracts, pre-empt public fiduciary duty to perform substantive due process and oversight required under statutes including the RICO Act that beyond the tame report issued by Representative Issa must also investigate offenses related to: • 18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents); • 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens); • 18 USC §1341 (mail fraud); 18 USC §1343 (wire fraud); • 18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully); • 18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim ); • 18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents); • 18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) – (interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering Enterprise) ; • 18 USC §1957 – (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from specific unlawful activity); the False Claims Act by obtaining government funds under false pretense to facilitate unjust enrichment that by comingling of funds by the opaque

-8-

“Social Justice” organizations closely affiliated with the Holy See that must be subjected to scrutiny with the Logan Act and related Foreign affairs law (See Exhibit E) including but limited to those actions that interfere with the domestic and foreign interest of the United States and other foreign nations in contradiction to 18 USC Chapter 45 for Foreign relations relate to: • • • • • • • • • § 951. Agents of foreign governments; § 952. Diplomatic codes and correspondence; § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments; § 954. False statements influencing foreign government; § 955. Financial transactions with foreign governments; § 957. Possession of property in aid of foreign government; § 958. Commission to serve against friendly nation; § 959. Enlistment in foreign service; § 960. Expedition against friendly nation ;

and moreover, not least of which actions under New York State law relate to any exclusive membership organizations whose partisan political activities are subject to compelling State interest and oversight; and herein on a State by State basis the citizens therein are unrepresented as to the foreign entity ACORN legal fiction per se, that in effect despite being alleged by Plaintiffs Counsel to be to big to fail, ACORN appears as an out of control leviathan that as a Federal matter is involved in a class action situation that effects the outcome in multi-district litigation as defined with 28 USC §1407 that belongs before a Judicial panel and

-9-

not before a single Judge as herein to the determent of Affirmant and all U.S. Citizens and State Citizens of the several States affected by the oval office usurpation of the 2010 Census Enumeration intend to be executed with the Usurper’s ACORN, its affiliates and SEIU cronies. c) That Affirmant is so situated that without intervention the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede Affirmant ability to protect interest in the cases Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234, Strunk v US DOC Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295, Strunk v. The New York Province of the Society of Jesus et al. DCD 09-cv-1249, Strunk v US Department of Interior et al. 10-cv-0066, and Strunk v. Paterson et al. NYS Sup Ct in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642. d) Affirmant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties, in that the Usurper’s Attorney General and or his agents have not vigorously represented U.S.A. Citizen, the State Of New York Citizen and or any other State’s citizen of the several states accordingly, and as such Affirmant is also an Ex-Relator litigant herein in that the necessary Affirmative defense to the Complaint and counter claims have not been entered into the record. 16. That Affirmant contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to show it has

exhausted the administrative process with the various contracts;

- 10 -

17.

That Affirmant contends that an alleged Bill of Pains and Penalty /

Bill of Attainder injury, to be such, must inure to an in esse individual per se, and that otherwise any legal fiction registered on a year by year basis by various fees that only exists as a non-profit and or for profit entity at the pleasure of government authority, and because only 3 of ACORN’s entities out of say 300 or so shown in Plaintiffs Complaint exhibit (See Exhibit F) are alleged injured by the Continuing Resolution and Minibus Bill, requires FRCvP Rule 12 applies as to: • Rule 12 (b) (1) The Court lacks Jurisdiction over the subject matter as administrative process has not been exhausted with the various Contracts; • Rule 12 (b) (2) The Court lacks jurisdiction over the person without necessary in esse injured persons joined; • Rule 12 (b) (3) that due to the nature of the litigation and complexity 28 USC §1407 applies and as such there is improper venue; • Rule 12 (b) (4) without an opportunity of other direct parties of interest involved especially the New York State Attorney General and the various attorneys general of the several States with authority over ACORN and affiliates and SEIU, as such there is an insufficiency of process; • Rule 12 (b) (6) without the proper parties and not having exhausted administrative process plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted especially since with prior admission of wrong doing Plaintiffs do not have clean hands contrary to clean hands doctrine the court lacks jurisdiction; and

- 11 -

• To reiterate given the foregoing, as with Rule 12 (b)(7) Plaintiffs fail to join a party under Rule 19. 18. That in the matter of Affirmant’s response to Defendants Counsel’s

letter and allegations shown in Exhibit B: 19. The DOJ has violated FRCvP Rule 11(c)(1)(A) in that by combining

the single letter motion in opposition with the motion for Sanctions that “…shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion.” is done in bad faith with the court. 20. Defendants’ Assistant Counsel F. Franklin Amanat had previously

opposed the Affirmant in case Strunk v CIA et al. EDNY 08-cv-1196 who righteously filed the FOIA request of the CIA for information on a Fr. Pierre Teilhard De Chardin S.J. who had died in April 1955 who had been instrumental in facilitating Mao’s genocide in China, and that Affirmant contends such records are not protected as a matter of National Security; nevertheless, the Court dismissed the case alleging Affirmant had not shown bad faith on the part of the CIA! 21. Further the Usurper’s choice for Attorney General, which Affirmant

contends is an action void ad initio as an active Quo Warranto Matter in the motion before District Judge Richard J. Leon in DCD 08-cv-2234, Affirmant was injured by Eric Holder directly and is hostile to Affirmant; and therefore, his agents, no matter how great an assistant attorney general they may otherwise be, can’t
- 12 -

possibly represent my interests herein. 22. That as a direct injury to Affirmant as a result of the Court’s Decision

and Order, if the alleged Bill of Pains and Penalty were to inure directly to an in esse individual per se associated with the Plaintiffs which is not proven or intended by the Continuing Resolution or Minibus Bill, then as such would also apply to Affirmant in the Strunk v the New York State Insurance Fund et al. EDNY 02-cv1193 State action matter dismissed sua sponte; and if Plaintiffs’ Counsels had properly framed the Complaint with injured in esse parties the Court Decision would also apply to Affirmant and warrants that case restoration to the calendar. 23. That Affirmant takes strenuous exception in opposition to Defendants’

Assistant Counsel F. Franklin Amanat abuse of process in this court in his attempt to impose a bill of pains and penalty against Affirmant. 24. This case raises important legal and constitutional issues, the

resolution of which has the potential to affect not only the parties to this case but many non-parties, as well; and that Affirmant’s intervention, in particular, should not be rejected as to do so would not contribute to a just and equitable adjudication of the issues in this case, but instead would be likely to distract both the Court and the parties with frivolous and tendentious litigation over collateral and inconsequential matters that may only be characterized as having the appearance of a friendly suit filed in bad faith with this court.

- 13 -

3 Exhibits and hereby oppose equity relief for Plaintiffs pursuant to ab&e

25.

I have read the foregoing abng wt Plaintiffs' Complaint with ih

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

both sides and kno%the contents thereof, and effects those matters have upon me,
. I

:.*

and that this affidavr't is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to

be true. The grounds:of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and
belief are as follows: third parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Christopher -Earl: Strunk i esse n

S o n to befm me this wr

NOTARY PUBLIC
Netary Public, State of New Vkk No. OlAN5070990 Qualified in Mngr County
QEOROE ANbERSON

Commission Expires Jan. 6,20 1 I

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

Exhibit A

Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23

Filed 12/16/09 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23

Filed 12/16/09 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23

Filed 12/16/09 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 23

Filed 12/16/09 Page 4 of 4

\

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

Exhibit B

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201-1820

December 21, 2009 BY ELECTRONIC COURT FILING Honorable Nina Gershon United States District Judge Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 Re: ACORN v. United States, No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.)

Dear Judge Gershon: We write in response to the December 15 letter from Christopher Earl Strunk, a pro se non-party to the above-referenced action, requesting a premotion conference in connection with his planned motion for leave to intervene as a defendant in this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. We respectfully ask that the Court deny Strunk’s request for a premotion conference on the ground that any motion that he might file seeking leave to intervene in this case would not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and would be subject to denial on that ground. Alternatively, if the Court elects to proceed with the premotion conference, we ask the Court to admonish Strunk that, even as a pro se litigant, he must comply with the requirements of Rule 11 and is subject to sanctions if he fails to do so. We likewise request that the Court bar Strunk from filing any motion in this case without paying a plaintiff’s initiating filing fee, and that it correspondingly deny any application for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. As the Court is no doubt aware, Strunk is a “frequent filer” in this and other federal courts, and the vast majority of his proceedings have been dismissed as frivolous. PACER shows 31 cases involving Strunk in the last ten years, nine of which have been in this District. In one recent case, Judge Ross dismissed the bulk of Strunk’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that the facts alleged “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible . . . and that there is no legal theory on which he may rely.” Strunk v. CIA, No. 08-CV-1196 (ARR/LB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2008) (docket no. 4). See also Thomas v. Federal Reserve Bank, No. 07-CV-1171 (ARR/LB)

Honorable Nina Gershon ACORN v. United States, No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.) December 21, 2009 Page 2 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2007) (dismissing Strunk’s complaint as frivolous and denying IFP status for purposes of appeal); Strunk v. United States Postal Service, No. 08-CV-1744 (ARR/LB) (E.D.N.Y. May 9 and June 13, 2008) (same); Strunk v. New York State Bd. of Elec., No. 08-CV4289 (ARR/LB) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) (same). Indeed, your Honor repeatedly dismissed Strunk’s seriatim motions as frivolous, and ultimately dismissed the complaint as devoid of merit, in Strunk v. United States House of Representatives, No. 99-CV-2168 (NG/MDG) (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2002). See also Strunk v. Department of Housing & Urban Dev’t, No. 99-CV-6840 (NG/MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2001) (sua sponte dismissing claims for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). And at least one judge of this Court has denied as frivolous motions by Strunk to intervene in cases to which he was not a party. See, e.g., Torres v. New York State Bd. of Elec., No. 04-CV-1129 (JG/SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2006) (denying motion to intervene, and subsequently (on Feb. 13, 2007), denying IFP status for Strunk’s appeal); Green Party of New York State v. New York State Bd. of Elec., No. 02-CV-6465 (JG/SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2003) (same). Regardless of Strunk’s filing history, we can envision no circumstances under which Strunk could meet the requirements of Rule 24 for either of-right or permissive intervention in this case. Intervention as of right is governed by Rule 24(a), which provides that, unless a right to intervene is unconditionally granted by federal statute, a non-party has no right to intervene in a case as a plaintiff or defendant unless it shows that (1) its motion to intervene was timely filed; (2) it has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) it is so situated that without intervention the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4) its interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 2001). “All four parts of the test must be satisfied to qualify for intervention as of right.” Washington Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 1990); accord D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Denial of the motion to intervene is proper if any of these requirements is not met”); United States v. New York, 820 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir. 1987). “The moving party has the burden of demonstrating its entitlement to intervene.” Seils v. Rochester City Sch. Dist., 199 F.R.D. 506, 509 (W.D.N.Y. 2001). Permissive intervention is governed by Rule 24(b), which provides that, unless a right to intervene is conditionally granted by federal statute, a court may not exercise its discretion to permit a non-party to intervene in an action unless the non-party shows that its “claim or defense . . . shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). “The district court has broad discretion to deny an applicant’s motion for intervention under Rule 24(b)(2).” Seils, 199 F.R.D. at 512 (citation omitted). In exercising

Honorable Nina Gershon ACORN v. United States, No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.) December 21, 2009 Page 3 this discretion, the Court may consider “the nature and extent of the intervenor’s interests, whether the intervenor’s participation will contribute to a just and equitable adjudication of the issues, and whether the intervenor’s [interests] are adequately represented by the parties of record.” Sharif v. New York State Educ. Dep’t, 709 F. Supp. 365, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (citation omitted); Seils, 199 F.R.D. at 513. Strunk seems to be seeking to intervene largely for purposes of appealing, or seeking reconsideration of, this Court’s preliminary injunction order of December 11. Given that the Government has already sought reconsideration of that order, and has also filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from it, Strunk’s proposed intervention can serve no valid purpose. Moreover, Strunk may not be allowed to intervene as a defendant in this case because he has no bona fide individualized interest relating to the transactions that are the subject of this proceeding. The “interests” Strunk claims in his premotion conference letter – to avoid injury “by Plaintiffs involvement in the alleged racketeering enterprise otherwise properly protected by the . . . Continuing Resolution,” to ensure that other “essential parties in-interest” (namely, the State Attorney General) are brought into the suit, to prevent this Court from exceeding its equity jurisdiction, and to seek your Honor’s recusal – are either frivolous on their face or else are not distinguishable from any interests that the public at large has in the outcome of this case. And even if Strunk could demonstrate that he possesses such an individualized interest in the outcome of this litigation, he can make no showing that such interest will not be adequately protected by the existing defendants. Any interests implicated by this litigation will more than adequately be advanced and protected by the parties to the case. This case raises important legal and constitutional issues, the resolution of which has the potential to affect not only the parties to this case but many non-parties, as well. But not all individuals claiming to be affected by, or interested in, the outcome of this case have a right (or should be allowed) to participate in the case as a party. Strunk’s intervention, in particular, should be rejected. It would not contribute to a just and equitable adjudication of the issues in this case, but instead would be likely to distract both the Court and the parties with frivolous and tendentious litigation over collateral and inconsequential matters. We appreciate the Court’s time and considered attention to these matters.

Honorable Nina Gershon ACORN v. United States, No. 09-CV-4888 (NG/LB) (E.D.N.Y.) December 21, 2009 Page 4 Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General Civil Division IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General BENTON J. CAMPBELL United States Attorney Eastern District of New York

MICHAEL SITCOV PETER D. LEARY BRADLEY H. COHEN Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 7322 P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 514-3313 peter.leary@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants

/s/ {FILED ELECTRONICALLY} F. FRANKLIN AMANAT (FA6117) Assistant United States Attorney (718) 254-6024 franklin.amanat@usdoj.gov

cc (by ECF notification only): Counsel for Plaintiffs cc (by regular mail and e-mail): Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, Apt. 281 Brooklyn, NY 11238 chris@strunk.ws

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

Exhibit C

F A MaNJO & UMO !$ddSMXl J

-

=

fD PUP1 W
s~pmr

JOJ

ar(l JO no saum pneg uogeumadlll! lo hpwp! * W U ( ~ pm pear* Jo - w mq - l =Is 'Jyuaq s! wF@d vlo! s,=1 q q n~ S,-huncx, q 1o G8-q u! pntq P T W d U7aq Sey O\Ul- 1 V ws I p~ed*- = I T P

w

PIW

'myp q uoddm 0 *-arm Apmama s pnuj J ~ 1 ! "Uad-ul!lmq mase 'uaqzo %uoure '1 q q -

A

M N nU

JO

Wl p oT a

w 'rcrlod ?w ~

~ I ~ J O ~ I

e s q ~ 'awn sum 3ql le s ~ o d le a t q m @ulr\q ! q ~ xp fl) pampneuosladur! %q pue ~ o r e u o u d w ~ WA a.p a q ~ u n .~4euouadur! J a w e Buypuaqudde q ~o~-ar~pnonqru43iltuuu~~

-

14J)f!lu"

nram;l~!nbuo~re~g~mqn xwap 01 pzpm UP-n ,OW &;IA p p &f! J! ~ 0 ~ ~ U i I a d ~ ne r a ~ o q pMXUQ s p g o w g q ~ :uosea~q d -q s s q Inq 'arum 01 p~erl p n q lpns JO e loj ! 4 s ! maprna m ! p mp aw s 11 - p a KJU sop X l d q ! %u!llodq le "P"EIJ U O P W ~ ~ ! . mq h s s m u u n are m qms q-~ q pna~uor, q q s -s@addv30 uno3 w=!3 W-%.ul4~~~"nm~!mFFPi~.kl~pldn
! oloqd m - J u =

mpba enelprrI JO ~ ! @ u o ~ n r p ; ~ ~ 7ql~*uJl@q3=e't~~08~mww d @u> m m w!Un
-A

pI;wo~3 n U!
Jo Unq)

V '8002 '6

W

&SAoyDds

UOA *VSUDH

8002 '01 ZZ 'ON

U

O

~

~

H

W

~

~

"

~

NO.

22

Legal memo ran dun^

March 10, 2008

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

A 14-Year Vote-Fraud Conspiracy

'

1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., Nos. 07-21 and 07-25 (U.S. Supreme Court, cen. granted Sept. 25,2007);2005 IND.LEGIS.S m . PL. 109;scc IND. CODE 3-11-8-23.1(c), §§ 3-5-2-40.5. This voter ID law does not apply to those who are over 65, disabled, or confined by illness or injury, all of whom may cast absentee ballots. See IND.CODE 3-11-10§§ 24(a)(3)-(5).The law a h does nor apply LO individuals -who vore in person at a precinct polling place that is located at a stare licensed care facility where the vorrr resides." Id. at § 3-11-8-25.1(e). 2. Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 E Supp. 2d 775 (S.D. Ind. 2006). 3. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 E3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007). 4. The Court and Voter 1D5,N.Y. TIMES, 9, 2008. Jan. 5. Linda Greenhouse,Justic~sIndicate They May Uphold VoterID Rulcs, N.Y. IIMES, 10,2008. According to Mr. Smith, Jan. -there's not a single recorded example of voter impersonation fraud.. .. ItS not happening and, indeed, every single indication in this record is that the evidence of this kind of fraud occumng, to call it scant is to overstate it." Transcript at 19-20. Crawford v. hlarion County Election Bd., Nos. 07-21and 07-25 (U.S. Supreme Court, cert. granted Sept. 25.2007). available at h ~ ~ p ~ / ~ ~ ~ . s u p r e m e c o u ~ . g o v / o r a l ~ a r g u m e n t s / ~ e n t ~ t r a ~ ~ n p ~ O 7 - L 1 ~ p d f . 6. Press Release, Brooklyn, New York, District Attorney's OEfice, D.A. Holtzman Announces Grand Jury Report Disclosing Systematic Voting Fraud in Brooklyn (Sepr. 5, 1984);In the Matter of Confidential Investigation, No. R84-11 (N.Y. Supreme Court 1384) [hereinafter Grand Jury Report]. 7. Frank Lynn, Boss hveed Is h e , But Not His Vole, N.Y. TIMES, 9. 1984. Sept.

Id 9. District Attorney's Office,supra n. 6, at 1-2. 10. Grand Jury Repon, supra n. 6, at 2. Although the grand jury could not determine whether these illegal activities had altered the outcome of those elecrions. it did find that the ourcome of at least one State Committee election in 1978 was changed by fraudulent voting. Id. 11. Id.
8

NO.

22

Legal Memorandum

March 10,2008

The Tools of Vote Fraud
One of the key factors in the success of this scheme was the "advent of mail-in registration [in New Yorkl in 1976 [which] made the creation of bogus registration cards even easier and less subject to detection."13 Congress mandated the same lype of New York-style mail-in registration nationwide in 1993 with the passage of the National Voter Registration Act, thus ensuring that the security problems caused by unsupervised mail-in registration in New York were spread nationwide. In fact, according to the grand jury, "mail-in registration has become the principal means of perpetrating election fraud" in New york.14 Another change in the law that increased fraud was the new practice that allowed any organization to obtain bulk quantities of voter registration forms from the Board of Elections h a t "contain no identifyin serial number at the time they are given The conspirators obtained blank voter registration carcls and then filled them out with fictitious first names and real last names taken from party enrollment books within the targeted voting ~recinct: For example, if a John Brown actually lived at 1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York, the application would be completed in the name of Mary Brown, 1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York. It was anticipated that when the mail for the fictitious Mary Brown was delivered to John Broun at his address, John Brown would discard the nolice rather than return it to the post office. This plan reduced the likelihood that the voter registration notice card would be returned to the Board of t Elections. hereby mi~umiiing l ~ e ~ i b d i t y that the fraud would be detected.'
I2. Id. at 3.

This process was also successful because of the way the Postal Service handled the mail. The normal procedure of all election jurisdictions in the United States is to mail a voter registration card to a newly registered voter after the reptration application form has been received and processed. Although the primary purpose of the mailing is to provide the new voter with the voter registration card, it is also intended to ensure that a real person has registered and provided an accurate address. The New York Board of Elections thus relied on the Postal Service to return any registration cards that were undeliverable because the registrant was fictitious or did not live at the address on the applicat ion form. Election jurisdictions today still rely on the Postal Service for this validation. However, the grand jury found that "mail carriers did not return these cards particularly where the address on the card was that of a large multiple dwelling.. .land] would frequently leave the undeliverable voter registration cards in a common area of the buildii~g."To take advan~ageof this, the conspirators used the addresses of multiple dwellings in which members of their crews lived, which them the ability to collect the bogus registration cards." The Executive Director of the State Board of Elections at he time, Thomas W Wallace, commented that the handling of voter registration cards by the Postal Service varied greatly throughout the state and was a continuing problem for election officials.l8 In addition to a voter's signature, New York's voter registration application forms at that time included a physical description of the votersomething that is nonexistent on the mail-in voter registration applications used today. Even so, the vote-fraud conspirators avoided detection eilher by

13. Id. at 11. 14. Id 15. Id. Without serial numbers, an election jurisdiction cannoL determine which organization may be responsible for problematic or frdudulent registration forms that are received. 16. Id at 12. 17. Id. at 10-1 1. 18. Lynn,supra n. 7.

NO.

22

L e d Memorandum

March 10, 2008

using their own physical descriptions or by providing general descriptions that could be met by numerous people engaged in the scheme. Thc fraudulent forms wcrc cithcr mailed or dclivered to the Board of Elections. often with a group of legitimate registrations. The grand jury reported that in one 1978 legislative race alone, 1,000 bogus voter registration forms were successfull filed without detection by the b a r d of Elections.' Although New York law required a check at the polling place of the voter's signature, this proved to be no obstacle to this fraud because the persons creating the fictitious voter registration application forms would later vote under the same names. so their signatures at the polling place would match their signatures on the original registration forms. These attempts to steal elections through the use of fraudulent voter registrations culminated each election day with votes cast using the fictitious cards. One witness testified that he first participated as a fraudulent voter when he was only 17. voting in a legislative primary in 1968 "using a registration card prepared under a different name by a member of the local Democratic club.n20 In 1970. the witness voted at least 10 times, at 10 different polling places, using bogus registration cards. He was part of a crew of five persons, each of whom was paid $40 for the dayk activities. In the 1972 Democratic primary election, he received a promotion to crew chief, running a crew of five members. By 1974, his crew had grown to eight members, each of whom voted in excess of 20 times, and there were approximately 20 other crews operating during that election. In 1976, the grand jury witness led a crew of five people who cast at least 100 fraudulent votes.
l9. GrandJury- &port,
juplu n. 6, at

Moreover, the same witness had been present at a meeting prior to elec~ion da that was ..attended by twenty crew chlefs.'"'lf the other crews averaged as many lraudulent votes, then there would have been at least 2,000 phony votes cast in that election without detection by precinct poll workers or election officials. B 1982, the witness "was to have provided y twenty-five workers to vote in a Congressional primary election again using bogus voter registration cards."22 In addition to voting in the names of fictitious voters who had been successfully registered, the crews used several other methods of casting fraudulent votes. One method involved voting under the names of legitimate voters. By reviewing the voter registration records at the Board of Elections prior to election day, the conspirators were able to Find the names of newly registered voters. Using the names of these voters, the crews would go to the appropriate polling places as soon as the polls opened in the morning to vote under those names: The reasoning behind this method, according to the experience of one witness, was that newly registered voters often do not vote. By arriving at the polling sites early. the bogus voter would not need to worry about the possibility that the real voter had actually voted.23 Another method e n d e d collecting, during nominating petition drives, the names of registered voters who had died or moved. Members of the various crews were then sent to polling places on election day to vote in the names of those voters. The signature requirement did not prevent such which points out the inadfraudulent voting ei~lier, equacy of signature matching (a highly trained skill that cannot be taught in a matter of hours to the average poll worker) to prevent this type of fraud. Credit cards present a similar problem, since the

13.

20. Id. at 14.
21. Id. at 14-15. 22. Id. at 15. 23. Id. at 15.

NO.

22

hd Memorandum

March 10, 2008

signature requirement on credit cards does not prevent the ~ i ~ c avolume of credit card Fraud that n t occurs in the United States. Database tcchnolog). is anothcr tool of thc rradc that was not available then but is widespread now. Voter registration lists are public information in most states, and databases containing detailed information on voters are available From a wide variety of commercial vendors. The databases of such commercial vendors are usually much more up-to-date than the information contained in Lhe voler registration databases maintained by election officials. This makes it very easy for anyone with access to such information to determine the names of voters who are still registered but who have died or moved out of a jurisdiction. As Justice Roberts pointed out in the Indiana voter ID case, the record in the litigation showed that 41.4 percent of the names on Indiana's voter registration rolls were bad entries, representing tens of thousands of ineli ible voters-a trove of potential fraudulent votes.&

A Widespread Problem
The widespread impersonation fraud that occurred in Brooklyn raises the question of whether such fraud is a problem elsewhere in the country today. More recent cases provide evidence of what may be a wider problem that is very difficult to detect in jurisdicrions that do not require voter identification. For example, Dr. Robert Pastor, Executive Director of the Baker-Carter Commission on Federal Election Reform and Director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2006 that he was once unable to vote
2-t. Transcript in Cruwford, supru n. 5 , at 18.

because someone had already cast a ballot in his name at his polling place. He had no recourse at the poll to find out "why his had occurred, whether there was some error or whatever else, and the polling station iwlf didn't keep any record of it."25 In a 2007 city council election in Hoboken. New Jersey, the former zoning board president noticed a group of men near his polling place being given index cards by two people shonly before the June election. One of those men later entered the polling place and triecl to vole in the name of another registered voter who. it turned out, no longer lived in the ward. The imposter was caught only because he happened to be challenged by the zoning board president. He admitled ro the police that the group of men from a homeless shelter had been paid $10 each to vote using others' names.16 Last year, in a case reminiscen~of Boss Tweed and the Brooklyn grand jury report, the U.5. Department of Justice won a voting rights lawsuit in Noxubee, Mississippi, against a defendant named Ike Brown, as well as the county election board.27 Brown, a convicted felon, was the head of the local Democratic Party. He had set up a political worked to guarantee the election of machine t h a ~ his approved candidates to local office+sentiaUy his version of Tarnrnany Hall. One of the contentions in the litigation was that the local election board's "failure to purge the voter registration roll to eliminate persons who have moved or died and who are thus no longer eligible voters" increased the opportunity for voter fraud by creating "the potential for persons to vote under others' names." The court cited the testimony of one of the government's witnesses, a former deputy sheriff. who said that "he saw Ike Brown outside the door of the precinct talking lo a young black lady.. .and heard him

25. Transcript of Briefing on Votcr Fraud and Voter Intimidation,Unitcd States Commission on Civll Rights, OCL. 13,2006. nr 185. 26. See Madehe Friedman, Anatomy oJVokr Fraud- WIIIO & J Follow Up on Alleged $10 Vote Payoff?HUDSON REP~RTERJuly 1, 2007; Unclear Which Agency Wd Investlgm F r a d Proseatnrk 0 )Nhnng for Rejenai, kIvmor\i R E P O K Jdy8,2007. ~ 27. U.S.v. Brown, 494 E SUPP.2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007). The lawsuil was filed under Sections 2 and 11 of the Voting kghts Act and led to the first judgment in the U.S. Finding racial discrimination in voling by black officials against white voters. The court said that it had -not had to look far to find ample direct and circumstaruial evidence of an intent to dk-rimmina against white voters which has manifested itself through practices designed to deny and/or dilute the voting rights of white voters in Noxubee." ld. at 449.

NO.

22

Legal Memorandum

March 10. 2008

tell her to go in there and vote, to use any name, and that no one was going to say anything."2a Mississippi does not require a photo ID for inperson voting, but it is now uncler court order to implement such a requirement due to a federal case filed by the Mississippi Democratic Party over its concern that the suteS open piirnaiy system and lack of party registration makes il unable to identlfy non-Democrats and prevent them from voting in its primaries.29 This effort by the Mississippi Democratic Party is instructive because it discloses that threats to free, fair. and open elections concern not only elective office and those who eventually hold them, but also the political parties as they recruit and organize voters and nominate heir candidates. Political parties merit protection as much as individual voters whose franchise is diluted and denied by the commission of fraud. The Indiana voter ID case itself also demonstrates the problem of double voting by individuals who are illegally registered to vote in more than one state. Because different states do not generally run database matching comparisons between their voter registration lists, there is no national process by which to detect multiple registrations. One of the Lndiana voters highlighted by the League of Women Voters who supposedly could not vote due to the voter ID law turned out to be registered to vote not just in Indiana, but also in Florida, where s she o ~ m 3 home and claimed a homestead exemption (which requires an individual to assert residency). She was not allowed to vote in Indiana because she tried to use a Florida driver's license as her I k l e a r evidence h a t the law worked as

intended to prevent a fraudulent vote by an individual who not only had claimed to be a resident of a stale other than Indiana, but also had actually registered to vote there as well.30 Unfortunately. attempts by neighboring states such as Kentucky and Tennessee to compare their voter re@trauon lists Lor individuals registered iil both states have been met with lawsuits contesting their right to do so.31 A federal court even issued an injunction barring the State of Washington from refusing to regis~erindividuals whose application information (such as their residence address) does not match infoinntion on that inditidual that i s contained in other state databases, such as the Department of Licensing's (drivers licenses), thereby making it extremely difficult for a state to verify the accuracy and validity of information being provided by an individual in an attempt to register to vote.32 One of the changes recommended by the New York grand jury to prevent problems caused by outside organizations filing fraudulent voter registration forms was "serializing and recording the serial numbers of all voter registration cards distributed in bulk and insisting on greater accountability by organizations engaged in voter registration."33 A number of states have recently attempted to implement such requirements after they received large numbers of fraudulent voter registration forms, or received legitimate forms too late to be effective for an upcoming election, from third parties such as the Association o: Community Organiza~ionsfor Reform Now (ACORN). These fraud-prevention rlki~rts, however, were

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

NO. 22

Legal Memorandum

March 10.2008

halted by lawsuits filed by organizations such as Project Vote and the League of Women Voters that claimed that such requirements would impede their voter registration Similarly, Ohio's attempt to improve third-party voter registration was also struck down. The law mandated training for individuals who assist applicants in voter registration; required them to provide their name, signature, address, and employer on the voter registration form of each individual they assist; and required them to return the forms directly to election officials rather than entrust them to a third party for delivery. Thezie proviisions were all enjoined as violations of the National Voter Registration Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the ~onstitution.~' Even if the court rulings w-er2 legally correct (a questionable conclusion), that is all the more reason for a state to correct for potential fraud by requiring some form of reasonable voter ID at the polls.

Even though it led to no indictments, the New York investigation still serves a valuable purpose. Most clearly, it demonstrates that voter impersonation is a real problem and one that is nearly impossible for election officials to detect given the weak tools usually at their disposal. Further, the investigation provides good reason to believe that this 14-year-long conspiracy to submit thousands (if not tens of thousands) of fraudulent votes in New York City could not have occurred if voters had been required to present photo identification when they voted. New York's experience also demonstrata the fallacy of several arguments and assertions made by the petitioners' attorney, Paul Smith, in the Indiana case and by critics of voter ID in general. For example, Smith told Chief Justice Roberts that impersonation fraud is unlikely because it is not hard to detect: "When you're going into the polls and saying, I'm Joe Smith, you're dealing with a neighborhood person who knows a lot of people who are Lessons Learned there, you have to match that person's signature."38 There were no indictmen& issued by the New The idea that, in our mobile society today, all of York grand jury as a result of its investigation the poll workers in a precinct will be "neighbor"because the statute of limitations had run out in hood" workers who know everyone in their presome cases and because several of those involved cinct (even a small precinct) does not match reality. were given immunity in return for t e ~ t i r n o n ~ . ' ' ~ ~ poll worker manual for the Board of Elections The Remarkably, [he fraud was apparently discovered for the City of New York states that polling places only because of the actions of a former state senator, have only 750 registered vo~ers,~' the imperyet Vander L. Beatty, who was convicted of voter fraud sonation fraud that occurred in Brooklyn involving and conspiracy. After Beatty lost the 1982 Demo- thousands of fraudulent votes went undetected for cratic congressional primary election, some of his 14 years even in such relatively small precincts. "supporters hid in the Brooklyn Board of Elections Many jurisdictions in other states and counties office until after business hours and then made have much larger precincts, some of them containsome obvious forgeries of registration cards to cre- ing thousands of registered voters. ate the appearance of irregularities" in order to give Contrary to Mr. Smith's claims, New York's sigBeatty the ability to challenge (unsuccessfully) the nature requirement also did nothing to stop this winner of the primary election.37 successful voter fraud conspiracy from casting
34.Szr: Projtxi Volt. v. Blacl\wcll, 455 E Sb-PP. 2cl69+ (N.D. Oluo 2006), Lrague oi\Vo~nerrVo~crb Florida v. CULL,+S7 E of SUPP.2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2006). 35. Project Vote v. Blackwell, No. 1:06CV-1628(N.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2008). 36. Lynn, supra n. 7. 37. Id.
38. Transcripi in Crawford, supra n. 5, at 19.

39. N.Y. Bd. Of Elections, POLL WORKERS MANUAL2007 15, at ht~p://vote.nyc.nyus/pdVdocumen~s/bodpollworkers~
pollworkersmanual.pdl, page 15.

NO. 22

Lgd Memorandum

March 10,2008

b o p s votes in person at polling places. The participants in the Brooklyn case impersonated newly registered, deceased, and moved voters by voting in their place for years without detec~ion.

Voter ID: A Sensible Solution
In recent elections, thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms have been detected by election officials a over the country. Given the minimal to nonU existent screening efforts engaged in by most election jurisdictions, there is no way to know how many others slipped through. In states without identification require men^, election officials have no way to prevent bogus votes from being cast by unscrupulous individuals based on fictitious voter registrations, by impersonators, or by noncitizens who are registered to vote-another growing problem.40 This is a security problem that requires a solution. As the New York voter fraud investigation and other cases illustrate, impersonation fraud does occur and can be difficult or impossible to detect. States such as Indiana and Georgia have a legitimate and entirely reasonable interest in requiring voters to idenufy themselves when they vote in order to prevent impersonation fraud and voting through the use of fraudulent voter registration forms. The Indiana case also demonstrates that voter identification can detect unlawful multiple voter gistr rations by individuals in ddferent states. Finally, requiring a govemmenr-issued photo ID can prevent illegal aliens from voting (except in states that issue driver's licenses to noncitizens). A simple requirement that a voter demonstrate his authentic identity assures that free elections remain untainted by fraud that undermines their fairness and, in turn. disappoints the expectations of the voting public

In 1984. the New York grand jury recommended that the governor and state legislature examine as a possible remedy "requiring identification from voters at the time of voting or regi~tration."~' 2005, In the bipartisan Baker-Carter Commission on Federal Election Reform also recommended requiring photo ID for in-person voting because "[iln close or disputed elections, and there are many, a small amount of fraud could make rhe margin of diKerence. And second, the perception of possible fraud contributes to low confidence in the system.n42 Voters in nearly 100 democracies are required to present photo identlhcation to ensure the integrity of elections.43 Our southern neighbor, Mexico, requires both a photo ID and a thumbprint. and turnout has increased in its eleclions since this requirement was implemented.34 If Mexico can implement a s~~ccessful photo ID program for its voters, there is no valid reason the United States cannot do the same. As the grand jury in New York properly concluded at the end of ics investigation of a vote-fraud conspiracy that had been successfully carried out without detection for 14 years, "The core of the democratic process is the right of the people to choose their representatives in fair elections. Fraud in the election process is into~erable."~~ -Hans A. von Spahovsky served as a member of the Federcll Election Commissionfor twoyears. Before that, he was Counsel io the Assistani Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department oflwtice, where he specialized in voting and election issues. He also served as a counfy election oficial in Georgiaforfive years us n member of the Fulton County Registration and Election Board.

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

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

Exhibit D

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

Exhibit E

Left-Wing Radicalism in the Church: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development
By Matthew Vadum
Summary: Each November around Thanksgiving every Roman Catholic parish takes up a collection for the nonprofit Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), a program run under the auspices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Last November, under intense pressure from Catholic parishioners, CCHD finally stopped collecting money for the fraud-ridden radical group ACORN. But the Bishops’ Conference continues to support other radical community activist groups with similar goals, such as the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) founded in Chicago by Saul Alinsky, the founding father of “community organizing.” President Obama, a self-professed community organizer, has ties to both ACORN and CCHD. t must have been a sad day at the offices of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) in Washington, D.C., last year when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) announced that its temporary suspension of funding for the embattled radical group ACORN was being made permanent. CCHD is the grantmaking arm of USCCB, the 350-person Washington, D.C.-based organization that acts on behalf of the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, a group widely assumed to be conservative defenders of traditional morality. However, CCHD and ACORN share a left-wing sociopolitical ideology that puts a premium on aggressive community organizing – but more on that in a moment. After channeling $7.3 million of parishioners’ money to ACORN over the last decade, the
Bishop Roger Morin announced last fall that CCHD was cutting off the corrupt group ACORN but as this year’s Thanksgiving collection approaches, the church’s charity continues to support similar radical community organizing groups.

I

Catholic bishops were coming under intense pressure from conservative Catholics who were outraged by reports of gross legal and ethical improprieties involving ACORN. Founded in 1969, CCHD has given more than $280 million over the years to fund what it calls over “7,800 low-income-led, community-based projects that strengthen families, create jobs, build affordable housing, fight crime, and improve schools and

September 2009
CONTENTS
Left-Wing Radicalism in the Church Page 1 Philanthropy Notes Page 8

FoundationWatch
neighborhoods.” The projects funded must develop local solutions to “help break the cycle of poverty.” CCHD says it educates Catholics “about the causes of poverty and seeks to build solidarity between impoverished and affluent persons.” Its mission statement calls for raising funds to support “organized groups of white and minority poor to develop economic strength and political power.” It also declares CCHD’s purpose is to “educate the People of God to a new knowledge of today’s problems… that can lead to some new approaches that promote a greater sense of solidarity.” On Nov. 11, 2008, Bishop Roger Morin, chairman of the Bishops’ subcommittee on CCHD, announced that ACORN was permanently cut off as a grant recipient. No funds from the annual collection taken at every Catholic parish during the third Sunday of November “will go to ACORN in any place or at any level,” he said. ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a group that has hundreds of affiliates across America. (For more on ACORN, see the November 2008 editions of CRC’s Foundation Watch and Labor Watch.) Bishop Morin announced that the fiveEditor: Matthew Vadum Publisher: Terrence Scanlon Foundation Watch is published by Capital Research Center, a non-partisan education and research organization, classified by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Address: 1513 16th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-1480 Phone: (202) 483-6900 Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950 E-mail Address: mvadum@capitalresearch.org Web Site: http://www.capitalresearch.org Organization Trends welcomes letters to the editor. Reprints are available for $2.50 prepaid to Capital Research Center.

Heather Booth of the Midwest Academy

month-old provisional suspension of funding for ACORN had been made permanent “because of serious concerns about financial accountability, organizational performance and political partisanship.” He made it clear that “a major case of embezzlement eight years ago that was covered up by ACORN staff leadership,” was the tipping point and noted that CCHD and the Bishops Conference had hired forensic accountants “to help determine if any CCHD money was taken or misused.” It is unclear if that forensic audit has been completed. Ralph McCloud, director of CCHD, said the groups “that will benefit from this year’s collection have yet to be determined.” The decision will be made in June next year, McCloud said. CCHD, which insists it does not support organizations that engage in partisan politics, became concerned that ACORN had used its money in a way that might jeopardize CCHD’s tax-exempt status. Morin said that although CCHD had funded only local affiliates of ACORN, the national group’s conduct, including its involvement in alleged election fraud, “raised serious concerns about national ACORN’s financial accountability, transparency, governance and organizational integrity.”

Of course public concerns about ACORN have only grown since Morin announced the funding cutoff. In July congressional investigators released a report concluding that ACORN was a highly partisan organization involved in racketeering and serial violations of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. CCHD and ACORN are cousins in a sense, and their common bonds must have made it excruciating for CCHD to disown ACORN. Both CCHD and ACORN were inspired by Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing. Alinsky is the Marxist Machiavelli who dedicated his 1971 manual on grassroots activism, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer, whom he called “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” Alinsky believed poor people had to rise up and take what belonged to them. “I tell people, ‘The hell with charity. The only thing you’ll get is what you’re strong enough to get.’” To that end, he developed the concept of “community organizing” to mobilize poor neighborhoods to make demands, long and loud, on public officials and the private sector. To Alinsky, “organizing” was a euphemistic term for “revolution.”

2

September 2009

FoundationWatch
Radical Goals While CCHD poses as a mainstream Christian charity trying to help the poor, it uses left-wing euphemisms in its mission statement. It seeks to address “the root causes of poverty in America through promotion and support of community-controlled, self-help organizations and through transformative education.” ACORN’s mission statement, by comparison, is far more aggressive. Its “People’s Platform,” is a manifesto for America’s downtrodden: “But we have nothing to show for the work of our hand, the tax of our labor. Our patience has been abused; our experience misused. Our silence has been seen as support. Our struggle has been ignored. Enough is enough. We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America’s door. We will not be meek, but mighty. We will not starve on past promises, but feast on future dreams.” CCHD’s website sells bumper sticks that say, “If you want peace, work for JUSTICE.” It’s a variation on the radical slogan “no justice, no peace,” that Thomas Sowell notes “has been used to justify settling legal issues in the streets, instead of in courts of law.” CCHD’s 2007 annual report declares, “Poverty is caused not simply by the lack of financial resources, but by the lack of quality education, affordable housing, health care, child care, fair wages, and vocational training.” In the same report, CCHD states that it “supports programs that help poor and low-income people to help themselves.” Indeed it does, if helping the poor consists of funding Alinsky-inspired poverty groups to help themselves to taxpayer money. Here are some of the left-wing local groups that received grants from CCHD in 2008: Chinese Progressive Association; VOZ Workers’ Rights Education Project; Texas Tenants’ Union Inc.; Border Network for Human Rights; Figueroa Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice; and Power U Center for Social Change. With names like these, do these groups seem focused primarily on helping the poor? Funding the Radical Left and Community Organizers CCHD reported distributing $10.2 million for grants and projects in 2007, up from $9.7 million the year before. But not much of CCHD’s money over the years has actually gone to the poor. Almost all of it has been disbursed to ACORN-like groups for political activities and community organizing – and many of those groups is Paul Booth, a founder and former national secretary of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), now an aide to Gerald McEntee, president of the powerful public sector union AFSCME According to the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the Midwest Academy is an Alinskyinspired school that teaches “radical activists tactics of direct action, targeting, confrontation, and intimidation.” It describes itself as “one of the nation’s oldest and best known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.” *People Improving Communities Through Organizing (PICO), was founded in 1972 by Father John Baumann, a Jesuit priest trained in Alinsky’s techniques. The training school and activist group was originally called Pacific Institute for Community Organizations, but five years ago it adopted its current name. It claims to have 53 affiliates in 17 states. Also known as the PICO National Network, the group describes its mission as trying to “increase access to health care, improve public schools, make neighborhoods safer, build affordable housing, redevelop communities, and revitalize democracy.” PICO also says, “[W]e need to insure that new Americans are welcomed and not exploited.” According to the group, “government can play a vital role in improving society.” It favors using “people of faith” to maximize “the potential for transformation – of people, institutions, and of our larger culture.” This year it has worked with Sojourners and Faithful America, which is a political arm of the National Council of Churches, to encourage churchgoers to campaign for a government takeover of the nation’s healthcare system. *Direct Action and Research Training Institute (DART) was created in 1982. It boasts 20 locally affiliated organizations in six states and claims to have trained more than 10,000 community leaders and 150 professional community organizers. Academic David Walls wrote that it “practices strictly congregation-based community organization [and]… conducts five-day orientation trainings for community leaders and has a fourmonth training program for organizers.”

Edward T. Chambers of the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF)

have been founded or are run by Catholic priests. Here are some select recipients of CCHD grants: *Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, the mother of all community organizing networks with dozens of affiliates nationwide (and affiliates in Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom), has received plenty of money over the years from CCHD. Alinsky referred to its training institute as a “school for professional radicals.” It has been headed by ex-seminarian Edward T. Chambers since Alinsky’s death in 1972. *The Midwest Academy founded by Heather and Paul Booth has been funded by CCHD, according to Catholic writer Paul Likoudis. IAF trained Heather Booth, the founder of a number of activist training academies, including the Midwest Academy, Citizen Action and USAction. Her husband

September 2009

3

FoundationWatch
*Gamaliel Foundation, founded in 1968 in Chicago, says its mission is “to be a powerful network of grassroots, interfaith, interracial, multi-issue organizations working together to create a more just and more democratic society.” Its executive director is Gregory Galluzzo, a former Jesuit priest. Originally focused on helping low-income black Americans, Galluzzo changed its focus to community organizing when he took over in 1986. It is “refocusing its efforts on wider metropolitan areas and assessing how to imsenior thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky. It has not been widely reported that CCHD has a longtime friend in the White House. According to “The Catholic Case for Obama,” a monograph published by a group called Catholic Democrats, Barack Obama “received support in his community organizing work for Chicago from the Archdiocese of Chicago and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops through the Campaign for Human Development.” (It is available at http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/pdf/ Catholic_Case_for_Obama_booklet.pdf.) Candidate Obama himself acknowledged CCHD’s importance to his early career in community organizing in an October 2008 interview with Catholic Digest: “I got my start as a community organizer working with mostly Catholic parishes on the South Side of Chicago that were struggling because the steel plants had closed. The Campaign for Human Development helped fund the project, and so very early on, my career was intertwined with the belief in social justice that is so strong in the Church.” From 1985 to 1988 Obama ran the CCHDfunded Developing Communities Project (DCP) from an office located in Chicago’s Holy Rosary Church.
Father John Baumann, founder of People Improving Communities Through Organizing (PICO)

CCHD was a “funding mechanism for radical left-wing political activism in the United States, rather than for traditional types of charities.” Catholic writer Paul Likoudis observes that CCHD could be considered “a political mechanism bonding the American Church to the welfare state.” Likoudis wrote that CCHD was created in Saul Alinsky’s twilight years specifically to serve as a permanent funding mechanism for his Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). In turn, IAF’s “model of organizing religious congregations into powerful local and regional networks has been taken up by three other groups – PICO, Gamaliel [Foundation], and DART – most of whose leaders got their start with IAF,” according to David Walls of Sonoma State University. The connections between CCHD and Alinsky were clarified in a March 2002 article in Social Policy, a journal of the ACORN-affiliated American Institute for Social Justice. While organizing in Chicago, Alinsky gained many Catholic allies. He began working in 1938 for the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago, which worked with local leaders to combat juvenile delinquency. While there, Alinsky teamed up with Joseph Meegan, a devout Catholic who was director of a local recreation facility, to create the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council. “Among friends, he could be openly contemptuous about not only Catholic rituals but religious rituals in general,” wrote Sanford D. Horwitt, an Alinsky biographer. But despite his atheism Alinsky found common cause with religious leaders on political matters. Sometimes he invoked religious imagery and used salty language to make a point: “I think that somebody who goes off in a monastery and starts praying for the salvation of mankind and doesn’t do a damn thing but sits there and prays, I think that when that guy comes up for judgment that the judge is going to sit there and say ‘why you cruddy bastard.’” Alinsky concentrated his efforts on unions, while Meegan focused on churches and community groups. Meegan helped Alinsky

pact national policy on immigration reform,” according to Walls. As of last year, Gamaliel reported having 60 affiliates in 21 states, as well as affiliates in the United Kingdom and South Africa. The group claims to represent more than one million people. Gamaliel brags on its website about its connection to President Obama. Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, which was a spinoff of the Calumet Community Religious Conference, itself a creation of several Chicago area Catholic churches. The Obama Connection Both President Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, were inspired by Alinsky’s teachings. Clinton even wrote her

Obama has said he “tried to apply the precepts of compassion and care for the vulnerable that are so central to Catholic teachings to my work [such as in] making health care a right for all Americans – I was the sponsor in the state legislature for the Bernardin Amendment, named after Cardinal Bernardin, a wonderful figure in Chicago I had the opportunity to work with who said that health care should be a right.” The Alinsky Connection CCHD has long supported groups such as ACORN that engage in left-wing community organizing. In fact, it was created specifically to do so. Former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon, a prominent Catholic layman who served on the board of Capital Research Center, complained in the late 1980s that

4

September 2009

FoundationWatch
ingratiate himself with the Chicago Archdiocese. His brother, Monsignor Peter Meegan, served as Bishop Bernard Sheil’s secretary. Over time Alinsky’s organizing efforts in the Back of the Yards, a section in the Southwest Side of Chicago, gained the support of Bishop Sheil, a liberal who founded the national Catholic Youth Organization. Alinsky also worked with Jack Egan, a student at Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary, who later became a crusading left-wing priest. Monsignor Egan became an important Alinsky ally and a member of the board of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). He also went on later to play a significant role in the creation of CCHD and the Catholic Committee on Urban Ministry (CCUM). CCHD’s kinship with ACORN is further discussed in a March 2000 Sojourners magazine article by Helene Slessarev, a professor of urban ministries at Claremont School of Theology: “Congregation-based community organizing is the fastest growing form of organizing in the country, according to Doug Lawson of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). ‘No one else approximates faith-based organizing,’ he says. The only non-faith-based organization that has built comparable power is ACORN.” Alinsky’s ideas about the aggressive use of power are controversial within church congregations, but Slessarev points out that churches are excellent sites for organizing angry and alienated people, a point not lost on CCHD and ACORN. “For people who have been marginalized by mainstream society, the church is often the one institution offering them the space to freely develop their leadership abilities by serving as deacons, trustees, musicians, and teachers. This makes the church an excellent starting point for building a powerful community organization.” Alinsky trained generations of community organizers who in turn begat their own activist groups and community organizing schools. What Made the Bishops De-Fund ACORN? 1. Embezzlement The embezzlement that led Bishop Morin to announce that Catholics would no longer be making Thanksgiving-time contributions to ACORN organizations took place around 2000. The basic facts of the crime are not in dispute. Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, stole $948,000 from the ACORN network. When the theft was discovered, ACORN leaders refused to contact law enforcement officials. Instead, they embraced an uncharacteristically libertarian approach to dispute resolution. Wade Rathke, who had covered up his brother’s action for eight years, called it a “misappropriation,” and his senior colleagues at ACORN allowed the Rathke family to quietly and privately pay restitution at the meager rate of $30,000 per year. Observers note that it would have taken more than 30 years to pay off the debt. Throughout the eight years of the cover-up, Wade Rathke kept his brother on the payroll as his $38,000 a year “assistant” at ACORN headquarters. Dale Rathke had previously served as a senior official at Citizens Consulting Inc. (CCI), the shadowy financial nerve center of ACORN. As former ACORN national board member Charles Turner said earlier this year on “The Glenn Beck Program,” CCI, an affiliate of ACORN, “is where the shell game begins.” “ACORN has over 200 different entities that the money gets moved around to - for this purpose to that purpose, this organization to that organization,” said Turner. “We believe the way the money has been moved around, they’ve been laundering money.” Former ACORN officials say these activities are controlled by the mysterious CCI, which is located in ACORN’s headquarters in New Orleans. CCI handles the financial affairs of hundreds of affiliates within the ACORN network. ACORN member dues, government money, and foundation grants, are all sucked into the CCI vortex often never to be seen again. When the cover-up became public in the summer of 2008, Drummond Pike, the founder of the far-left Tides Foundation, stepped forward and paid off the debt using his personal funds. Wade Rathke had been a member of the board of the Tides Foundation (2007 assets: $186 million), which has provided more than $400 million in grants to activist nonprofits since 2000. ACORN concealed the embezzlement by entering the missing funds as a loan to an ACORN officer on the ledgers of CCI. At the national ACORN board meeting in June last year, Wade Rathke told his fellow community organizers that he had to cover up the embezzlement so the group’s right-

September 2009

5

FoundationWatch
wing adversaries wouldn’t use it to destroy the organization. It is unclear what other ACORN activities were considered by Bishop Morin’s subcommittee. The bishops could hardly ignore the fact that ACORN is relentlessly, emphatically, exuberantly partisan. However, to protect the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates, ACORN loudly claims to be communityoriented and officially nonpartisan. 2. Partisanship During last year’s Democratic Party primaries, the Obama campaign paid $833,000 to Citizens Services Inc., another ACORN affiliate, for get-out-the vote activities. Having ACORN do the political work evidently made sense to candidate Obama, who had once led a voter drive for Project Vote, an ACORN affiliate. Obama also represented ACORN in court, and he had lectured at ACORN on organizing techniques. Last year ACORN and Project Vote proudly announced they had registered 1.3 million new voters. The impressive 1.3 million figure didn’t hold for long. After hundreds of thousands of registrations were tossed by election officials, the groups had to admit the true total was closer to 450,000. In October ACORN’s CEO and “chief organizer” Bertha Lewis, endorsed Barack Obama for president. She appeared in a YouTube video in front of a banner reading “Working Families Party: Fighting for Jobs and Justice.” (The Working Families Party, a minor New York state political party, is an ACORN affiliate.) Only Democrats were showcased in another YouTube video, called “ACORN Grassroots Democracy Campaign.” The video featured Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pennsylvania), and Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts). Democratic strategist Paul Begala says in the video, “I love ACORN because they’re a direct impact organization. They focus on meat and potatoes, the real lives of real people.” ACORN’s national political action committee, ACORN Votes, endorsed Obama. ACORN national president Maude Hurd said Obama was “the candidate who best

An undated photograph shows ACORN founder Wade Rathke (left) visiting Peru with Drummond Pike (right), founder of the Tides Foundation.

understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about like stopping foreclosures.” 3. Racketeering Surely other reported instances of ACORN malfeasance must have found their way into the bishops’ deliberations. ACORN is under investigation in at least a dozen states for electoral fraud, and is reportedly being probed by the FBI. A group of disgruntled former ACORN members called the “ACORN 8” has asked U.S. attorneys across the nation to pursue civil and criminal litigation under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, along with mail fraud and civil rights charges. Republican investigators on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a report on ACORN in July called “Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?” There is “a pattern of loose financial accounting and no firewalls” within the community-based group’s byzantine network of hundreds of affiliated groups, said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), ranking member

on the committee. “It’s very clear that that’s for a reason,” said Issa. “It is impossible to hand over government money “to ACORN and its affiliates without knowingly delivering it to partisan operatives who in fact engage in campaigning.” The report was “specifically done so that the facts speak for themselves so that very clearly we could make the case that ACORN cannot be receiving government money and should lose its tax-free status,” the congressman said. The investigators also found that by “intentionally blurring the legal distinctions between 361 tax-exempt and non-exempt entities, ACORN diverts taxpayer and taxexempt monies into partisan political activities.” They argued that ACORN should be stripped of its jealously guarded tax-exempt status because it illegally spends taxpayer dollars on partisan activities, commits “systemic fraud,” and violates racketeering and election laws. “Operationally, ACORN is a shell game

6

September 2009

FoundationWatch
played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators,” the report said. Structurally, it is “a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act.” The report examines the ACORN network’s abusive interlocking directorates, and claims that the group deliberately organized itself to escape legal and public scrutiny. “ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.” What Took CCHD So Long? ACORN misbehavior is well-documented and it’s been going on for years. The group choreographs sit-ins to force banks to lend to high-risk borrowers. It buses schoolchildren to the nation’s capital to demonstrate against tax cuts. It sends mobs to shout down conservative speakers. It raises the dead and leads them to voting booths. It’s strange that only in 2008 did CCHD get around to noticing that ACORN was crooked. CCHD director Ralph McCloud told Catholic News Service he knew some of CCHD’s past ACORN funding must have gone for voter registration. “But by the same token, we didn’t find any voter registration irregularities, the allegations we are finding now.” A massive dose of bad publicity crippled ACORN fundraising. Ironically, it has come during a recession just as the people that ACORN claims to help are most in need of real assistance, and it comes at a time when ACORN’s good friend has made it to the White House. As a candidate for president, Barack Obama promised the friends of ACORN that they were on his call list: “Before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we’re going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We’re going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America,” Senator Obama said in December 2007. It’s fortunate that Catholics noticed last year what was happening at ACORN. As their parishes geared up for “second collections” in November, Catholics throughout the nation launched local boycotts of the CCHD collection, according to a Nov. 26 Washington Times report. Parishioners at Queen of Apostles Church in Alexandria, Virginia, were informed in the church bulletin that in the 1990s the CCHD had given money “to organizations diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church, i.e. the pro-abortion group National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union.” “There are so many tremendous Catholic apostolates that work with the poor that are in need,” read the bulletin item written by the Rev. Thomas Vander Woude. “One wonders if one’s donations could be better spent elsewhere until the CCHD has proven its ability to fund truly Catholic apostolates that truly work with and help the poor?” During a Sunday homily at St. Mary’s Church, also in Alexandria, Rev. John DeCelles told his congregation, “I personally haven’t given a dime to the Campaign for Human Development in years.” Some Catholics were apparently inspired by a blog post written by the late Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, the editor of the journal First Things. Father Neuhaus wrote that the collection for CCHD was “misbegotten in concept and corrupt in practice, [and] should, at long last, be terminated.” He added that a decade ago the CCHD was “exposed as using the Catholic Church as a milk cow to fund organizations that frequently were actively working against the Church’s mission, especially in their support of pro-abortion activities and politicians.” Anita MonCrief, a Washington, D.C. area Catholic and former ACORN employee who personally witnessed ACORN abuses from the inside, told Catholic World Report that she was delighted that CCHD finally came to its senses. “I’ve been a Catholic all my life and I’ve been a little disturbed it took them so long to realize what was happening with ACORN,” MonCrief said. “ACORN and its shenanigans have been in the news since 2000 and they should have known.” Matthew Vadum is Editor of Foundation Watch and Organization Trends. This article is based on his article about CCHD and ACORN that was published in the April 2009 edition of Catholic World Report. It also relies upon DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the online encyclopedia of the left maintained by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, “The Legacy of CHD: a critical report and analysis of the U.S. Bishops’ Campaign for Human Development,” a monograph by Paul Likoudis that was published in 1996 by the Wanderer Press, and Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, his life and legacy, by Sanford D. Horwitt, published in 1989 by Knopf.

FW

Please consider contributing early in this calendar year to the Capital Research Center. We need your help in the current difficult economic climate to continue our important research. Your contribution to advance our watchdog work is deeply appreciated. Many thanks. Terrence Scanlon President
7

September 2009

FoundationWatch

PhilanthropyNotes
New York Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos criticized a federal government program that allows a $35 million matching grant from George Soros and the Open Society Institute to clear the way for New York state to access an additional $140 million in federal economic stimulus funding. Under the program 813,000 poor children will each receive $200 in back-to-school shopping money. Skelos says the hand-out is “ripe for fraud and abuse.” The $175 million is “a helicopter drop of cash” that will have a negligible impact on the economy, added E.J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, part of the Manhattan Institute. The William J. Clinton Foundation plans to construct the world’s largest solar power generating station in an Indian desert near the Pakistani border. Indian officials said the foundation has signed a memorandum of understanding to move forward with a facility with a generating capacity of 5,000 megawatts. The Clinton Foundation reportedly has $12 billion in backing from companies such as GE Energy and Microsoft. California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, a former community organizer, told the Los Angeles Times that support for limited government is tantamount to terrorism. Lawmakers in a state budget fight “were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue,” Bass said. “Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: ‘You vote for revenue and your career is over.’ I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist.” Bass founded a local group in South L.A. called the Community Coalition. The Catholic News Agency reports that Catholic Charities USA has been awarded a five-year contract by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Administration for Children and Families (ACF) section. Under the $100 million agreement, the charitable group will render disaster aid nationwide. Although CCUSA has long received federal funding in the form of government grants, Roger Conner, a spokesman for the group, said that this is the first contract CCUSA has ever had with the federal government in its 100-year history. Patients United Now, a project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, is now running an effective TV ad opposing a proposed government takeover of healthcare. It features Canadian brain tumor patient Shona Holmes who was told by Canada’s dysfunctional government-run healthcare system that she would have to wait for six months to see a specialist. “In six months I would have died,” Holmes says in the spot. She received successful treatment in the U.S. at the Mayo Clinic. President Obama plans to nominate healthcare investor and Democratic Party fundraiser Alan Solomont, current chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, to be U.S. ambassador to Spain and Andorra. CNCS oversees the AmeriCorps program. In June, the CNCS inspector general, recently fired by President Obama, issued a blistering report criticizing CNCS grants, and the House Appropriations Committee cut the administration’s 2010 budget request for the agency, citing its many managerial failings. Solomont has been a member of the CNCS board since 2000.

“What’s bad for America is good for Goldman Sachs,” writes Terry Keenan, anchor of “Cashin’ In,” a Fox News Channel show about investing. The bank makes big money selling and trading federal, state, and local debt and as one of the largest primary dealers in U.S. Treasurys it “has a huge vested interest in the United States digging a deeper and deeper hole.” Goldman forecasts the U.S. will borrow a record $3.25 trillion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, which is quadruple the total borrowed last year, Keenan writes in a New York Post op-ed. Its biggest competitors in the debt world, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, are defunct. That leaves Goldman as the “major toll collector on Washington’s red-ink railroad,” she writes. “To put it bluntly, Goldman Sachs is a play on the bankrupting of America – the more we borrow, the more they make.” Conservative pundit Ben Stein said he was recently relieved of his fortnightly column in the Sunday New York Times in part because he criticized Goldman. One of the things Stein did was make a “new set of antagonists by repeatedly and in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the ‘investment bank’ Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me questionable behavior,” he wrote in the American Spectator.

8

September 2009

\\\\

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

Exhibit F

Case 1 :09-cv-OW-NG -LB Document 1-7

Filed W 2/09 .Page 1 1 of 27

Attachment 2

Listing of Organizational Names for
Association of Community Organizatioa fr Reform Now (ACORN) and mliates, Subsidiaries, r n AIIied Organizations md

Association of Co-tJI Organheions for Reform Now ("ACOW') ACORN National Office: Brooklyn, NY ACORN Bronx, NY

ACORN Brooklyn, NY
ACORN Buffalo, NY ACORN Hempstead, NY ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Brooklyn, IVY

PROECT VOTE Bmoldyn, NY
BreokIyn, NY ACORN National Off~ce: Washington, D.C. ACORN Washington, DC ACORN HOUSING COWORATION Washington, DC ACORN Political 1334 G S ,N W Suite B Washington, DC 20005 t AISJ Washington, DC ACORN National. Office:Little Rock, AR ACORN Pine Bluff, AR ACORN Housing Corporation Little Rock, AR ACHC Little Rock, AR AM' Little Rock,AR PROJECT VOTE Little Rock, AR KABF Little Rock AR SEK3 LOCAL 100 Little Rock; AR 72206 ACORN National Office: Phoenix, AZ ACORN Glendale, AZ ACORN Mesa, AZ ACORN Tucson, AZ ACORN Housing Corporation Phoenix, AZ ACORN National m c e : DalIas, TX ACORN Arlington, 'SX ACORN Dallas, TX ACORN El Pasq TX ACORN FL WorQ TX ACORN Houston, TX ACORN Inting, TX
MH[ANY

ACORN San Antonio, TX ACORN Research Dallas, TX

ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Dallas, TX

Case 1 :09-cv-04B8-N6 -LB Document 1-7

Filed W12109 Page 12 of 27

ACORN HOUSING COWOMTION Houstm, TX ACORN HOUSING CORlrORikTIOW San Antonio, TX AGAPE Dallas, TX SEW LOCAL 100 Conpus Christi, TX SEW LOCAL 100 Dallas, TX SEW LOCAL 100 Houston, TX S E N LOCAL 100 San Antm'o, TX ACORN National Office: Boston, MA ACORN Boston, MA ACORN Brockton, MA ACORN Springfield, MA ACORN HOUSING CORPOUTION Boston, MA ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Springfrdd, MA ACORN National OBce: New Orleans, LA ACORN Baton Rouge, LA ACORN Lake Charles, ]LA ACORN New Orleans, LA ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION New Orleans, LA Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing Organization New Orleans, LA ALERT New Orleans, LA AISJ New Orleans, LA SEW LOCAL 100 Baton Rouge, LA SEW LOCAL 100 Lake Charles, LA SEIU LOCAL 100 New Orleans, LA S E N LOCAL t 00 Shveport, LA HOTROC New Orleans, LA ACORN Bay Point, CA ' ACORN Fresno, CA
ACORN LQSAngels, CA ACORN Oakland, CA ACORN Sacraments, CA ACORN San Berndino, CA ACORN Sm Diego, CA ACORN Sm Fmcisco, CA ACORN Sm Jose, CA ACORN Santa Am, CA ACORN HOUSNG CORPORATION Fresno, CA ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION h s Angel=, CA ACORN HOUSING COWORATION Oakland, CA ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Sacramento, CA ACORN HOUSING C O W O W I O N San Diego, CA ACORN HOUSlMG CORPORATION San Jose, CA ACORN HOUSING CO'RPORATION Sank AM, CA ACORN Aurora, CO

ACORN Denver, CO ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Dmver, GO

Case 1 :09-cv-O¶+iW-NG-LB Document 1-7

Filed M 2109 Page 13 of 27 I

ACORN Bridgeport, C T ACORN Hartford, CT ACORN Waterbury, CT ACORN HOUSING CORPOMTION Bridgepo* CT ACORN HOUSmG COWOMTION New Haven, CT ACORN 408 East 8th St. WiImingtnn, DE ACORN Ft, Lauderdale, FL ACORN =aieab, FL ACORN Jacksonville, E ACORN Lake Worth, FL ACORNMiami, FL ACORN Orlando, EL ACORN St. Petenburg, FI, ACORN d o the Progressive Center Tallahassee, FL ACORN Tampa, FL ACORN HOUSING CURPOUTION Miami, 1 L ;. ACORN HOUSING COXPORATXON Orlando, FJL Floridians For A 1 Miami, FE 1 ACORN Atlanta, GA ACORN HOUSING CORfOIL4TION Atlanta, GA ACORN Honolulu, HT ACORN Chicago, I L ACORN Springfield, IIL ACORN HOUSJNG COWORA.TION Chicago, EL ACORN ROUSING CORPORATION of T L SEW LOCAL 880 Chicago, IL SEIU LOCAL S 80 East St. Louis, IL SEIU LOCAL 880 Harvey, I L SEW LOCAL. 880 Peoria, IL S E N LOCAL 880 Rock Island, T L SEN LOCAL 880 Springfield, I L ACORN Indianapolis, I N ACORN IA Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas Wichita, I S ACORN buimille, KY ACQRN Baltimore, MI3 ACORN Hyattsville, MD ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Baltimm MD ACORN Detroit, MI ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Detroit, MI Edison Neighborhood Center Kalamazoo, MI ACORN S. Paul, MN t ACORN HOUSING CORPOLU'ION St. Paul, MN ACORN Financia1 Justice Center St. Paul, MN ACORN Kansas City, MO ACORN St. Louis, MO

Case 1 :09-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 1-7

Filed 3.M12109 Page 14 of 27

ACORN HOUSTNG CORPORA'IION Kansas City, MO ACORN HOUSING COWORATION St.Louis, M O
SEIU LOCAL 880 East St. Louis, M U
SEJU LOCAL 880 St. Louis, h/10 ACORN Jersey City, N J ACORN Newark, NJ ACORN Paterson, NJ ACORN HOWSING CORPORRTION Jersey City, NJ

ACORN Mbnquque, NM ACORN Las Cruces, NM ACORN HOUSXEJG CORPUEL9TION Albuquerque, NM ACORN Charlotte, NC ACORN Cincinnati, OH
ACORN Cleveland, OH ACORN Columbus, OH ACORN Toledo, OH
Lagrange Village Council To1edo, OH ACORN Portland, OR ACORN HOUSING CORPOMTION Portland, OR ACORN Allentown, PA ACORN Harrisburg, PA ACORN Philadelphia, PA ACORN Pittsburgh, PA ACORN HOUSlNE CORPORATlON Philaddphia, PA ACORN HOUSING COWORATION Pittsburgh, PA ACORN Providence, RI ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Providence, RI ACORN Memphis, TN 38104 ACORN Norfolk, VA ACORN Richnond, VA ACORN Burien, WA ACORN Mihvaukee, WI ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Milwaukee, W l ACORN Beverly, L L C ... ACOW Center for Housing, Im. Aikansas Community Housing Corporation ACORN Community &d &Assotion, hc. ACORN Cmmtmity Land Association Albuquerque NM ACORN Cornunity Land Association of Louisiana Baltimore MI3 ACORN Community Land Association ofLouisiana N m Orleans LA ACORN Cornunity Land Association of Pennsylvania, Inc. ACORN Commmity Land Association of a. ACORN Community Labor Organizing Center, h . c ACORN Fair Housing, A Project Of American Institute Washington DC: h s a s ACORN Fair Housing, h . c New Mexico ACORN Fair %using Albuquerque NM

Case 1 : 0 9 - c v - O ~ & - N G -LB Document 1-7

Filed 4%12109

Page 15 of 27

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

Case 1 :09-cv-O#M&-NG -LB Document 1-7

Filed;YJ12109

Page 16 of 27

Missouri Home Child Care Workers Association, Inc. Middb South Home Day Care Workers Associatioq Inc. Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now, Inc.

Wd-Mart Association for Reform. Now Working Families Association, XRC. Wal-Mart Workers Association, Xne. People Organizing Workfare WorkerdACORN/CWA, h . WorkerslACORN/CWA, c Inc. Texas United City-Counv Employees, Tnc. Texas United School Employees, Xnc. UniM Labor Foundation of Greater New Orleans, hc. United S e ? y Workers of America Orleans Criminal Sheriffs
SEW h a 1 loo

SEIU Local 880
Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation, hc. Agape Broadcasting Foundation, Inc. Affiliated Media Foundation MovemenG h . c Allied Media Projects, Inc . ACORN National Broadcasting Network, Inc. Alabama Radio Moveme* Inc. (Dissolved) ACORN Television in Action for Communities, Inc. CaIifomia Community Television Network

Flagstaff Broadcasting Foundation, Inc. Iowa ACORN Broadcasting Corporation Maricopa Cemmunity Television Preject, Inc, Montana Radio Network, Xnc. Radia New Mexico, Inc. Sheveport Community Television, hc. Crescent City Broadcasting Corporation KABF Radio KNON Radio ACORN Institute, Inc. ACORN Institute X c Washington DC n. ACORN Institute Dallas TX ACORN Institutelnc. New Orleans LA American Institute far Social Justice, h . c Association for Rights of Citizens, Inc. New Yark Agency for Cornunity Affairs, Xnc. Pennsylvania Institute for Community Affairs, hc. Project VotOoting for America, Inc. ACORN Tenant Union Training & Organizing Project, Inc, ACORN Law for Education Representation & Training, hc. American Enviranmental Justice Project, Inc. ACORN International, h . c
Environmental Justice Training Project, hc.

Case 1 :09-cv-W68&-NG -LB Document 1-7

F i l e ~ J 1 2 1 0 9 Page 17 of 27

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

Missowi Tax Justice Research Project, Inc. ACOF?N Beneficial Association, hc.

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

Case 3 109-cv-04888-NG -LB Document 1-7

FilecW112/09 Page 18 of 27

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

i

L -

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
In Case - ACORN et al. v. U.S.A. et al. EDNY 09-cv-4888CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'On January 20,2010, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare &d certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 51746, That I caused the service of Three (3) copies of the Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Notice of Motion and Amdavit in support of the notice of motion to intervene as a ex-relator intervenerdefendant U.S.A. Citizen'and State of New York Citizen affirmed January 20,2010, and that each set was placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage for United States Postal Service Delivery by mail upon: Darius Charney, Esq. Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012
Peter D. Leary USAAG Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N W Room 7322 Washington, DC 20530
-j7

Andrew Cuomo New York State Attorney
General 120 Broadway 24' Floor New York New York 10271

2
-:

Furthermore, Declarant provided ernail notice to the following parties-in-interest: - c 5
-3i-(r

.-. , -

Z

ru d

C>

t
E L

.s'

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful