You are on page 1of 1139

Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 39 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JUDGMENT IN A C I V I L CASE

CHRISTOPHER E A R L STRUNK

Plaintiff
vs. C A S E N U M B E R : 1:2016-CV-01496

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, E T A L

Defendants

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been
tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED A N D ADJUDGED

that Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 23, 25, 26, 29) are GRANTED and the
Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

A l l of the above pursuant to the order o f the Honorable Judge BRENDA K. SANNES, dated the
19 day of May, 2017.

DATED: May 19, 2017
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 39 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 2

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 4. Appeal as of Right

(a) Appeal in a Civil Case.

1.(1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal. of appeal—in compliance with Rule 3(c)—within the time prescribed
(A) In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and by this Rule measured from the entry of the order disposing of the last
4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the such remaining motion.
district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order (5) Motion for Extension of Time.
appealed from.
(A) The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal
(B) The notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after if:
entry of the judgment or order appealed from if one of the parties is:
(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by
(1) the United States; this Rule 4(a) expires; and
(ii) a United States agency;
(iii) a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity; or (ii) regardless of whether its motion is fded before or during the 30
(iv) a current or former United States officer or employee sued in an days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party
individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with shows excusable neglect or good cause.
duties performed on the United States' behalf— including all instances (B) A motion filett before the expiration of the time prescribed in
in which the United States represents That person when the judgment Rule 4(a)(1) or (3) may be ex parte unless the court requires
or order is entered or files the appeal for that person. otherwise. I f the motion is filed after the expiration of the prescribed
(C) An appeal from an order granting or denying an application for a time, notice must be given to the other parties in accordance with
writ of error coram nobis is an appeal in a civil case for purposes of local rules.
Rule 4(a). (C) No extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after
(2) Filing Before Entry ofJudgment. A notice of appeal filed after the the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting
court announces a decision or order—but before the entry of the the motion is entered, whichever is later.
judgment or order—is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry. (6) Reopening the Time to File an Appeal. The district court may
(3) Multiple Appeals. If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date
other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when its order to reopen is entered, but only if all the following
when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed conditions are satisfied:
by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later. (A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under
(4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77 (d) of the entry of the judgment
or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry;
(A) I f a party timely files in the district court any of the following
motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an (B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is
appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under
last such remaining motion: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77 (d) of the entry, whichever is
earlier; and
(i) for judgment under Rule 50(b);
(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.
(ii) to amend or make additional factual findings under Rule 52(b),
whether or not granting the motion would alter the judgment; (7) Entry Defined.

(iii) for attorney's fees under Rule 54 if the district court extends the (A) A judgment or order is entered for purposes of this Rule 4(a):
time to appeal under Rule 58; (i) i f Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 (a) does not require a
(iv) to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59; separate document, when the judgment or order is entered in the civil
docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79 (a); or
(v) for a new trial under Rule 59; or
(ii) i f Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 (a) requires a separate
(vi) for relief under Rule 60 i f the motion is filed no later than 28 days document, when the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket
after the judgment is entered. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a) and when the earlier of
(B) (i) If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or these events occurs:
enters a judgment—but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule * the judgment or order is set forth on a separate document, or
4(a)(4)(A)—the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or
order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such * 150 days have run from entry of the judgment or order in the civil
remaining motion is entered. docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79 (a).

(ii) A party intending to challenge an order disposing of any motion (B) A failure to set forth a judgment or order on a separate document
listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A), or a judgment's alteration or amendment when required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 (a) does not
upon such a motion, must file a notice of appeal, or an amended notice affect the validity of an appeal from that judgment or order.
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW Y O R K

CHRISTOPHER E A R L STRUNK,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:16-CV-1496 (BKS/DJS)

T H E S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A with Edmund Gerald
" J E R R Y " B R O W N J r . , Individually and as Governor;
and Alejandro " A L E X " P A D I L L A , Individually and as
Secretary of State (SOS); T H E S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
with A N D R E W M . C U O M O , Individually and as
Governor; T H E S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K B O A R D O F
E L E C T I O N S with Republican Peter S. Kosinski / Co-
Chair, Democrat Douglas A. Kellner / Co-Chair,
Republican Andrew J . Spano / Commissioner and
Democrat Gregory P. Peterson / Commissioner; T H E
C I T Y O F N E W Y O R K (NYC); Warren " B I L L D E
B L A S I O " Wilhelm J r . , Individually and as the Mayor of
N Y C ; T H E N Y C B O A R D O F E L E C T I O N S with
Commissioners of Elections: Maria R. Guastella President,
Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Jose Miguel Araujo, John
Flateau, Ph.D., Lisa Grey, Michael Michel, Michael A.
Rendino, Alan Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, Rosanna
Vargas, Commissioners; N A T I O N A L A R C H I V E S AND
RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; PRESIDENT O F T H E
UNITED STATES SENATE; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF C O M M E R C E BUREAU OF T H E
CENSUS,

Defendants.

Appearances:

Christopher Earl Strunk
Lake Luzerne, N Y 12846
Plaintiff Pro Se
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 24

Xavier Becerra
Attorney General o f California
Tamar Pachter
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
For Defendants The State of California, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., and Secretary of State
Alex Padilla

Daniel W.Coffey
Bowitch & Coffey L L C
17 Elk St.
Albany, N Y 12207
For Defendants The City of New York, Warren "Bill de Blasio " Wilhelm Jr., NYC Board of
Elections, Maria R. Guastella, Frederic M. Umane, Jose Miguel Araujo. John Flateau, Lisa
Grey, Michael Michel, Michael A. Rendino, Alan Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, and Rosanna
Vargas

Richard S. Hartunian
United States Attorney
John D. Hoggan, Jr.
Assistant United States Attorney
445 Broadway
Albany, N Y 12201
For Defendants The National Archives and Records Administration, President of the United
States Senate, and the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census

Eric T. Schneiderman
Attorney General o f the State of New York
Joshua E. JVlcMahon
Assistant Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, N Y 12224
For Defendants The State of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, The State of New York Board of
Elections, Peter S. Kosinski, Douglas A. Kellner, Andrew J. Spano and Gregory P. Peterson

2
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 3 of 24

Hon. Brenda K . Sannes, United States District Judge:

M E M O R A N D U M - D E C I S I O N AND O R D E R

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, proceeding pro se, 1 filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1983-86 and various other statutes seeking injunctive relief and alleging, inter alia, that

certain legislation in the States of New York and California enabled illegal aliens to vote in the

2016 presidential election and consequently "dilute[d] and disproportionately diminishe[d]

Plaintiffs vote property in the New York electoral college." (Dkt. No. 1). In addition to an order

restraining California and New York from delivering their "Elector Tall[ies]" to be counted in

the 2016 presidential election, Plaintiff seeks an order reducing "US House representation to (1)

House member each for California and New York . . . until the 2020 decennial census allotment

for the . . . reapportionment o f house districts without illegal aliens." (Id.). The Complaint
2

1Plaintiff is an experienced pro se litigant; he has initiated and participated in numerous lawsuits in the Northern,
Southern, and Eastern Districts of New York, Fitzgerald v. Berman, 1:02-CV-00926 (N.D.N.Y. filed July 16, 2002);
Loeberv. Spargo, 1:04-CV-01193 (N.D.N .Y. filed Oct. 15, 2004); Forjorne v. State of California, 1:06-CV-01002
(N.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 17, 2006); Strunk v. U.S. Dept. of Housing, 1:99-CV-06840 (E.D.N.Y. filed October 20,
1999); Strunk v. CIA, 1:08-CV-l 196 (E.D.NY. filed March 20, 2008); Strunk v. NYS Board of Elections, 1:08-cv-
04289 (E.D.N.Y. filed October 30, 2008); Strunk v. United States Postal Service, 1:08-CV-01744 (E.D.N.Y. filed
April 18, 2008); Strunk v. United States House of Representatives, 1:00-CV-07177 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2000);
Thomas v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1:07-cv-01171 (E.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 20, 2007); Haase v. Silver, 1:03-
CV-01320 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 18, 2004); Strunk v. Mills, 1:04-CV-4881 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 22, 2004); Strunk v.
Druskin, 1:15-CV-06817 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 27, 2015), as well as in the District of Columbia, Strunk v. Obama,
1:10-CV-00486(D.D.C. filed Mar. 24, 2010); Strunk v. U.S. Dept. of State, 1:14-CV-00995 (D.D.C. fded June 10,
2014); Strunk v. United States Dept. of State, l:08-CV-2234 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 29, 2008); Strunk v. New York
Province of the Society of Jesus, 1:09-CV-01249 (D.D.C. filed July 7, 2009); Strunk v. United States Dept. of
Commerce, 1:09-CV-01295 (D.D.C. filed July 13, 2009); Strunk v. United States Dept. of Interior, 1:10-CV-00066
(D.D.C. filed Jan. 14,2010).

2 In Wisconsin v. City of New York, the Supreme Court explained:

The Constitution requires an "actual Enumeration" of the population every 10 years and vests
Congress with the authority to conduct that census "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
Art. I , § 2, cl. 3. Through the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.. Congress has delegated to the
Secretary of the Department of Commerce the responsibility to take "a decennial census of [the]
population in such form and content as he may determine.'* § 141(a)....

The Constitution provides that the results of the census shall be used to apportion the Members of
the House of Representatives among the States. See Art. I , § 2, cl. 3 ("Representatives shall be

3
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 4 of 24

asserts seven causes o f action, including denial of substantive due process and equal protection

and conspiracy to deny equal protection, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

infringement of speech and association rights, in violation of the First Amendment;

"disproportionate dilution o f House Representation" and "vote property using illegal aliens for

partisan unjust enrichment;" and "insurrection using illegal aliens against the United States." (Id.

at pp. 25-32). Plaintiff names as Defendants: the State of California, "Jerry" Brown, the

Governor o f California, and Alex Padilla, the California Secretary of State (the "California

Defendants"); the State o f New York, Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, and the State

of New York Board o f Elections and its Commissioners (the "New York Defendants"); the City

of New York, and B i l l DeBlasio, the Mayor of New York City, the New York City Board o f

Elections and its Commissioners (the "NYC Defendants"); and the National Archives and

Records Administration, the President of the United States Senate, and the United States

Department of Commerce Bureau o f the Census (the "Federal Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 1).

Plaintiff requests that a three-judge panel be convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 to adjudicate this

case. (Id.). Presently before the Court are the parties' letter briefs concerning whether a three-

judge panel is required under § 2284 (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35), as well as Defendants' motions

to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction),

12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction), and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). (Dkt. Nos. 23, 25,

apportioned among the several States according to their respective Numbers."); Amdt. 14, § 2
("Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State. "). Because the Constitution
provides that the number of Representatives apportioned to each State determines in part the
allocation to each State of votes for the election of the President, the decennial census also affects
the allocation of members of the electoral college. See Art. I I , § 1, cl. 2 ("Each State shall appoint
a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the
State may be entitled in the Congress.").

Wisconsin v. City o/N. Y., 517 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1996) (internal ellipses omitted).

4
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 5 of 24

26, 29). Plaintiff opposes the motions to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 25). For the reasons that follow

Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted and the Complaint is dismissed.

II. COMPLAINT

A. Allegations

Though disjointed and incomprehensible at points, the pro se Complaint, construed

liberally, contains the following allegations: Plaintiff is a "person domiciled and registered to

vote in the State of New York." (Dkt. No. 1.1(1). The "1965 Immigration and Nationality Laws"

were enacted to protected United States citizens "against economic injury brought by

overwhelming invasion o f aliens into the USA." (Id. at \. "De facto public officers,"

however, failed to enforce those laws. (Id.). The Complaint further alleges that unlike the 1990

decennial census, the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses "did not ask i f a person is a US

Citizen." (Af. at 39-40).

According to the Complaint, California and New York, which are "among a minority of

other outlaw States," (id. at H 41), and have two o f the "largest unauthorized immigrant

populations" in the country, (id. at If 42), are "sanctuary States for illegal aliens that have their

domicile in a foreign state." (Id. at ^ 41). "[T]ogether the outlaw States have a substantial

majority vote for the Democrat [sic] Party . . . because Congress has illegally granted additional

U.S. House representation as i f illegal aliens had a domicile within the USA." (Id.).

The Complaint identifies the slates of electors for various political parties in California

and New York, (id. at fl 26-32, 33-38), and alleges, among other things, that the California

"Republican Party Elector Slate for Trump-Pence is not the same as that o f the [American

Independent Party]" and does not "meet the requirements of the California Election Code." (Id.

5
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 6 of 24

at 28-29). The Complaint contains similar allegations under the New York Election Code

concerning the slates o f electors in New York. (Id, at fl 34-38).

The Complaint alleges that in 2013, "California started issuing State Identification to

illegal aliens," and in 2015, enacted legislation, "Assembly Bill 1461," which enabled illegal

aliens to vote in the 2016 presidential election cycle, in violation of "Federal Election Laws,

especially related to 8 U.S.C. § 1324." (Id, at fl 44^15). Plaintiff alleges that by allowing illegal

aliens to vote in the 2016 elections, the California Defendants have "abridge[d] the legal right of

every legal American citizen living in California to enjoy the full weight and power o f their

vote." (Id. at ^ 46). Consequently, Plaintiff asserts, the California 2016 presidential election

results are "disqualified" and "electors cannot be legally or ethically counted in the 2016

election." (Id. at \.

According to the Complaint in 2014, the N Y C Defendants "started issuing N Y C

Identification to illegal aliens." (Id. at \. The Complaint also describes various aspects o f the

New York State Election Law, asserting, for instance, that " i t is illegal to challenge a person

attempting to vote once he/she has registered to vote except by affidavit ballot and or provisional

ballot under the Help America Vote Act" ( " H A V A " ) , 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq. (Id. at If 52). The

Complaint alleges that, in violation of New York Election Law and H A V A , which require "any

personal registration to vote be based only upon his/her honor at a domicile without any other

Public Officer verification may thereafter vote without challenge at the polling place," N Y C

Mayor DiBlasio "publicly advertised that any person with a N Y C Identification intending to vote

at the General Election may obtain a State of New York Identification." (Id. at If 55). 3

3 The paragraphs that follow this allegation appear to address how a minority political party gains party status in the
states of New York and Georgia, and allege that the "Republican-Democrat Party bi-partisan power sharing
conspiracy" harms "New York ballot access." (Dkt. No. 1, 56-58). It is not clear how this allegation relates to the
claims Plaintiff asserts in this case.

6
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 7 of 24

The Complaint also purports to provide statistics concerning presidential voting patterns

in New York from 2000 to 2012, which generally indicate that "Democratic" candidates received

a higher percentage o f votes than Republican candidates, and "an analysis o f New York's voting

record in presidential elections from 1900 to 2016." (Id. at 59-60). Additionally, it recounts

"voting trends" from the 2016 presidential election, and the Republicans' nationwide "major

victories at the federal level on November 8, 2016, winning the presidency and maintaining

control of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate." (Id. at 59-65). Finally, it refers to a lawsuit

pending in New York State Supreme Court, concerning the "NYC Identification Program . . .

inter alia for non-citizens," and a lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the

Northern District o f California, which, according to Plaintiff, arises from "the California law that

tells presidential electors to vote in the electoral college for the nominee o f their party." (Id. at

66-67).

B. Causes of Action

The First Cause o f Action alleges that the California and New York Defendants denied

Plaintiff substantive due process in connection with the "public administration and enforcement"

of their respective election codes and "dilute[d] and disproportionately diminish[ed] individual

vote property and expectation o f a fair ballot at the" November 8, 2016 presidential election.

(Dkt. No. 1, H 73). Plaintiff seeks to preclude "any person from holding any public office of

profit or trust." (Id. at K 74).

In the Second Cause o f action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied him equal

protection o f the law by failing "to have a uniform joint resolution for each elector slate done

before the 8 November 2016 General Election with proper notice to the voters." (Dkt. No. 1, %

77).

7
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 8 of 24

In the Third Cause o f Action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to deny equal

protection by allowing and facilitating "aliens illegally voting at the citizen's polling precincts

for the purpose o f depriving, either directly or indirectly, any citizen person or citizen class and

or citizen persons o f the equal protection of the laws." (Dkt. No. 1, U 80). As a remedy, Plaintiff

seeks the proportionate reduction of the "House members to be elected at large until the 2020

decennial census allotment for the respective state's reapportionment of house districts." (Id. at |

81).

In the Fourth Cause o f Action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants aided and abetted "the

invasion of illegal aliens by provision and theft of public funds in the enticement for the invasion

of illegal aliens to suppress citizen Plaintiffs speech and association among those similarly

situated," in violation o f the First Amendment (Dkt. No. 1, ^ 85).

In the Fifth Cause o f Action, Plaintiff alleges "disproportionate dilution of House

representation using illegal aliens for partisan unjust enrichment," and that as a result of

Defendants' actions, his "vote property" in the Electoral College has been diluted and

disproportionately diminished, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324, 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c)(4), and 18

U.S.C. § 611. (Dkt. No. 1, fl 87-94).

In the Sixth Cause o f Action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "dilutefd] and

disproportionately diminished] vote property using aliens." (Dkt. No. 1,1) 96). Plaintiff asserts

that the remedy "is to order a special master to compare all Defendants' records to ascertain the

scope o f illegal aliens both illegally resident in any or every state o f the several states and who

have participated in elections." (Id. at K 98). Plaintiff further seeks sanctions and requests a

"cutoff [of] Federal funds to each and every state of the several states [sic] malicious act." (Id. at

199).

8
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 9 of 24

In the Seventh Cause o f Action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "engaged in insurrection

using illegal aliens against the United States." (Dkt. No. 1, | 102). Plaintiff seeks an order

reducing "US House representation to (1) House member each for California and New York

respectively and thereafter, to be elected at large until the 2020 decennial census allotment for

the respective state's reapportionment of house districts without illegal aliens." (Id. at | 103).

As a remedy for the alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin: (1) the "National

Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Archivist" from delivering the "Elector Tally o f

either California or New York to the US House as substantially complete;" (2) the "President o f

the United States Senate" from delivering the "Elector Tally of either California or New York to

the US Senate as substantially complete;" (3) New York and California from delivering their

"Elector Tall[ies]" to the " N A R A Archivist and or President o f the US Senate;" (4) and

Defendants "from destroying or alternating any record of the 2016 Election Cycle back until the

2012 Election Cycle." (Dkt. No. 1, p. 33). Plaintiff also seeks an order directing: (1) the United

States Attorney and the Attorneys General o f California and New York to "assist the court in

comparison of the Voter rolls and Motor Vehicle records of the respective state[s] . . . for

comparison with Federal Immigration records, National Voter Registration database, Motor

Vehicle database and County voter registrar records;" and (2) the "US Bureau o f the Census

Director . . . to deliver an accurate certified record of all non-citizens and or illegal aliens

enumerated in every state . . . since the 2000 census . . . ." (Id. at p. 34). Plaintiff previously

moved for a temporary restraining order awarding this relief pending trial. (Dkt. No. 8, pp. 6-7).

The Court denied Plaintiffs motion in a Memorandum-Decision and Order entered on February

22, 2017, and directed the parties to brief the issue of whether a three-judge panel is required in

this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2284. (Dkt. No. 24).

9
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 10 of 24

III. DISCUSSION

A. Three-Judge Panel - 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a)

Section 2284 provides, in relevant part: " A district court of three judges shall be

convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment o f

congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body." 28 U.S.C, §

2284(a). It further provides: "Upon the filing of a request for three judges, the judge to whom the

request is presented shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately

notify the chief judge o f the circuit, who shall designate two other judges, at least one of whom

shall be a circuit judge." Id. at § 2284(b)(1).

"[T]he three-judge requirement in 22 U.S.C. § 2284 is jurisdictional." Kalson v.

Paterson, 542 F.3d 281, 287 (2d Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court has instructed that:

The subsequent provision o f § 2284(b)(1), that the district judge shall commence
the process for appointment o f a three-judge panel 'unless he determines that
three judges are not required,' need not and therefore should not be read as a grant
o f discretion to the district judge to ignore § 2284(a). It is not even framed as a
proviso, or an exception from that provision, but rather as an administrative detail
that is entirely compatible with § 2284(a).

Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450, 454 (2015). Thus, in reviewing a request for three judges,

the court need only "determine . . . whether the request for three judges is made in a case covered

by § 2284(a)—no more, no less." Id. at 455 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

However, "[ajbsent a substantial federal question, even a single-judge district court lacks

jurisdiction, and *[a] three-judge court is not required where the district court itself lacks

jurisdiction of the complaint or the complaint is not justiciable in the federal courts/" Id.

(quoting Gonzalez v. Automatic Emps. Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 100 (1974)). The Supreme

Court has described this standard as a "low bar." Id. at 456. The Court has "long distinguished

between failing to raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes . . . and failing

10
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 11 of 24

to state a claim for relief on the merits; only 'wholly insubstantial and frivolous' claims implicate

the former." Id. at 455 (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)). The Court has

equated "constitutional insubstantiality . . . with such concepts as 'essentially fictitious,' 'wholly

insubstantial,' 'obviously frivolous,' and 'obviously without merit.'" Id. (quoting Goosby v.

Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518 (1973)).

In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that a three-judge panel is required because this action

challenges "the constitutionality of the apportionment of California and New York congressional

districts associated with the 2016 State's [President of the United States/Vice President of the

United States] Electoral College under the 14th Amendment; and 28 U.S.C. § 1343." (Dkt. No.

1, p. 3). Plaintiff further asserts that "Congress has illegally granted additional U.S. House

representation as i f illegal aliens had a domicile within the USA." (Id. at *[ 41). The Complaint

also contains a request to "proportionately reduce House members to be elected at large until the

2020 decennial census allotment for the respective state's reapportionment o f house districts." 4

(Id. at ^ 81; see ^ 103). In the Sixth Cause of Action, alleging that the Defendants misused

public funds to entice aliens to vote, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants gerrymandered, creating

majority-minority districts that include more aliens and upstate districts that include fewer aliens.

(Id. at If 97).

The Defendants do not agree about whether this is an action "challenging the

constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts," within the meaning of 28

U.S.C. § 2284(a). The Federal Defendants argue that it is not because "most o f Plaintiff s causes

of action rest on the allegation that California and New York issued identification cars [sic] to

'illegal aliens' which enable them to register and vote in the 2016 presidential election." (Dkt.

4This request for relief appears in connection not with Plaintiffs claims regarding apportionment but with his
allegation that Defendants conspired to allow noncitizens to vote in violation of the equal protection clause. (Dkt.
No. 1, U 81). Reading the Complaint liberally, however, the Court construes it as part of his reapportionment claim.

11
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 12 of 24

No. 34, p. 2). The City and State Defendants argue that "the case, on its face, presents a

challenge to the apportionment of congressional districting, and thus implicates Section 2284."

(Dkt. No. 32, p. 2). While the Complaint is, as the Federal Defendants argue, primarily focused

on alleged conduct that led to alleged voting by illegal aliens, there are a few scattered references

to apportionment and the inclusion of illegal aliens in the census. The Court notes that some

courts have expressed doubt as to whether a challenge to a census practice falls within § 2284(a).

See, e.g., Federation for American Immigration Reform v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564, 577-78

(D.D.C. 1980) (three-judge court) (noting that a challenge to a census practice that produces the

data on which apportionment is based "does not directly" affect apportionment and "does not

seem" to fall within § 2284); Adams v. Clinton, 26 F. Supp. 2d 156, 161 (D.D.C. 1998) (finding

that a three-judge court was required for an action challenging the existing allocation of

representatives and distinguishing actions challenging census practices that might affect

apportionment); Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mosbacher, 785 F. Supp. 230, 236-37 (D.

Mass. 1992) (noting serious doubts about whether Congress intended to require three-judge

courts for all census litigation). The Court, however, need not definitively resolve whether this

action falls within § 2284(a) because even it if were applicable, the Complaint must be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction.

B. Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1)

Defendants argue that a three-judge panel is "not required" and this action must be

dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing and the Complaint is moot. The Supreme Court has

"always recognized a single judge's power to dismiss a complaint for want o f general subject-

matter jurisdiction." Gonzalez v. Automatic Emp, Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 97 n.14 (1974); see

also 17A C. Wright & A . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4235 (3d ed.) ("The single

12
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 13 of 24

judge can also dismiss i f the plaintiff lacks standing or the suit is otherwise not justiciable in the

district court."); Giles v. Ashcroft, 193 F. Supp. 2d 258, 262-64 (D.D.C. 2002) (explaining that

because "[a]n individual district court judge may consider threshold jurisdictional challenges

before convening a three-judge panel" and the plaintiff alleged only "general grievances," the

plaintiff failed to demonstrate standing and a three-judge court was "not warranted").

Accordingly, the Court first addresses Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack o f subject matter

jurisdiction.

1. Standard

"In resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the district court must take all

uncontroverted facts in the c o m p l a i n t . . . as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor o f

the party asserting jurisdiction." Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d

239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Amidax Trading Grp. v. S. W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140, 145 (2d

Cir. 2011) (per curiam)). "Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is proper when the

district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a case." Sokolowski v.

Metro. Transp. Auth., 723 F.3d 187, 190 (2d Cir. 2013). In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court may consider competent evidence outside the pleadings,

such as affidavits and exhibits. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Once subject matter jurisdiction is challenged,

the plaintiff "has the burden o f proving by a preponderance o f the evidence that jurisdiction

exists." Giammatteo v. Newton, 452 F. App'x 24, 27 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Makarova, 201 F.3d

at 113).

13
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 14 of 24

2. Standing

The New York, N Y C , and Federal Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on the

ground that Plaintiff lacks standing. (Dkt. No. 23-1, p. 14; 26-1, p. 6; 29-1, p. 7). "Because

standing is jurisdictional under Article TIT of the United States Constitution, it is a threshold issue

in all cases." Shearson Lehman Button, Inc. v. Wagoner, 944 F.2d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1991)

(citing Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State,

Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-76 (1982)). "The judicial power of the United States, and thus the

jurisdiction of federal courts, is limited by Article III o f the Constitution to "Cases and

Controversies." Hedges v. Obama, 724 F.3d 170, 188 (2d Cir. 2013). " A n important component

of the Article I I I jurisdictional limit of federal courts to deciding 'cases' or 'controversies' is

standing." All. For Envtl. Renewal, Inc. v. Pyramid Crossgates Co., 436 F.3d 82, 85 (2d Cir.

2006).

"[T]he doctrine o f standing . . . requires every federal plaintiff to establish, 'for each

claim he seeks to press,' a personal injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and

likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit

Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of N. Y. Mellon, 175 F.3d 154, 159 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006)). To establish Article I I I standing, a

plaintiff must show "(1) an 'injury in fact,' (2) a 'sufficient causal connection between the injury

and the conduct complained of,' and (3) a 'likel[ihood]' that the injury ' w i l l be redressed by a

favorable decision.'" Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377, 383 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, U . S . _ , 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014)). To be sufficient,

an injury must be "an invasion o f a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and

particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Montesa v.

14
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 15 of 24

Schwartz, 836 F.3d 176, L95 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal mark omitted) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). A mere generalized grievance shared by the public at

large is insufficient to establish a justiciable case or controversy. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., U.S. , 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1387 n.3

(2014).

The allegations in the Complaint fail to identify any concrete harm that Plaintiff has

suffered. The First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of action stem from Plaintiffs claims

regarding Defendants' alleged "use [of] illegal alien voters at the 8 November 2016 General

Election," and inclusion o f illegal aliens in the decennial census.(Dkt. No. 1, pp. 2, 25). Plaintiff

claims that the "use" o f illegal aliens "at the . . . General Election" "dilute[d] and

disproportionately diminished] individual vote property and expectation o f a fair ballot" in

violation of his right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dkt. No. 1,

pp. 2, 25). According to the Complaint, because total population, including illegal aliens, as

determined by the most recent decennial census is used by New York and California to apportion

congressional districts, Plaintiff, as a resident of "upstate New York" where there are "nominal

non-citizens in comparison" to the New York City area, suffers from vote dilution. (Dkt. No. 1,

pp. 29-31). The Complaint further alleges that identification programs in New York City and

California contribute to the influx o f illegal aliens to downstate New York and California. (Id.).

This, Plaintiff asserts, further skews the population in those areas in favor of assigning greater

House representation and dilutes his vote. (Id.).

In similar cases—where plaintiffs have claimed injury based on (1) their status as voters

and lawful residents and (2) the failure to exclude from the apportionment base illegal aliens or

non-citizens counted in the census—courts have found standing lacking. In Federation for

15
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 16 of 24

American Immigration Reform v. Klutznick, the plaintiffs alleged that "the census method and

resulting apportionment is . . . unconstitutional in that illegal aliens should be separately counted

and excluded from the apportionment base." 486 F. Supp. 564, 569 (D.D.C. 1980). The plaintiffs

asserted standing based on their "status as voters and lawful residents," and alleged "that some

one or more of them w i l l likely suffer the loss o f at least one national or state representative, and

receive proportionately fewer federal benefits i f the census proceeds as planned than i f illegal

aliens were counted and then eliminated from the apportionment base." Id. The three-judge panel

found that the harm the plaintiffs alleged they would suffer and the extent to which a state would

"benefit by the relief requested" was "a matter o f speculation." Id. at 570. The court explained:

While the plaintiffs estimate that between one and sixteen congressional seats w i l l
be affected depending on the inclusion o f illegal aliens, they can do no more than
speculate as to which states might gain and which might lose representation . . . .
Depending on how many illegal aliens there are, where they live, how accurate
the census count is, and the interplay o f all the other population factors which
might affect apportionment, any number o f states might benefit by the relief
requested . . . . Therefore, none o f the plaintiffs are able to allege that the weight
of his or her vote in the next decade w i l l be affected by the expected method of
taking the census and apportioning congressional seats.

Id.

In Strunk v. United States Department of Commerce, one o f Plaintiff s prior cases,

Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were "counting in the 2010 census persons whom [he] labels

'tourists.' Tourists are neither citizens nor permanent residents of the United States, and

according to plaintiff, they should not be counted for the purpose of apportioning Congressional

representation." No. 09-1295, 2010 WL960428, at * 1 , 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *2 (D.D.C.

Mar. 15, 2010). The court found that Plaintiff lacked standing, explaining:

The basis for his assertions that 'tourists' are to be counted in the 2010 Census is
unclear, and the potential impact of their inclusion is speculative at best. His
challenge to the 2010 Census raises an "abstract question[] o f wide public
significance," and thus he fails to allege an injury in fact, that is, "an invasion of a

16
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 17 of 24

legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual
or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."

2010 W L 960428, at *3, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *9-10 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.

490, 500 (1975), Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal citation omitted)).

In Sharrow v. Brown, the Second Circuit found the plaintiff, who alleged that the Census

Bureau had failed to count and exclude disenfranchised voters from the apportionment base,

lacked standing. 447 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1971). The plaintiff, who also sought a three-judge panel,

contended that "the second sentence o f Section 2 o f the Fourteenth Amendment (hereinafter

designated for convenience, 14/2) requires the Census Bureau to compile statistics on the number

of male adults in each State whose right to vote is denied or abridged so that the House of

Representatives may be properly apportioned according to the formula mandated by 14/2." Id. at

96. The plaintiff argued "that the proper enforcement of 14/2 [would] result in an increase in the

representation o f New York State in the House o f Representatives, and therefore, that,

derivatively he, as a citizen of New York, will receive an augmented voice in congressional

matters." Id. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial o f the plaintiffs request for a

three-judge panel and dismissal of the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing.

The Court explained:

To establish standing in the present case, Sharrow would have to show, at least
approximately, the apportionment his interpretation of 14/2 would yield, not only
for New York but for every other State as well. This would necessitate a state-by-
state study of the disenfranchisement of adult males, a task o f great proportions.
And even after approximate nation-wide reapportionment figures were derived, it
might well be that, because o f population shifts, or because New York itself
disenfranchised a portion of its adult males, New York's representation would not
be increased as Sharrow claims.

Sharrow has introduced no evidence that New York's loss o f six representatives
over the past thirty years is the result of anything other than shifts in population.
Without such evidence, we cannot say that Sharrow has established his standing

17
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 18 of 24

to seek the relief he requests. His sincere effort, an effort which we respect, to
rectify what he considers a grave constitutional mistake is not enough. He must
establish that the failure to enforce 14/2 has resulted in a detriment to his rights o f
representation in Congress and this he has failed to do.

Id. at96-97. 5

In this case, Plaintiff alleges, as best the Court can discern, that Defendants "entice[d] ,!

via identification card programs and other means "the invasion o f illegal aliens" to the New York

City area and to the State of California. (Dkt. No. 1, \. These illegal aliens were counted in

the 2010 decennial census, which, according to Plaintiff, unconstitutionally increased downstate

New York's and California's total population figures, apportionment, and number of seats in the

United States House of Representatives, leading to the "disproportionate^ d i l u t i o n of]

[Plaintiffs] intra and interstate representation" and "vote property." (Dkt. No. 1, p. 31). These

allegations fail to show that Plaintiff suffered any concrete injury. The alleged causal connection

between governmental identification card programs or the inclusion o f illegal aliens in the

decennial census and the dilution o f Plaintiffs vote and congressional representation is too

attenuated to allow a conclusion that his alleged injury could be redressed by a favorable

decision in this case. See Fed'n for Am. Immigration Reform, 486 F. Supp. at 572 ("[W]hile we

may assume, and indeed be convinced that there w i l l be some effect on apportionment by the

inclusion of illegal aliens in the population base, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate with

requisite specificity where that effect will fall, so that we would be able to find a 'concrete

injury' to some particular resident of some particular state."). At most, the Complaint raises

"abstract questions o f wide public significance," Worth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 500, that are best

characterized as generalized grievances about the inclusion o f illegal aliens in census figures and

5 The Court notes that the Supreme Court recently rejected an argument that a state must draw its legislative districts
from the voter-eligible population. Evemvel v. Abbott, JJ.S. , 136 S.Ct. 1120, 1123 (2015) ("[B] ased on
constitutional history, this Court's decisions, and longstanding practice . . . a State may draw its legislative districts
based on total population" using numbers from the decennial census.)

18
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 19 of 24

the identification card programs in New York City and California. Thus, the Court concludes
6

that Plaintiff lacks standing, and the claims concerning the Defendants' dilution o f his vote using

illegal aliens (the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes o f Action) must be dismissed.

Likewise, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims concerning the Electoral College, and

2016 General Election. The Second Cause o f Action alleges that Defendants denied Plaintiff

"equal protection among those citizens similarly situated" by failing "to have a uniform joint

resolution for each elector slate done before the 8 November 2016 General Election with proper

notice to the voters," in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dkt. No. 1, p. 26). These are

generalized grievances about the administration of the General Election and the Electoral

College that appear to concern the country as a whole and do not contain facts alleging that

Plaintiff suffered injury to a concrete and particularized legally protected interest. Thus, the

Second Cause o f Action is dismissed.

The same deficiency is present in Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action, in which Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants have infringed his "speech and association rights among those citizens

similarly situated" in violation of the First Amendment. (Dkt. No. 1, p. 28). This cause o f action,

like the others, arises from Plaintiffs allegation that Defendants have "aidjed] and abet[ted] the

"invasion of illegal aliens" and thereby violated his rights to freedom o f speech and association.

(Id. at p. 29). In the absence of a concrete or particularized injury to his First Amendment rights,

Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this claim.

6In Forjorne v. California, another of Plaintiff s prior cases, Plaintiff, and others, alleged "that various states. . .
failed to prevent non-citizens from voting in elections" and that "by allowing non-citizens," including illegal aliens,
"to vote, their votes have been effectively diluted." No. 1:06-CV1002LEK/RFT, 2010 WL 653651, at *2, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 14593, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2010), aff'd, 425 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2011). The district court found
that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the complaint "consistently fail[ed] to allege any concrete harm
personally suffered by Plaintiffs or explain how such harm could be traceable to the Defendants," alleged only "non-
particularized injuries and generalized grievances," and left "unclear how any of the alleged harms could be
redressed by a favorable result in the courts." Id. at *4, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14593, at *17.

19
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 20 of 24

Since Plaintiff lacks standing for any of his claims, a three-judge panel is not required.

3. Mootness

Even supposing that Plaintiff had standing to bring claims with respect to the 2016

presidential election and elector tallies, as the Court discussed in its prior decision, these claims

are moot. (Dkt. No. 24, pp. 12-13). The Electoral College voted on December 19, 2016, and the

President and Vice President were elected and have been inaugurated. See Pope v. Cty. of

Albany, 687 F.3d 565, 569 (2d Cir. 2012) ("The occurrence o f the action sought to be enjoined

normally moots the request for preliminary injunctive relief because this Court has no effective

relief to offer once the action has occurred.'") (quoting Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. ofN. Y.,

Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (Sotomayor, J.)). It is therefore "impossible for the court

to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party." In re Kurtzman, 194 F.3d 54, 58

(2d Cir. 1998). While there is an "exception to mootness for cases 'capable of repetition, yet

evading review,'" In re Zarnel, 619 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Van Wie v. Pataki,

267 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2001)), there is no basis on which to find that this exception applies

here. See Strunk v. United States House of Representatives, 24 F. App'x 2 1 , 22-23 (2d Cir. 2001)

("Strunk's request for injunctive relief is moot because the presidential electors were already

seated at the December 18, 2000 meeting of the electoral college and the President and Vice

President o f the United States have been elected."). I f the "same controversy" arises in

connection with the 2020 elections, Plaintiff "can file a timely petition for relief at that time." Id.

at 23. 7

1 Because Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the claims alleged in the Complaint and the claims concerning the
Electoral College are moot, the Court does not reach Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim.

20
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 21 of 24

C. Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(2)

The California Defendants move to dismiss for lack o f personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. No.

25-1). "A plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction over a person or entity

against whom it seeks to bring suit." Troma Entm V, Inc. v. Centennial Pictures, Inc., 729 F.3d

215, 217 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30, 34 (2d

Cir. 2010)). See also Pitts v. O'Geary, 914 F. Supp. 2d 729, 732 (E.D.N.C. 2012)

(acknowledging that while "only a three-judge court may rule on the merits o f a claim" failing

under § 2284, "the court, sitting alone, may consider whether it has persona! jurisdiction over

defendants and dismiss the complaint i f it lacks such jurisdiction").

"The plaintiffs obligation varies . . . depending on whether the jurisdictional

determination is made prior to or subsequent to discovery." Capitol Records, LLC v. VideoEgg,

Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 349, 356 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9,2009) (citing Ball v. Metallurgie Hohoken-

Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990)). "Prior to discovery, a plaintiff can defeat a

Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss by pleading 'good faith, legally sufficient allegations of

jurisdiction, i.e., by making a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.'" Kiobel v. Royal Dutch

Petroleum Co., No. 02 Civ. 7618(KMW)(HBP), 2010 W L 2507025, at *7, 2010 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 61452, at *29 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2010) (quoting Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd, 148

F.3d 181, 184 (2d Cir. 1998)). This is in contrast to the standard that applies to a Rule 12(b)(2)

motion after jurisdictional discovery has been conducted, at which point "a plaintiffs prima facie

showing must be 'factually supported;' that is, it must 'include an averment of facts that, i f

credited by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant/"

Id. (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 1996))

(internal punctuation and footnote omitted).

21
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 22 of 24

"In a federal question case where a defendant resides outside the forum state, a federal

court applies the forum state's personal jurisdiction rules i f the federal statute does not

specifically provide for national service o f process." PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander, 103 F.3d

1105, 1108 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). New York's long arm statute

provides that courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who "commits a

tortious act without the state causing injury to person . . . within the state" i f he or she:

(i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course o f
conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services
rendered, in the state, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have
consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or
international commerce.

N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3). Here, Plaintiff alleges no facts indicating that the State of California,

the Governor, or Secretary o f State regularly engages in a "persistent court o f conduct," "derives

substantial revenue" from goods or services rendered in New York, or derives "substantial

revenue from interstate or international commerce." Id.

Even i f Plaintiff could show that New York allowed for personal jurisdiction, there is no

basis on which to find that he could satisfy the due process test for personal jurisdiction, which

has two parts: "the 'minimum contacts' inquiry and the 'reasonableness' inquiry." Waldman v.

Palestine Liberation Organization, 835 F.3d 317, 331 (2d Cir. 2016). The court must first

determine whether the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the court's

exercise o f personal jurisdiction. Id. The reasonableness inquiry asks whether the assertion of

personal jurisdiction comports with 'traditional notions o f fair play and substantial justice'—that

is, whether it is reasonable under the circumstances o f the particular case." Id. (quoting Daimler

AG v. Bauman, _ U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014)). Plaintiff presents no arguments or

allegations showing the California Defendants' contacts with New York or that personal

22
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 23 of 24

jurisdiction is reasonable under the circumstances o f this case, which involve a New York voter.

See Smith v. United States, No. L12-CV-00846 LEK, 2012 W L 6597835, at *4, 2012 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 178419. at *11 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2012) (finding that the court "clearly lacks personal

jurisdiction over the New Hampshire Defendants under both prongs o f the jurisdictional

inquiry," in § 1983 action where the plaintiff alleged no facts indicating the New Hampshire

defendants had a connection with the State of New York) aff'd and remanded on different

ground, 554 F. App'x 30 (2d Cir. 2013); Forjone, 2010 W L 653651, at *5, 2010 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 14593, at *20 (finding the plaintiffs failed to assert a basis for personal jurisdiction over

the States of Texas, California, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico, where the plaintiffs

failed to allege conduct by the States "that caused harm to them" and did not "reside in any o f

these States"). Similarly, there is no basis for general jurisdiction over the California

Defendants. 8 Waldman, 835 F.3d at 332-33.

IV. AMENDED COMPLAINT

Rule 15(a)(2) instructs that "courts should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so

requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). " ' A pro se complaint should not [be] dismissed] without [the

Court's] granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any

indication that a valid claim might be stated.'" Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 139

(2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Chavis v. Chappius, 6\S¥3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010)). The Second

Circuit has identified the following principles as governing a court's determination as to whether

to allow a pro se litigant to amend: "that motions to amend should be granted freely in the

8The State of California moves to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs claims against it are barred by sovereign
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. (Dkt. No. 25-1, p. 10). Having concluded that Plaintiff lacks standing
and that there is no personal jurisdiction over the California Defendants, the Court does not reach that issue. See,
e.g., Duckworth v. State Bel of Elections, 213 F. Supp. 2d 543, 548 (D. Md. 2002) (declining to address
"defendants' arguments based on sovereign immunity" after concluding that the plaintiffs claims were insubstantial
and a three-judge panel was not required), aff'd sub nom, Duckworth v. State Admin. Bd, of Election Laws, 332 F.3d
769 (4th Cir. 2003).

23
Case l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/19/17 Page 24 of 24

interests of justice, that a pro se complaint generally should not be dismissed without granting

the plaintiff leave to amend at least once, and that a pro se plaintiffs proposed amended

complaint should be construed to raise the strongest arguments it suggests." Id. at 140. Having

considered these principles, and having construed the Complaint to raise the strongest arguments

it suggests, the Court nevertheless concludes that amendment would be futile. There are no facts

in any o f Plaintiff s submissions that suggest that the jurisdictional deficiencies discussed above

can be cured. See id. at 140 ("Leave to amend may properly be denied i f the amendment would

be futile.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); Pudlin v. Office for (Not of) Civil

Rights of the United States Dep't ofEduc., 186 F. Supp. 3d 288, 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("Leave to

amend would be futile in this case, for the subject matter jurisdiction deficiencies discussed

above are substantive and cannot be cured"). Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed without

leave to amend.

V. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, it is

O R D E R E D that Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 23, 25, 26, 29) are

G R A N T E D ; and it is further

O R D E R E D that the Complaint is D I S M I S S E D without prejudice; and it is further
9

O R D E R E D that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

I T I S SO O R D E R E D .

Date: May 19,2017
Syracuse, New York Brenda K . Sannes
U.S. District Judge

? "[WJhere a complaint is dismissed for lack of Article III standing, the dismissal must be without prejudice, rather
than with prejudice." Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 54 (2d Cir. 2016). Similarly, "dismissal for
want of personal jurisdiction is without prejudice." Smith v. United States, 554 F. App'x 30, 32 (2d Cir. 2013).

24
PRO SE

U.S. District Court
Northern District of New York ­ Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE ­ Version
6.1.1] (Albany)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:16­cv­01496­BKS­DJS

Strunk v. The State of California et al Date Filed: 12/15/2016
Assigned to: Judge Brenda K. Sannes Jury Demand: None
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights:
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Voting
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government
Defendant
Plaintiff
Christopher Earl Strunk  represented by Christopher Earl Strunk 
Individually of New York 141 Harris Avenue 
Lake Luzerne, NY 12846 
718­414­3760 
PRO SE

V.
Defendant
The State of California represented by Tamar Pachter 
California Department of Justice 
455 Gold Gate Avenue, Suite
11000 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
415­703­5500 
Fax: 415­703­1234 
Email: tamar.pachter@doj.ca.gov 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr.  represented by Tamar Pachter 
Individually and as Governor  (See above for address) 
also known as LEAD ATTORNEY 
Jerry ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Alejandro Padilla  represented by Tamar Pachter 
Individually and as Secretary of (See above for address) 
State (SOS)  LEAD ATTORNEY 
also known as ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex
Defendant
The State of New York  represented by Joshua E. McMahon 
Andrew M. Cuomo, individually New York State Attorney General
and as Governor ­ Albany 
The Capitol 
Albany, NY 12224 
518­776­2603 
Email:
joshua.mcmahon@ag.ny.gov 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
The State of New York Board of represented by Joshua E. McMahon 
Elections  (See above for address) 
with Republican Peter S. Kosinski LEAD ATTORNEY 
/ Co­Chair, Democrat Douglas A. ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kellner / Co­Chair, Republican
Andrew J. Spano / Commissioner
and Democrat Gregory P.
Peterson / Commissioner

Defendant
The City of New York represented by Daniel W. Coffey 
Bowitch, Coffey Law Firm 
17 Elk Street 
Albany, NY 12207 
518­813­9500 
Fax: 518­207­1916 
Email: coffey@bcalbany.com 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Warren Wilhelm, Jr.  represented by Daniel W. Coffey 
Mayor of the City of New York  (See above for address) 
also known as LEAD ATTORNEY 
Bill De Blasio ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
The New York City Board of represented by Daniel W. Coffey 
Elections  (See above for address) 
with Commissioners of Elections: LEAD ATTORNEY 
Maria R. Guastella President, ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frederic M. Umane Secretary,
Jose Miguel Araujo, John Fateau,
Ph.D., Lisa Grey, Michael Michel,
Michael A. Rendino, Alan
Schulkin, Simon Shamoun,
Rosanna Vargas, Commissioners
Defendant
National Archives and Records represented by John D. Hoggan , Jr. 
Administration U.S. Department of Justice ­
Albany Office 
445 Broadway 
James T. Foley Courthouse 
Albany, NY 12201 
518­431­0247 
Fax: 518­431­0386 
Email: john.hoggan@usdoj.gov 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
President of the United States represented by John D. Hoggan , Jr. 
Senate (See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Department of represented by John D. Hoggan , Jr. 
Commerce Bureau of the Census (See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text
12/15/2016 1  COMPLAINT against Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., National
Archives and Records Administration, Alejandro Padilla, President
of the United States Senate, The City of New York, The New York
City Board of Elections, The State of California, The State of New
York, The State of New York Board of Elections, United States
Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census, Warren Wilhelm,
Jr. (Filing fee $400 receipt number ALB010158) filed by
Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7
Exhibitg G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11
Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Civil Cover Sheet)
(khr) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 2  Summons Issued as to The State of California. (Attachments: # 1 as
to Edmund Brown, Jr., # 2 as to Alejandro Padilla, # 3 as to The
State of New York, # 4 New York State of Board of Election, # 5
The City of New York, # 6 Warren Wilhelm, Jr., # 7 The New
York City Board of Elections, # 8 National Archives and RFecords
Administration, # 9 President of the United States Senate, # 10
United States Department of Commerce Bureau)(khr) (Entered:
12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 3  G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED: Initial Conference set for
3/16/2017 10:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge Daniel J.
Stewart. Civil Case Management Plan must be filed and Mandatory
Disclosures are to be exchanged by the parties on or before
3/9/2017. (Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2, mandatory disclosures are
to be exchanged among the parties but are NOT to be filed with the
Court.) (khr) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 4  PRO SE HANDBOOK and NOTICE issued and explained to pro
se plaintiff at time complaint was filed on 12/15/2016 at the
counter. (khr) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 5  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION for Temporary Restraining
Order by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum
of Law, # 2 Exhibit ­ Complaint, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5
Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit
G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, #
14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M)(khr) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/16/2016 6  TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's "Order to show
cause with temporary restraining order" and attached documents.
(Dkt. No. 5 ). The Local Rules require the moving party to "serve
any application for temporary restraining order on all other parties"
(N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(f)), that "a motion brought by Order to Show
Cause... include an affidavit clearly and specifically showing good
and sufficient cause why the standard Notice of Motion procedure
cannot be used," and that the "moving party give reasonable
advance notice of the application for an Order to Show Cause to
the other parties, except in those circumstances where the movant
can demonstrate, in a detailed and specific affidavit, good cause
and substantial prejudice that would result from the requirement of
reasonable notice." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(e). There is no indication in
Plaintiff's papers that he served his filing on Defendants, or that he
gave Defendants reasonable advance notice of his application. Nor
has Plaintiff filed an affidavit showing "good and sufficient cause
why the standard the Notice of Motion procedure cannot be used."
Accordingly, Plaintiff's proposed order (Dkt. No. 5 ) is denied
without prejudice to refiling following service of the filing and
upon curing the above­identified defects. Any refiling should
include briefing on the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 2284(a) to the
allegations in the Complaint. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge
Brenda K. Sannes on 12/16/2016. (Copy served via regular mail)
(sr, ) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/30/2016 7  SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Filed by Christopher Earl
Strunk, Pro Se. Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr. served on 12/23/2016,
answer due 1/17/2017; National Archives and Records
Administration served on 12/23/2016, answer due 2/24/2017;
Alejandro Padilla served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1/17/2017;
President of the United States Senate served on 12/23/2016, answer
due 2/24/2017; The City of New York served on 12/23/2016,
answer due 1/17/2017; The New York City Board of Elections
served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1/17/2017; The State of
California served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1/17/2017; The State
of New York served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1/17/2017; The
State of New York Board of Elections served on 12/23/2016,
answer due 1/17/2017; United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census served on 12/23/2016, answer due 2/24/2017;
Warren Wilhelm, Jr. served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1/17/2017.
(Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Mailing Envelope)(rep)
(Entered: 01/04/2017)
12/30/2016 8  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION for Temporary Restraining
Order filed by Christopher Earl Strunk, Pro Se. {Supporting
exhibits attached}. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit with Exhibits, # 2
Cover Letter with Affidavit of Service, # 3 Mailing Envelope)(rep)
(Entered: 01/04/2017)
01/04/2017 9  NOTICE of Appearance by John D. Hoggan, Jr on behalf of
National Archives and Records Administration, President of the
United States Senate, United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)
(Hoggan, John) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
01/11/2017 10  NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel W. Coffey on behalf of The
City of New York, The New York City Board of Elections, Warren
Wilhelm, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation Certificate of Service)
(Coffey, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
01/11/2017 11  TEXT ORDER: Defendants are directed to file a response to
Plaintiff's 8 Order to Show Cause Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order by January 25, 2017. Reply papers shall by filed
by February 1, 2017. This motion will be heard on submission of
the papers. The parties will be notified if oral argument is
necessary. SO ORDERED by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 1/11/17.
(Copy served on plaintiff via regular mail)(rjb, ) (Entered:
01/11/2017)
01/13/2017 12  NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua E. McMahon on behalf of The
State of New York, The State of New York Board of Elections
(Attachments: # 1 Cover letter and request for extension to submit
an answer or make motions, # 2 Certificate of Service)(McMahon,
Joshua) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
01/13/2017 13  Letter Motion from Daniel W. Coffey, Esq. for The City of New
York, The New York City Board of Elections, Warren Wilhelm, Jr.
requesting extension of time to respond to complaint submitted to
Judge Stewart . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of Service)
(Coffey, Daniel) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/18/2017 14  LETTER RESPONSE by Christopher Earl Strunk re 13 Letter
Motion from Daniel W. Coffey, Esq. for The City of New York,
The New York City Board of Elections, Warren Wilhelm, Jr.
requesting extension of time to respond to complaint submitted to
Judge Stewart (khr) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
01/18/2017 15  TEXT ORDER: On January 13, 2017, Defendants The City of New
York, Warren Wilhelm, Jr. and The New York City Board of
Elections filed a Letter Requset seeking an extension of time to file
an Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this matter.
Dkt. No. 13 . On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to Defendants' request. Dkt. No. 14 . Notwithstanding
Plaintiff's objection, the request is GRANTED and Defendants The
City of New York, Warren Wilhelm, Jr. and The New York City
Board of Elections shall file their response to the Complaint on or
before February 17, 2017. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge
Daniel J. Stewart on 1/18/2017. (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff
by regular mail). (mab) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
01/25/2017 16  RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by The State of
New York, The State of New York Board of Elections.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(McMahon, Joshua)
(Entered: 01/25/2017)
01/25/2017 17  RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by The City of
New York, The New York City Board of Elections. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit(s) Section of NYC Administrative Code, # 2 Affidavit
Richman Declaration, # 3 Exhibit(s) Retention and Disposal
Schedule, # 4 Affidavit Certificate of Service)(Coffey, Daniel)
(Entered: 01/25/2017)
01/25/2017 18  RESPONSE in Opposition re 8 MOTION for Temporary
Restraining Order (Federal Defendants' Memorandum of Law In
Oopposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Temporary Restraining
Order) filed by United States Department of Commerce Bureau of
the Census, National Archives and Records Administration and
President of the United States Senate (Attachments: # 1 Certificate
of Service)(Hoggan, John) Modified on 1/26/2017 (khr). (Main
Document 18 replaced on 1/26/2017) (khr, ). (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/26/2017   CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 18 Response
in Opposition to Motion. Modified text to include the individual
names of the Federal defendants. (khr) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
01/26/2017   CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 18 Response
in Opposition to Motion. Original Memorandum of Law had a
typographical error. Replaced with corrected Memorandum of
Law. (khr) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
01/26/2017 19  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Archives and Records
Administration, President of the United States Senate, United
States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census re 18
Response in Opposition to Motion, (for corrected Memorandum of
Law) (Hoggan, John) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
02/03/2017 20  REPLY to Response to Motion re 8 MOTION for Temporary
Restraining Order filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments:
# 1 Cover Letter)(khr) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
02/06/2017 21  Letter Motion from Joshua E. McMahon for The State of New
York, The State of New York Board of Elections requesting thirty
(30) day extension of time to submit an Answer or Motion
submitted to Judge Daniel J. Stewart . (Attachments: # 1 Certificate
of Service)(McMahon, Joshua) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/07/2017 22  TEXT ORDER: On February 6, 2017, Defendants, The State of
New and The State of New York Board of Elections, filed a Letter
Request seeking an extension of time to file an Answer or
otherwise respond to the Complaint in this matter. Dkt. No. 21 .
Based upon the reasons set forth in their submission, the request is
GRANTED and Defendants, The State of New York and The State
of New York Board of Elections, shall file their response to the
Complaint on or before March 9, 2017. SO ORDERED by
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 2/7/2017. (Copy served to
pro se plaintiff by regular mail). (mab) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/16/2017 23  MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , MOTION to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Motion Hearing set
for 4/6/2017 10:00 AM in Syracuse before Judge Brenda K. Sannes
Response to Motion due by 3/20/2017 Reply to Response to
Motion due by 3/27/2017. filed by The City of New York, The
New York City Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1
Memorandum of Law, # 2 Exhibit(s) unpublished decision, # 3
Exhibit(s) NYC Admin Code) (Coffey, Daniel) (Entered:
02/16/2017)
02/22/2017 24  ORDER denying 8 Motion for TRO. The parties are directed to file
letter briefs by March 22, 2017 addressing whether, under the
standard articulated in Shapiro v. McManus, ___U.S.___, 136 S.Ct.
450, 455­56 (2015), Plaintiff's allegations concerning the
constitutionality of the apportionment of members of the United
States House of Representatives requires a three­judge panel to be
convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284. Signed by Judge Brenda K.
Sannes on 2/22/17. (Copy served on plaintiff via regular mail)(rjb,
) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/23/2017 25  MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction , MOTION
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion Hearing set for
4/6/2017 10:00 AM in Syracuse before Judge Brenda K. Sannes
Response to Motion due by 3/20/2017 Reply to Response to
Motion due by 3/27/2017. filed by Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr.,
Alejandro Padilla, The State of California. (Attachments: # 1
Memorandum of Law, # 2 Affidavit) (Pachter, Tamar) (Entered:
02/23/2017)
02/24/2017 26  MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , MOTION to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Motion Hearing set for
4/6/2017 10:00 AM in Syracuse before Judge Brenda K. Sannes
Response to Motion due by 3/20/2017 Reply to Response to
Motion due by 3/27/2017. filed by National Archives and Records
Administration, President of the United States Senate, United
States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census.
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Certificate of Service)
(Hoggan, John) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

03/08/2017 27  Letter Motion from Daniel W. Coffey, Esq., attorney for NYC
Defendants, for The City of New York, The New York City Board
of Elections requesting adjournment of Rule 16 conference
submitted to Judge Stewart . (Coffey, Daniel) (Entered:
03/08/2017)
03/09/2017 28  TEXT ORDER: On March 8, 2017, the City of New York
Defendants filed a Letter Request seeking to adjourn the Rule 16
Initial Conference in this matter in light of the pending dispositive
motions. Dkt. No. 27 . The request is GRANTED and the Rule 16
Initial Conference scheduled for March 16, 2017 before the
undersigned and the deadline to file a proposed Civil Case
Management Plan and exchange Mandatory Disclosures are
ADJOURNED without date pending a decision on the dispositive
motions. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on
3/9/2017. (Copy served to pro se plaintiff by regular mail). (mab)
(Entered: 03/09/2017)
03/09/2017 29  MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Motion Hearing set for 4/20/2017
10:00 AM in Syracuse before Judge Brenda K. Sannes Response to
Motion due by 4/3/2017 Reply to Response to Motion due by
4/10/2017. filed by The State of New York, The State of New York
Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2
Declaration of Service) (McMahon, Joshua) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
03/14/2017 30  Letter Motion dated 3/13/2017 filed by Christopher Earl Strunk,
Pro Se requesting an adjournment of the response deadline to the
pending motons submitted to Judge Brenda K. Sannes.
(Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, Certificate of Service and Mailing
Envelope) (jmb) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/20/2017 31  TEXT ORDER granting 30 Letter Request for an extension of time
to respond to the 25 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 23
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction , 29 MOTION to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction, 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction : Responses
due by 4/19/2017; Replies due by 4/26/2017. SO ORDERED by
Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 3/20/17. (Copy served on plaintiff via
regular mail)(rjb, ) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
03/21/2017 32  LETTER BRIEF by The City of New York, The New York City
Board of Elections, The State of New York, The State of New
York Board of Elections. (Coffey, Daniel) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
03/22/2017 33  LETTER BRIEF by Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., Alejandro Padilla,
The State of California. (Pachter, Tamar) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
03/22/2017 34  LETTER BRIEF by National Archives and Records
Administration, President of the United States Senate, United
States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hoggan, John) (Entered:
03/22/2017)
03/23/2017 35  LETTER BRIEF by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1
Cover letter with Certificate of Service and Envelope)(khr)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
04/20/2017 36  MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE in Opposition re 29
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim; MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction, 25 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction; MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed
by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2
Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A1 to D3 to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D3 to
K2 to Declaration, # 5 Exhibit K3 to E to Declaration, # 6 Exhibit
E to Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F to Declaration, # 8 Exhibit G to M
to Declaration, # 9 Exhibit L2 to L7 to Declaration, # 10 Exhibit N
to Z to Declaration)(khr) (Additional attachment(s) added on
4/21/2017: # 11 Mailing Envelope) (khr, ). (Entered: 04/21/2017)
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 2

• Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email,: cestrunck@yahoo.com
u.s. DIWY L_URE/[t
APR 2 0 20!?
N.Y.

AT_ O'ClOCK
lawren(e K· 8.J. erman, C!erk. Syracuse
Clerk. U.S. District Court
Federal Building & Courthouse
P.O. Box 7367
Syracuse NY 13261-7367

Re: STRUNK v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA etal. NYND 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS)

Subject: File Documents

Dear Clerk of the Court,

In conformance with the Rules, Undersigned hereby files documents:

• 1. PETITIONER'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION WITH
COMPLAINT affmned April 18, 2017

2. PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
FOR PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT affirmed April 18, 2017 with Exhibit
annexed

3. Plaintiff's annexed Exhibits to the Declaration A thru Z

4. Certificate of Service to Defendants' Counsels

Dated: April '1 q2017

Brooklyn New York

Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiacy agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STitUNK

• All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS /DJS)
··x~----------------__.._-----------------x

In the matter of: Christopher Earl Strunk, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THE SfATE OF CALIFORNIA etal.
Defendants/Respondents
x - - - - - - - - - ·----------------------X

Accordingly, I, CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, depose and say under penalty of perjury
with28 USC 1746:
a. Am over 18 years of age and am Plaintiff Petitioner to this action.
b. On April19, 2017, Undersigned served a true conformed copy of:
1. PETITIONER'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION WITH
COMPLAINT affinned Aprill8, 2017
n. PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF TilE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
FOR PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO


DISMISS TilE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT affinned April 18, 2017 with Exhibit
annexed
iii. Plaintiffs annexed Exhibits to the Declaration A thru Z and in electronic form bates formated
c. On April19 2017, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by regular mail that was then

deposited with the USPS for service upon:

Tamar Pachter Daniel W. Coffey
California Department of Justice Bewitch. Coffey Law Finn
455 Gold Gate Avenue. Suite 11000 17 Elk Street
San Francisco. CA 94102 Albany. NY 12207

Joshua E. McMahon John D. Hoggan, Jr.
New York State Attorney General Albany U.S. Department of Justice Albany Office
The Capitol 445 Broadway
Albany, NY 12224 James T. Foley Courthouse

Dated: April cl2017
Brooklyn, New York
r;;z-·~
Christopher Earl Strunk. in esse Sui juris


sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
,-
c
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 66
U.S. ~',.i-i :-:~\.f COt;iiJ- N.D. OF N.Y.
FILED


APR 2 0 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AT_ O'CLOCK
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Lawrence K. Baerman, Clerk- Syracuse

Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS)

X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;
Plaintiff, Petitioner
versus

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA with Edmund Gerald "JERRY" BROWN Jr., Individually
and as Governor; and Alejandro "ALEX" PADILLA, Individually and as Secretary of State
(SOS); THE STATE OF NEW YORK with ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and as
Governor; THE STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ELECTIONS; THE CITY OF
NEW YORK (NYC); Warren "BILL DE BLASIO" Wilhelm Jr., Individually and as the
Mayor of NYC; THE NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS;

• Defendants/Respondents

X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Undersigned, Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris sole beneficiary agent in propria persona

for the inter vivos express trust CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (Plaintiff, non-belligerent)

similarly situated as Seciion 1 Fourteenth Amendment Private National Citizens of the United

States of America (USA) (1), Republican Party member, and also a Private New York Citizen;

complies with the 20 March 2017 ORDER for Response by April19, 2017 to the Defendants'

respective Motions to Dismiss the Petition with Complaint filed 15 December 2016 (Complaint).

1
Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court included that the Constitution recognized two
separate types of citizenship -"national citizenship" and "state citizenship"-and the Court held that the Privileges
or hnmunities Clause prohibits states from interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of
national citizenship. The Court concluded that the privileges and immunities of national citizenship included only
those rights that "owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws."

I
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 66

c TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY ..................... .S

BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY........................................................ II

COMBINED RESPONSE INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... l4
POINTS OF CONTROVERSY................................................ ,................................................. l6

I. State and or any municipal State agent actions to harbor illegal aliens as if domiciliary
II. CA State I Democratic Party biased non/mis/malicious action cause rights infringement
III. NYS I NYC State I Democratic I Republican Party biased non/mis/malicious action cause
rights infringement
IV. State actor insurrection using illegal aliens for secession from the Union
V. Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated to enforce

PLAINTIFF'S THREE JUDGE PANEL ARGUMENT QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....... I?

• Is there a Federal Question?
• Is there 8 USC §1324 Harboring of illegal aliens by the State and or municipality?
• Is there a breach of fiduciary duty that is a ripe substantial constitutional claim?
• Is there a substantial constitutional claim?




Is there a malicious failure of Defendants to enforce its Election Law or Code at the POTUS
election and such constitute a basis for a 14th Amendment infringement violation?
Is there a Privileges or Immunities Clause infringement violation?
Is there a Full Faith and Credit Clause infringement violation?
As a matter of equal protection does a state have a compelling duty to provide an illegal alien

with a drivers license and or suffrage privilege and or immunity?
• Does the scope ofhann that is ripe, escape review warrant a Three judge Panel?

Plaintiffs preliminary argument as to Eleventh Amendment and immunity exceptions ....23

Suits Against State Officials ........................................................................................................ 29

Plaintiffs Response to California Defendants' Argument....................................................... 35

Plaintiffs Response to New York State Defendants' Argument. ........................................... .39

Plaintiffs Response to the city of New York Defendants' Argument. ................................... .47

Plaintiffs Response to United States Defendants' Argument. ................................................. 49

Plaintiffs Request for a Declaratory Judgment on Defendants illegal alien barboring ....... 58

Plaintiff's Summary Argument as a Social Contract scope of barm measured by 18 USC §1091 .... 61

r-
- -
CONCLUSION IN RESPONSE. ................................................................................................... 65

2 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 66

• Statutes
3 USC §I thru §21
42 u.s.c. § 1983, 1985
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

8 usc §1324
18 usc §611
18 USC §109l(a)
Racketeerlnfluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (RICO)
National Voter Registration Act of 1992 (NVRA)
Help America to Vote Act 2002 (HAVA)
Declaratory Judgment Act ofl934- 28 USC §2201
12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) (now nnder Chapter 3) still a National Emergency of
Executive Order 2039 and 2040 by authorization of Congress by 12 USC 95(b)
The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255, expressly retained 12
USC §95(a) with 50 USC Appendix §5(b)
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707), EBRA
remains the law of the land over banking and commerce internationally cited by the

• Congressional Research Service Report to Congress
98-505 "National Emergency Powers" update September 18,2001.
Glass Steagall Act.
Graham-Leach-Bliley Act.

US Constitution witb Amendments
Article 1 Section 8 clause 4
Article IV
I st Amendment
11th Amendment
14th Amendment
Treaties
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) of October 18, 1907, especially
Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42 through 56

Federal Citations

!.
Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733-35 (1878)
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).

3
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 66

Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004)
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams (05-465)
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009)
ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES, 9th Circuit 641 F. 3d 339

State Citations
CA Election Code 6901
CA-AB 1461
New York Election Law
Federal Rules
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b){l), 12(b)(6)
Other Sources
!12th Congress -SENATE" 2nd Session- DOCUMENT No. 112-9: THE CONSTITUTION
of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Centennial
Edition INTERIM EDITION: ANALYSIS OF CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO JUNE 26,2013 PREPARED BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS KENNETH R.
THOMAS.EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, LARRY M. EIG MANAGING EDITOR, U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 29--309 WASHINGTON: 2013 Online Version:
www.gpo.gov/constitutionannotated....................................................................................... l6. 49 •
Department of the Army Field Manual FM 41-10-62 Civil Affairs Operations
Governmental Functions
FM 41-10-62 Page 17- diagram for CIVIL AFFAIRS IN TIME PHASES HOSTILITIES-
PEACETIME: RELATIONSHIP TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT (POLITICAL- ECONOMIC-
SOCIAL MATTERS)-A PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MILITARY SUPPORTED
BY OTHER DESIGNATED US AGENCIES
The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel in 1758
Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts on March 6, 1933
Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary Military Government on March 9, 1933
US Senate Report 93-549
Maryland Journal of International Law Vol. 3 Issue 2 Article 11 11Amendments to
the Trading With the Enemy Ac/11
Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 98-505 "National Emergency Powers"
update September 18, 2001
SPYHUNTER: The Secret History of German Intelligence by Michael Shrimpton, June Press
2014

4 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 5 of 66

• PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY that on 5 May

2016, the Undersigned Executor for the Posterity non-belligerents obtained a jurisdictional Order

from the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

(USCAAF) with Docket No. 16-0512 (see Exhibit R), and wherein the honomble judges:

Charles E. "Chip" Erdmann (Chief Judge.); Scott W. Stucky; Margaret A. Ryan; Kevin A.

Ohlson; William H. Darden; Walter T. Cox III; Eugene R. Sullivan; Susan J. Crawford; H.F.

"Sparky" Gierke; Andrew S. Effron; James E. Baker, were petitioned by Accusers defined by 10

USC 801-9 (2) for offenses against nationals of the United States outside the jurisdiction of any

nation defined by 18 USC §7-7, as if for special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the

United States using Court Rule 67(c) for a 28 USC §1651 Special Writ of Mandamus with

Injunctive Equity Relief in the matter of the breach of contract in 1999 with repeal of the Glass-


Steagall Act during the National Banking Emergency or Time of War and National Emergency

Mandates by the De-Facto Commander-In-Chief (CINC), under the: Hague Convention, United

States Army Field Manual For Civil Affairs Operations, Uniform Code Of Military Justice, and

Constitution of The United States of America. as to Civil Affairs {J) under the The Emergency

Banking ReliefAct of9 March 1933 (48 Stat. 1)(EBRA), 12 USC §95(a) amended 50 USC App.

§5(b) ongoing emergency (4) (now of Title 50 Chapter 53) of the Trading with the Enemy Act

2
10 USC §801 Definitions (9) The term "accuser'' means a person who signs and swears to charges, any person
who directs that charges nominally be signed and sworn to by another, and any other person who has an interest
other than an official interest in the prosecution of the accused.
3
FM 41-10-1962 Chapter 1 Paragraph 2 Definitions a. Civil Affairs. Those phases of the activities of a commander
which embrace the relationship between the military forces and the civil authorities and people in a friendly
(including US home territory) or occupied area where military forces are present In an occupied country or area this
may include the exercise of executive, legislative, and judicial authority by the occupying power.
4
FM 41-10-1962 Chapter I Paragraph 2 Definitions d. Civil Emergency. Emergencies affecting public welfare as a
result of enemy attack, insurrection, civil disturbance, earthquake, fire, flood, or other public disasters or equivalent
emergencies which endanger life and property or disrupt the usual process of government. (Emphasis by Petitioner)

5
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 6 of 66

(TWEA) with the Military Government (S) agents gross dereliction of U.S. Army duties in the

Community under the CINC defined by U.S. Anny Field Manual41-10-1962 based upon Hague

Regulations within, while that duty oscillates between the grey of Civil versus Martial Process

Transition "A" and "B" depicted in the Field Manual Diagram (see ExhibitS).

That the jurisdiction of this Court over the government in the United States and civil

responsibility is properly based upon the degree of military intrusion into the field of

government, and correspondingly, the scope of military authority, is circumscribed by the

necessities of the ongoing national emergency or time of war with martial law (6) provisions of

the EBRA I TWEA for extraordinary circumstances since March 6, 1933 beyond the control

capability of normal government officials in application of International Law (7); and whose duty

5
FM 41-10-1962 Chapter 1 Paragraph 2 Definitions- g. Military Government. Fonn of administration by which an


occupying power exercises executive, legislative, and judicial authority over occupied territory.
6
FM 41-10-62 Chapter 5 THE ARMY IN THE COMMUNITY .. Paragraph 70. Martial Law
(a.) Among the domestic emergency situations that may, depending on the necessities of the case, justifY recourse to
a regime of martial law are flood, earthquake, windstorm, tidal wave, fire, epidemic, riot, civil unrest, or other
extraordinary circumstances beyond the control capability of normal governmental officials. In such circumstances,
a military commander may, on instructions from higher authority, or on his own initiative, if the circumstances do
not admit of delay, take such action necessary to maintain law and order and assure the performance of essential
governmental services. As government in the United States is a civil responsibility. the degree of military intrusion
into the field of government and correspondingly. the scope of military authority. is circumscribed by the necessities
of the case. Civil and military officials in foreign states have similar powers with the extent of authority varying
from country-to-country and regime-to-regime. (Emphasis by Petitioner)
b. Although. in the U.S .. no declaration of martial law is necessary. it is customary for the President, the governor of
a state or territory. comparable officials of other political subdivisions. or the militarv commander in question. to
publish a Proclamation informing the people of the· nature of the emergency and the powers which the military
authorities feel justified in assuming. Such proclamation by itself confers no authoritv on the militarv commander. It
does serve. however. to define the area of military control and the specific governmental functions and
responsibilities to be exercised by the military authorities. (Emphasis by Petitioner)
c. As martial law is a temporary, extraordinary regime, great care must be taken in drafting proclamations, orders,
instructions, regulations, or any other martial law directives, lest such pronouncements assert more authority than is
justified under the circumstances, fail to particularize the powers to be exercised, or have the effect of perpetuating
the emergency or enlarging its scope. For more detailed information concerning martial law, (see DA Pam 27·11),
Lectures on Martial Law (1960), FNI 19-15, and AR 500-50. To the extent that they are applicable to domestic
emergencies the control techniques outlined in chapter 8 may be utilized.
7
FM 41-10-1962 Chapter I Paragraph 8. APPlication of International Law. (a.) International law is usually
regarded as having two branches, one dealing with the peaceful relations between states and the other concerned


with armed hostilities between states. This division is not. however. absolute. and there are many facets of
international relations that are difficult to regard as belonging to the law of peace or the law of war. Both branches as

6
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 7 of 66

• falls upon the U.S. Anny Chief of Staffs (COS) authority over Civil Affairs Functions with civil

agency(s) and the cabinet of the CINC, with alleged dereliction of duty inter alia, for effective

civil government, public finance, legal due process< 8l that Petitioner sought a 28 USC § 1651

well as the undefined grey area in between apply to civil affairs relations. The law of peace deals with such matters
as recognition of states and governments, jurisdiction, nationality, diplomatic protocol, the prerequisites for and
construction of international agreements, and, generally, the practices and standards observed by friendly states in
their mutual relations. Evidence of the law of peace is to be found in law making treaties, the decisions of
international and national judicial bodies, the writings of jurists, diplomatic correspondence, and other documentary
material concerning the practice of states. The law of peace is particularly relevant to define the rights and
obligations of a military force that is deployed in the territorv of an allied state not only where there is a civil affairs
agreement but also where there is no applicable agreement or with respect to matters on which such agreement is
silent. (Emphasis by Petitioner)
(b.) The law of war governs such matters as the conduct of hostilities on land, in the sea, and in the air; the status and
treatment of persons affected by hostilities, such as POW'S, the sick and wounded, and civilian persons; the
occupation of enemy territory, flags of truce, armistices and surrender agreements, neutrality, and war crimes. The
law of war is derived from two principal sources, law making treaties, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions,
and custom, a body of unwritten 'aw that is firmly established by the practice of nations and well defined by
recognized authorities on international law. Ordinarily, a provision of an international agreement is binding on a
state only to the extent that it has ~onsented to be bound. However, a humanitarian principle enunciated in a law


making treaty is binding. (Emphasis by Petitioner)
(e.) Of these' agreements, the NATO Status of Forces Agreement is particularly significant because of the precedent
it has established concerning the law applicable to visiting military forces when they are in the territory of a friendly
state. The Hague Regulations are important because they are regarded as declaratory of law applicable between
belligerents. The 1949 Conventions supplement the Hague Regulations, which by their literal terns applied only to a
"war" between parties signatory thereto, by broadening the scope of the Treaty law to cover not only "war" but also
"any other armed conflict" and "any partial or total occupation," involving their signatories (see FM 27-10). An
international agreement of particular significance to CA personnel is the Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The United States became a signatory to this agreement at the Hague in
1954. This Convention outlines the measures which armed forces shall take in the preservation of historical, cultural,
and scientific properties in any enemy territory. As CA personnel will have principal responsibility for measures to
be taken concerning cultural property, they should be thoroughly familiar with the legal obligations of the United
States respecting artistic objects, archives, monuments, shrines, and other types of cultural property. (Emphasis by
Petitioner)
8
FM 41-10-62 CHAPTER 2 CIVIL AFFAIRS FUNCTIONS Paragraph II Governmental Functions. Included in
this grouping of functions are those dealing with matters customarily involving governmental activity or control.
The general areas of concern include the organization and conduct of local government, political activities; review,
advice, or correction of civil officials in accordance with competent directives, and implementation of policy
decisions with respect to control or other relationships with government in the area of operations.
(a.) Civil Government. This function is concerned with the structure and conduct of local government. It
encompasses methods of establishing legislative and executive agencies from national to local levels and the
processes of these agencies in the administration of civil government. Included are such considerations as political.
parties, eligibility for franchise, elections, tenure, and all other aspects of the development and operation of the
apparatus of government. Commanders having area responsibility, their staffs, and CA units are charged, as
appropriate, with

••
(I) Surveying governmental organization at all levels .

(2) Surveying lines of authority and influence having impact on political matters.

7
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 8 of 66

(3) Analyzing effectiveness of existing agencies of government or social control.

(4) Studying effectiveness of governmental officials and employees and of other community leaders; removing

persons who are inimical to the United States or who are not in sympathy with its policies and objectives, and
securing the appointment of leaders who will further desired programs.

(5) Negotiating to gain support or cooperation for United States forces.

(6) Recommending organization, functioning, staffing, and authority of agencies of government or social control.

(7) Advising, conducting liaison with, supervising, controlling, or replacing organs of government.

(8) Participating on joint commissions, committees, or councils concerned with governmental affairs.
(b.) Legal. This function is concerned with the legal system of the area and the application of international law in
CA operations. Commanders having CA area responsibility, their staffs, and CA units are charged, as appropriate
withw

(1) Translation of the legal aspect of CA operations into plans and directives.

(2) Analysis and interpretation of the civil and criminal laws of the territory, particularly restraints imposed upon
the civil populace.

(3) Study of the organization of the judicial system including determination of legal status and jurisdiction of civil
courts and law.

(4) Review of the local organization of the bar and determination of reliability of its members.

(5) Examination of locally accepted forms of judicial procedure including rules of evidence and rights of the
accused.

(6) Assistance to commanders and staffs in the preparation of proclamations, ordinances, orders and directives,
and as otherwise may be required.

(7) The establishment of necessary civil affairs tribunals and other judicial and administrative agencies, including
their number, types, jurisdiction, procedures, and delegation of appointing authority.

(8) The closure or reopening of local tribunals, including courts, boards, and commissions; their jurisdiction,
organization and procedure, and the class of cases triable therein.

(9) Recommendations concerning the suspension or abrogation of laws and procedural rules applicable to .local
courts.

(10) Recommendations concerning the alteration, suspension, or promulgation oflaws to include civil legislation
for the government of the area in which military forces are deployed. It may be necessary to deny enforcement
effect to local legislation or to adopt new laws essential to the control of the area in question and the protection of
U.S. forces. Such legislation must conform to applicable provisions of U.S. law and international law as, for
example, the 1949 Geneva Civilian Convention.

(II) Supervision of the administration of civil and criminal laws by local officials.

(12) Provision of members for civil affairs tribunals.

(13) Review or administrative examination of cases tried inCA courts before referral to higher headquarters for


final review.

( 14) Arrangements for transmittal of civilian claims against the United States to the proper agency.

8
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 9 of 66

• Writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Equity relief for Accusers personal damage caused by

malicious breach of contract by repeal of the 1933 Glass Steagall Act (9) protective firewall; and

(f.) Public Finance. This function is of vast importance in the conduct of economic welfare and economic
stabilization measures and assists in reducing support contributions by the United States. It includes control,
supervision, and audit of fiscal resources; budget practices, taxation, expenditures of public funds, currency issues,
and the banking agencies and affiliates. It is essential that the function be performed in an integrated and uniform
manner within each national area. Commanders having area responsibility, their staffs, and CA units may be charged
with tasks such as:
(I) Analysis of taxation systems and other sources of revenue, governmental expenditures, and estimates of
adequacy of public funds for performance of governmental functions.

(2) Review of public laws and agencies regulating banking and financing.

(3) Analysis of financial structures including types and conditions of financial institutions.

(4) Analysis of types and amounts of circulating currencies, acceptance by population of such currencies, and
current foreign exchange rates.

(5) Recommendations as to designation of type of circulating local currency.

(6) Recommendations as to provisions for military currency.

• (7) Recommendations as to establishment of currency exchange rates.

(8) Establishment and enforcement of restrictions on exportation of currencies.

(9) Recommendations for control of foreign exchange.

(10) Establishment of controls over budget, taxation, expenditures, and public funds and determination of
appropriate fiscal accounting procedures.

(11) Reestablishment or revision of taxation systems in accordance with policy directives.

(12) Liquidation, reorganization, opening, or closing of banks.

(13) Supervision over credit and provisions for credit needs.

(14) Regulation or supervision of governmental fiscal agencies, banks, credit cooperatives, and other financial
institutions.

(15) Recommendations for advances of funds to governmental or private financial institutions.

(16) Recommendations as to emergency declaration of debt suspensions for specific types of debts.

(17) Recommendations for protection of public and private financial institutions and safeguarding funds,
securities, and financial records.
9
That according to Petitioners associate British Intelligence Expert Michael Shrimpton, the theft is interrelated with
crimes accomplished by the post 1945 German Military Intelligence racketeering enterprise, Deutscher
Verteidigungs Dienst (DVD) based in Dachau Germany, see SPYHUNTER: The Secret History of German
Intelligence published by June Press in 2014, whose Red Chinese agents operate as do their North Korean and


Vietnam mis-adventures still operative, and having promulgated the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repeal of much
of the Glass-Steagall Act. a.k.a. the Banking Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 162), during which time in the Clinton White
House attorney J. Paul Oetken enabled merging of Commercial with Investment Bank investments for DVD I Red

9
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 10 of 66

that the resultant damage burdens Petitioner(s) as a class, e.g. those humans registered as the

surety in commerce as the Public U.S. Citizen indenture by adhesion contract uniformly bundled

to guarantee the public debt accrued before 1999.

Petitioner(s) I Accusers demanded a de novo rev1ew of the Military Government

culpability in the taking by breach of contract under the 84 year long emergency of the

Emergency Banking Relief Act (EBRA) that brought inland the Trading with the Enemy Act

(TWEA) and the dozens of annually renewed emergencies or time of war along with the EBRA I

TWEA available remedies under Title 50; and in that Petitioners have exhausted administrative

remedies to no avail in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York

(SDNY) 15-cv-6817 (with Second Circuit Appeal 15-3199) and Middle District of Pennsylvania

(MDPA) 15-cv-2328) efforts to separate out their private national citizen non-combatant status


from the commingled derivative debt liability taking theft imposed upon Public US Citizens by

the unbridled speculative investment since 1999; and as the EBRA special trust funds under

Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 were safely invested as the collateral for the U.S. Public debt

had previously been separate from speculative investment under the control of the U.S. Treasury

Comptroller of the Currency (COC) with use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, being

compartmentalized and protected from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)

whose subsidiaries etal. use the EBRA I TWEA for unjust enrichment since 1999 during the

ongoing national banking emergency or time of war. It is contended herein that Defendants

harboring during a time national emergency or time of war falls under Federal authority.

Chinese looting of up till then safely separated private trusts with all of the names registered in commerce including
Undersigned's property as is historically used in the decennial percapita NAMES in commerce as collateral
guarantee for the National debt since 1933 rather than constitutional money per se, and that the theft was discovered
by the FBI Senior Special Agent investigation of the 2008 DTCC's crafted so-called Derivative I Mortgage collapse
that involves the criminal cover up of the Certificates of Birth collateral security wtderlying the very risky
investment derivatives used after 1999 by DTCC Etal. the perpetrators.

10 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 11 of 66

• As such, to the extent that Petitioner does not seek monetary damages per se, the Alien

Property Custodian of this respective Court District has not been notified; however, were the

Court to find evidence of unjust enrichment by collusion under the EBRA I TWEA that rightly is

a Federal issue under the ongoing Emergency, then notice would have to issue accordingly.

BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
The determination of the existence of a state of war by the political department of the

government is conclusive upon the courts, and of this determination the courts must take judicial

notice. (IO) That by operation of law the pre-existing and current National Emergency Mandates

published in the Federal Register by the resident Commander-In-Chief under: the EBRA of

10 American Jurisprudence, Second Edition Copyright© 2010 West Group John Kimpflen, J.D. War I. In General
78 Am Jur 2d War§ 5 Proo(o(existence ofstate of war: political nature o[question:
The normal state of nations is one of peace, benevolence, and friendship, and this must always be presumed
to subsist among nations. One who founds a claim upon the rights of war must prove that the peace was broken by

• some national hostili!r, and war commenced; mere conjecture, supposition, and possibility can render no competent
evidence ofthe fact. n Whether war exists in its legal sense at any given time is a matter to be determined solely by
the political department of the government.
112

The determination oj' the existence of a state of war by the political department of the government is
4
conclusive upon the courts, n and ofthis dekrmination the courts must take judicial notice. " The court will take
judicial notice of the entry of the country into war and of an executive order taking over vessels of the enemy found
in its ports. n5 After a foreign nation officially recognizes the existence of Civil War, one of its subjects is estopped
to deny the existence of such war. "6 (emphasis added by Petitioner)
FOOTNOTES:
nl Marks v. U.S., 31 Ct. Cl. 453, 161 U.S. 297, 16 S. Ct. 476,40 L. Ed. 706 (1896).
n2 Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 68 S. Ct. 1429, 92 L. Ed. 1881 (1948); In re Wulzen, 235 F. 362 (S.D. Ohio
1916); Beley v. Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co., 373 Pa. 231, 95 A.2d 202,36 A.L.R.2d 996 (1953). The war with
Japan commenced not on the date of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, but on the day after, when Congress
officially declared war on Japan. West v. Palmetto State Life Ins. Co., 202 S.C. 422, 25 S.E.2d 475, 145 A.L.R.
1461 (1943).
n3 Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 23 L. Ed. 188 (1875); The Neustra Senora de Ia Caridad, 17 U.S. 497,4 L. Ed.
624 (1819); Beley v. Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co., 373 Pa. 231,95 A.2d 202,36 A.L.R.2d 996 (1953); West v.
Palmetto State Life Ins. Co., 202 S.C. 422,25 S.E.2d 475, 145 A.L.R. 1461 (1943); State ex rei. Mays v. Brown, 71
W.Va. 519, 77 S.E. 243 (1912).
n4 The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459 (1862); In re Wu1zen, 235 F. 362 (S.D. Ohio 1916); O'Neill v.
Central Leather Co., 87 N.J.L. 552, 94 A. 789 (N.J. Ct. Err. & App. 1915), aff'd, 246 U.S. 297, 38 S. Ct. 309, 62 L.
Ed. 726 (1918); Sutton v. Tiller, 46 Tenn. 593,6 Cold. 593, 1869 WL 2594 (1869). nS The Kaiser Wilhelm II, 246
F. 786 (C.C.A. 3dCir. 1917).
n6 The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459 (1862).


REFERENCE: West's Key Number Digest, War and National Emergency [westkey]l, 2, 6, 9, 10(1), (2), 33;
U.S.C.A. § 2441; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350 note; 102-256; L.R. Digest: War and Civil Defense§§ 1, 3; .L.R. Index: War
West's Key Number Digest, War and National Emergency [westkey]1, 7

11
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 12 of 66

March 9, 1933 brought inland jurisdiction of The Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,

1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411 (TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039

1933 and 2040 (rz) of9 March 1933, e.g. 12 USC §95(a): Title 50 Chapter 53 previously by 50
(Ill of 6 March •
USC App. §5(b}, still a National Emergency of the Executive by perpetual authorization of

Congress with 12 USC §95(b)(IJ); and that with four other Emergencies are still in effect <•4>, WE

are according to the US Senate Report 93-549 have a temporary military government under a

continual national emergency occupation, stated:

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national
emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially proclaimed states of
national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President
Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President
Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national
emergency declared buy President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and August 15, 1971;
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of
statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the

11
Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts on March 6, 1933 mandated : " ...the Secretary of the
Treasury. with the approval of the President and under such regulations as he may prescribe. is authorized and
empowered (a) to permit any or· aJI of such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions,
(b) \o direct, require or-permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of claims against assets
of banking institutions , and {c) to authorize and direct the creation in such banking institutions of special trust

accounts for the receipt of new deposits which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or
limitation and shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in obligations
ofthe United States." (emphasis added by Petitioner)
12
Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary Military Government on March 9, 1933 mandated: " ... in
view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act
of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L 411), as amended by the act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and
declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders
issued there under are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President..."
(emphasis added by Petitioner)
13
That 12 USC §95(a): 50 USC App. §S(b) with Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 as the law of the land approved
by Congress under 12 USC §95(b) and as for all current and related " ... actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders
and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President ofthe United States
or the Secretary ofthe Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title,
are approved and confirmed." (emphasis added by Petitioner)
14
See quote: The purpose of the TWEA was to "define, regulate and punish trading with the enemy." Section S(b)
of the original act gave the President power to regulate or prohibit trans.actions in foreign exchange and currency,
and transfers of credit or property with any foreign country or the resident of any foreign country during war. This
section has been amended four times. In 1933 Section 5(b) was amended to provide that its authorities could be used


in time of a national emergency declared by the President; previously, the grants of power could be used only during
wartime. President Roosevelt cited the emergency authority of S(b) to declare a bank holiday during the depression.
The national emergency declared by Roosevelt is still in effect today. (emphasis added by Petitioner)

12
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 13 of 66

• Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all~encompassing
manners. This vast .range of powers, taken together,. confer enough authority to rule the
country without reference to normal Constitutional process"
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - President may: seize property;
organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces
abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication;
regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular
ways, control the lives of all American citizens ... "

and when combined with The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255,

that expressly retained 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC Appendix §5(b) of Chapter 53 at Section

502(a)(l) with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701~

1707) enacted on December 28, 1977 requires that the 12 USC § 95(a) amended 50 USC App.

§5(b) be repealed as to new emergency proclamations unless specified, both enactments make

sure the EBRA remains the law of the land over banking and international commerce cited by

Maryland Journal of International Law Vol. 3 Issue 2 Article 11 "Amendments to the Trading

• With the Enemy Act" and the Congressional Research Service Report to Congress

"National Emergency Powers" update September 18, 2001; and maintains and further triggers
98~505

the oscillating vice-a-versa A not 8, civil versus military (shown in ExhibitS), imposition of the

ill~defined civil affairs plausible denial of emergency occupation of the territories of the United

States of America with use of the Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)

of October 18, 1907, especially Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile

State Articles 42 through 56; and this serves as Petitioners' complaint that invokes the Uniform

Code of Military Justice and related law, based upon the use of the Constitution of the United

States of America using definitions of The Law ofNations, by Emer de Vattel in 1758.

Emergency jurisdiction according to the 5 May 2016 USCAAF Order shown as Exhibit R

clarifies the March 4, 2013, 80"' FDR Inauguration Anniversary, Order by the NYS Supreme

,. Court Appellate Division that denies provision of Civil Due Process. and confirms Martial Due

13
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 14 of 66

Process (see Exhibit Q); but, reassures proper jurisdiction is in this Court absent Martial law

and/or were E.O. 2040 revoked- however, AR 840-10 rules for Display of the National Flag

consistent with the Hague Convention requires proper display without gold fringe or with <• 5>.

COMBINED RESPONSE INTRODUCTION
This case has a set of circumstances that are all encompassing in a scope that goes to the

very foundation of the self determination of this Nation State that is of, for and by the People per

se, and mandates that this much larger and complicated controversy by necessity empanel a three

judge court not to be left to a single Judge. However, as a matter of scale, this case is comparable

to the lesser circumstance posed by the class of those directors /agents of Mohawk Industries Inc.

in re Mohawk Industries. Inc. v. Williams (05-465) appealed from: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

with SCOTUS Oral argwnent: Apr. 26, 2006, in which Mohawk Industries had been accused of

harboring and hiring illegal aliens in violation of the RICO Act (I 6>. The action before this Court

must consider the scope of personal injury to Plaintiff along with those among his class similarly

situated as Private National Citizens of the USA as to the nature of economic and social harm

and injury inflicted upon Undersigned as a National Citizen, Republican Party Member and

exclusively as a Private Citizen of the State ofNew York domiciled individually quite apart and

15
Every court, state and federal, flies military colors pursuant to AR 840-10 inside their courthouses within their
geographic jurisdictions of the United States; ... however, such display inside appears as an actual constructive fraud
and deception in contravention to the laws of military occupation unless flown outside with the same configuration
(gold fringe or otherwise) as required under the Hague Convention, Article 23:
" ... ,it is especially forbidden ... To make improper use ... of the national flag ... :To declare abolished, suspended,
or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise
forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
country, even if they were in the belligerents service before the commencement of the war."
16
To establish a RICO violation, Mohawk's employees had to show that Mohawk and its third-party recruiting
agencies constituted an "enterprise" within the scope of RICO. Therein the district court held that Mohawk's
collaboration with the third-party recruiters sufficiently established an enterprise. The Eleventh Circuit afflfllled, and
the Supreme Court granted certiorari to detennine whether a defendant corporation and its agents can constitute an
enterprise under RICO, in light of the rule that a defendant must "conduct" or "participate in" the affairs of some


larger enterprise and not just its own affairs. If the Court affinns, the scope of the enterprise element would be vastly
,-- widened, exposing more corporations to RICO liability. But if the Court reverses, the government may find it more
difficult to use RICO to control corporations and other similar entities where immigration violations are alleged.

14
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 15 of 66

• separate from the Defendants' Counsels who are part of the opposition Congressional Military

Industrial Government Complex whose employees benefit from the use of illegal aliens as the

political I social class alone and hereinafter known as "the Enterprise Machine"; and whose 8

USC §1324 violations and conspiracy cause harm as is then further compounded in Mohawk

Industries. Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) as the United States Supreme Court case in

which the Court held that disclosure orders adverse to attorney client privilege do not qualify for

immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine; of note as to the George Soros funded

notorious National Council of La Raza organization (see Exhibit Z) that harbors alien scofflaws

with the affiliated terrorist Atzlan group in the U.S. Southwest and California, wherein La Raza's

long time board member Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored her first Supreme Court opinion that

is notable, in that in addition, this is the first time a Supreme Court opinion legislated from the


bench in her impeachable outrageous defiance to the express Congressional language of Title 8

intent, used the term "undocumented immigrant" beyond the oxymoronic term "illegal

immigrant" having appeared in a dozen earlier opinions.

Jury deliberation as to the infliction of harm imposed upon Plaintiff along with those

similarly situated as US Citizens must consider these provisions of Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a)

Offenses (https:l/wwwjustice.govlusamlcriminalresourcemanuall907title8uscl324aoffenses):

• Harboring Subsection 1324(a)(l)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who knowing or

in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United

States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to

conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or

any means of transportation.

• Encouraging/Inducing Subsection 1324(a)(l )(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who

15
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 16 of 66

encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or

in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in

violation of law.

• Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it au offense

to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

POINTS OF CONTROVERSY
With leave of the Court, for brevity Undersigned combines the Plaintiffs Response to

Defendants' respective Motion to Dismiss in sequence (e.g. CA, NYS, NYC, USA) with the

above Caption, as to each Defendant's argument in favor of a Fourteenth Amendment imposed

proportionate reduction of California, New York I city of New York U.S. House members, for:

I. State and or any municipal State agent actions to harbor illegal aliens as if domiciliary U.S.

Citizens similarly situated with exclusive privileges and immunities that infringe rights by

II.
invidious discrimination despite violations of 18 USC §1091(a) and 8 USC §1324;

CA State I Democratic Party biased non/mis/malicious action cause rights infringement by

invidious discrimination against Plaintiffs expectation of a uniform ballot as a matter of

equal speech treatment to those similarly situated in support of the TRUMP-PENCE elector

slate in California (CA) on 8 Noveinber 2016 as a compelling state interest;

III. NYS I NYC State I Democratic I Republican Party biased nonlmislmalicious action cause

rights infringement by invidious discrimination against Plaintiffs expectation of a uniform

ballot as a matter of equal treatment denied to those U.S. Citizens similarly situated in

suppnrt of the JOHNSON-WELD elector slate in New York 8 November 2016;

IV. State actor insurrection using illegal aliens for secession from the Union as invidious

discrimination against National and State U.S. Citizens similarly situated; and the mandated

16 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 17 of 66

• V. Federal Trustee Fiduciary dutv to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated to enforce

within six (6) months an accurate record of the 2016 POTUS Election Cycle and or the

impact of the vote as a result of State and or municipal State agent malicious actions to

harbor illegal aliens as if domiciliary U.S. Citizens with exclusive privileges and

immunities; and heretofore infringement of rights by invidious discrimination against those

similarly situated challenge to the Senate's President fiduciary duty to the Law of the Land.

PLAINTIFF'S THREE JUDGE PANEL QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Is there a Federal Question?

• State and or Municipal illegal alieo Harboring prohibited by 8 USC §1324

o interferes with the privileges and immunities of a National Citizen, Republican and

Citizen ofNew York too?


o obfuscates the purpose of full faith and credit provisions uses documents to facilitate

impersonation of a domiciliary US Citizen with exclusive liberties?

o Registers illegal aliens under NVRA I HAVA then with CA-AB 1461 held harmless?

o on 8 November 2016 provide "provisional ballots" under HAVA to say 750,000

persons under seal of whom 400,000 were recorded to have voted by absentee ballot?

o hires the counter revolutionary Eric Holder to resist disclosure of harboring?

o the San Francisco municipality elects not to aid thi:: Joint anti-terrorist task force?

o schedules a referendum election for the secession of the state from the Union?

o fail to provide for a Constitutional republican form of government?

• State of California Election Code §690 1 (171 with related code sanctions out of state American

Iodepeodent Party (AlP) POTUS Electors at the 8 November 2016 General Election that


17
California Electioos Oxie Sectioo 6901: Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section 7100, 7300, 7578,
or 7843, submits to the Secretary of State its certified list of nominees for electors of President and Vice President

17
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 18 of 66


triggers a privilege and immunities protection requirement for a National Citizen, Republican

and resident Citizen of New York too?

Sacramento County is the ONLY County to apply Election Code for legal POTUS Elector

slate ballots at the 8 November 2016 General Election- thereby nullifies the election? and or

• The TRUMP-PENCE slate wins statewide with vote overage of say over 312,000 votes? etc.

Is there 8 USC §1324 Harboring of illegal aliens by the State and or municipality?

ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES 9th Circuit 641 F. 3d 339, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and

remanded. Held quote:

I. The Federal Government's broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status
rests, in part, on its constitutional power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"
Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign
relations, see Toll v. Moreno 458 U.S. 1
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourtl/text/458/l). Federal governance is extensive
and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are
ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182); requires aliens to register •
with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§l304(e), 1306(a); imposes
sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which
aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see § 1227.
Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion
exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of
Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal
aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration
status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2-7.
2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute,may
contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United
States o(America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. _ . _ , but state law must also give way to
federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating
conduct in a field that Congress has detennined must be regulated by its exclusive
governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88
(http://www.law.corne1l.edu/supremecourtl/text/505/88). Intent can be inferred from a
framework of regulation "so pervasive . , . that Congress left no room for the States to
supplement it" or where a "federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be
assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Rice v. Santa Fe

of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the


party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the
several political parties to be placed upon the ballot for the ensuing general election.

18
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 19 of 66

• Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/331/218).
Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when
they stand ..as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress." Hines v. DaVidowitz,
(http://www.law.corne1l.edu/supremecourt//text/312/52). Pp. 7-8.
312 U. S. 52

ARGUENDO: circumstances referenced above and the Petition with Complaint, Undersigned

among those similarly situated have a direct interest in the California November 8, 2016 general

election with four (4) out-of-state Tnnnp-Pence Electors, and each National Citizen I Republican

status under the jurisdictional equal protection of the state of California substantive due process.

Is there a breach of fiduciary duty that is a ripe substantial constitutional claim?

There is a pattern of malicious action by California with prima facie proof starting at the 1996

General Election of Federal officers as to then California State resident Robert K. Dornan, a

National Citizen along with Undersigned, and who according to his Affidavit of March 5, 2017

• is a Virginia State Resident (see Exhibit U) supports the causes of action complained of as to

California Defendants with sufficient probable cause evidence of harm and rights infringement.

Is there a substantial constitutional claim?

"[C]onstitutional claims will not lightly be found insubstantial for purposes of" the three-

judge-court statute. Washinzton v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U.S. 134,

147-148 (1980). The Fourteenth Amendment (was ratified by New York on January 10, 1867

and by California on May 6, 1959), particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts

of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of

Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v.

Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election. The amendment limits the actions of all

state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.

• 19
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 20 of 66

Is there a malicious failure of Defendants to enforce its Election Law or Code at the

POTUS election and such constitute a basis for a 14th Amendment infringement violation?

The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges

or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause

provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott

v. SandfOrd (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be

citizens of the United States, thereafter resolved by the Civil War the 13th 14th and 15th

Amendments to the Constitution as relate to the Civil Rights Act of1866.

Is there a Privileges or Immunities Clause infringement violation?

The Privileges or Immunities Clause protects the privileges and immunities of national

citizenship from interference by the states, was patterned after the Privileges and hnmunities


Clause of Article IV, [Berger, Raoul (1997). Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of

the Fourteenth Amendment (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. p. 58. ISBN 0865971447]

which protects the privileges and immunities of state citizenship from interference by other

states. In the Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court concluded that the

Constitution recognized two separate types of citizenship -"national citizenship 11 and "state

citizenship11-and the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from

interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of national citizenship. The

Court concluded that the privileges and immunities of national citizenship included only those

rights that 11
owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its

Constitution, or its laws. 11 The Court recognized few such rights, including access to seaports and

navigable waterways, the right to run for federal office, the protection of the federal government

while on the high seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign country, the right to travel to the seat of

20 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 21 of 66

• government, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, the privilege of the

writ of habeas corpus, and the right to participate in the government's administration. This

decision has not been overruled and has been specifically reaffirmed several times; and largely as

a result of the narrowness of the Slaughter House opinion, that lay dormant for a century.

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving

persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been

used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as

to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.

Is there a Full Faith and Credit Clause infringement violation?

Application of State actor doctrine, Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States

Constitution, other than the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery, protect not against actions


by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials. Regarding the

Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948): "[T]he action

inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be

said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct,

however discriminatory or wrongful." The court added in Civil Rights Cases (1883): "It is State

action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not

the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes

void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and

immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."

Vindication of federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is

"state action" meaning action of government officials who are exercising their governmental

21
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 22 of 66

power. In Ex parte Virginia (1880), the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions of the

Fourteenth Amendment

"have reference to actions of the political body denominated by a State,

by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by
its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The
constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the
officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue ofpublic position under
a State government, deprives another ofproperty, life, -or liberty, without due process of
law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional
inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's
power, his act is that ofthe State."

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all

people within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting

irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

As a matter of equal protection does a state have a compelling duty to provide an illegal
alien with a drivers license and or suffrage privilege and or immunity?

Given the above referenced circumstances along with the Petition with Complaint, the

second, third, and fourth sections of the 14th amendment are seldom litigated. However, the

second section's reference to "rebellion and other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional

ground for felony disenfranchisement herein with available remedy not least of which is

proportionate reduction of House seats, bar from holding office, claw back of stolen funds and or

segregation of ill-gotten gains and or debt from any obligation of righteous citizens.

The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by

"appropriate legislation". However, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress's

enforcement power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court interpretation of the

amendment as applies to the decision of a Three Judge Court trial and findings.

22 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 23 of 66

• Does the scope of harm that is ripe, escape review warrant a Three judge Panel?

In that there are several Federal questions along with substantial Constitutional claims

raised above in support of the Petition with Complaint that requires readily available punishment

and relief that according to Congress only a Three Judge Court is able to reapportion the

remaining House seats in preparation for the 2018 interim election and or reapportionment of

House district that would otherwise be elected at large until the Census enumeration of 2020; and

for the above and further reasons Undersigned contends that with the affidavit of Robert K.

Doman proving a pattern of malicious infringement that there is a substantive request for Three

Judge Court with 28 USC §2284 for enforcement of the provisions of the Fourteenth

Amendment as to all defendants subject to the further and different reason and proof provided in

the Undersigned's response to the Defendants Motions to Dismiss due on April 19, 2017.


Plaintiffs preliminary argument as to Eleventh Amendment and immunity exceptions
• The Eleventh Amendment enactment did not contemplate a National Citizen per se (only

state citizens and or foreign nationals), and is affected by the enactment of the 14th

Amendment creation of National Citizen status involving a different set of privileges and

immunities under a federal question.

• Interpretation of the 11th Amendment is modified when the USA has been under a

continuous 84 year national banking emergency relief since 1933 requiring provision of

Administrative Marital Due Process rather than Civil due process per se, and whereby

States are defacto corporate trustees over property/ process for the emergency military

government under the Commander-in-chief- evidenced by fringe on the flag argument

that violates the Hague Treaty Article 23 uniformity when flown inside is absent outside.

• State actor malice and insurrection bad faith not protected by 11th Amendment immunity

• 23
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 24 of 66


CA affords out of state electors and therefore equal protection jurisdiction - standing

applies using New York Long-arm doctrine argument regarding close dealing.

CA I NY I NYC abrogated 11th inununity in that it facilitated illegal aliens to vote thereby

fall directly under Article I Congressional prohibitions under 8 USC §1324

• CA I NY I NYC abrogated 11th immunity in that it facilitated illegal aliens to obtain

licenses then used to vote and impersonate a U.S. Citizen thereby fall directly under

Article III jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause

• Congressional withdrawal of inununity prohibitions under 8 USC §1324, NVRA, HAVA

creates waiver of immunity

IF IT PLEASE THE COURT PLAINTIFF PROVIDES excerpts on the AMENDMENT I I -
SUITS AGAINST STATES starting from page 1772 thru Page 1781 TAKEN FROM THE
!12th Congress -SENATE" 2nd Session- DOCUMENT No. 112-9: THE CONSTITUTION •
of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Centennial
Edition INTERIM EDITION: ANALYSIS OF CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO JUNE 26, 2013 PREPARED BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Congressional Withdrawal of Immunity .-The Constitution grants Congress power to

regulate state action by legislation. At least in some instances when Congress does so, it may

subject the states themselves to suit by individuals to implement the legislation. The clearest

example arises from the Civil War Amendments, which directly restrict state powers and

expressly authorize Congress to enforce these restrictions through appropriate legislation.<ts)

Thus, ''the Eleventh Amendment and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies ... are

18
88 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978); City of Rome v. United
States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980). More recent cases affirming Congress's § 5 powers include Pennhurst State School &
Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984); Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238 (1985); and
Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223,227 (1989).

24 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 25 of 66

• necessarily limited, by the enforcement provisions of §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." (t 9)

The power to enforce the Civil War Amendments is substantive, however, not being

limited to remedying judicially cognizable violations of the amendments, but extending as well

to measures that in Congress's judgment will promote compliance.< 20) The principal judicial

brake on this power to abrogate state immunity in legislation enforcing the Civil War

Amendments is the rule requiring that congressional intent to subject states to suit be clearly

stated.<21) In the 1989 case of Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co./12) the Court-temporarily at

least-ended years of uncertainty by holding expressly that Congress acting pursuant to its

Article I powers (as opposed to its Fourteenth Amendment powers) may abrogate the Eleventh

19
89 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) (under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may ''provide for
private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts.").


20
90 In Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980), the Court found that Congress could validly authorize imposition of
attorneys' fees on the state following settlement of a suit based on both constitutional and statutory grounds, even
though settlement had prevented determination that there had been a constitutional violation. Maine v. Thiboutot,
448 U.S. I (1980), held that§ 1983 suits could be premised on federal statutory as well as constitutional grounds.
Other cases in which attorneys' fees were awarded against states are Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978); and New
York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980). See also Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004) (upholding
enforcement of consent decree).
21
Even prior to the tightening of the clear statement rule over the past several decades to require express legislative
language (see note and accompanying text, infra), application of the rule curbed congressional enforcement.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 451-53 (1976); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678,693-98 (1978). Because of its
rule of clear statement, the Court in Quem v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979), held that in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Congress had not intended to include states within the term "person" for the purpose of subjecting them to suit. The
question arose after Monell v. New York City Dep't ofSocia1 Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), reinterpreted "person"
to include municipal corporations. Cf Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978). The Court has reserved the question
whether the Fourteenth Amendment itself, without congressional action, modifies the Eleventh Amendment to
permit suits against states, Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 290 n.23 (1977), but the result in Milliken, holding
that the Governor could be enjoined to pay half the cost of providing compensatory education for certain schools,
which would come from the state treasury, and in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974), permitting imposition of
damages upon the governor, which would come from the state treasury, is suggestive. But see Mauclet v. Nyquist,
406 F. Supp. 1233 (W.D.N.Y. 1976) (refusing money damages under the Fourteenth Amendment), appeal dismissed
sub nom. Rabinovitch v. Nyquist, 433 U.S. 901 (1977). The Court declined in Ex parte YoWlg, 209 U.S. 123, 150
(1908), to view the Eleventh Amendment as modified by the Fourteenth.
22
491 U.S. 1 (1989). The plurality opinion of the Court was by Justice Brennan and was joined by the three other
Justices who believed Hans was incorrectly decided. See id. at 23 (Justice Stevens concurring). The fifth vote was
provided by Justice White, id. at 45, 55-56 (Justice White concurring), although he believed Hans was correctly
decided and ought to be maintained and although he did not believe Congress had acted with sufficient clarity in the


statutes before the Court to abrogate immunity. Justice Scalia thought the statutes were express enough but that
Congress simply lacked the power. ld. at 29. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor and Kennedy joined
relevant portions of both opinions finding lack of power and lack of clarity.

25
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 26 of 66

Amendment immunity of the states, so long as it does so with sufficient clarity. Twenty-five

years earlier the Court had stated that same principle,< 23l but only as an alternative holding, and a

later case had set forth a more restrictive rule.< 24> The premises of Union Gas were that by

consenting to ratification of the Constitution, with its Commerce Clause and other clauses

empowering Congress and limiting the states, the states had implicitly authorized Congress to

divest them of immunity, that the Eleventh Amendment was a restraint upon the courts and not

similarly upon Congress, and that the exercises of Congress's powers under the Commerce

Clause and other clauses would be incomplete without the ability to authorize damage actions

against the states to enforce congressional enactments. The dissenters disputed each of these

strands of the argument, and, while recognizing the Fourteenth Amendment abrogation power,

would have held that no such power existed under Article I.


Pennsylvania v. Union Gas lasted less than seven years before the Court overruled it in

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida. (25) Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for a 5--4 majority,

concluded Union Gas had deviated from a line of cases, tracing back to Hans v. Louisiana,(26>

that viewed the Eleventh Amendment as implementing the "fundamental principle of sovereign
7
immunity [that]limits the grant of judicial authority in Article III." (l ) Because "the Eleventh

Amendment restricts the judicial power under Article III, . . . Article I cannot be used to

23
Parden v. Tenninal Railway, 377 U.S. 184, 190--92 (1964). See also Employees of the Dep't of Pub. Health and
Welfare v. Department of Pub. Health and Welfare, 411 U.S. 279,283, 284, 285-86 (1973).
24
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,672 (1974).
lSSeminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (invalidating a provision of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act authorizing an Indian tribe to sue a state in federal court to compel performance of a duty to
negotiate in good faith toward the formation of a compact).


26
Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1 (1890).

l 27
517 U.S. at 64 (quoting Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1984).

26
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 27 of 66

• circwnvent the constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction." (28)

have upheld this interpretation.<2'> Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course, is another

matter. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,<JO) which was "based upon a rationale wholly inapplicable to the
Subsequent cases

Interstate Commerce Clause, viz., that the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted well after the

adoption of the Eleventh Amendment and the ratification of the Constitution, operated to alter

the pre-existing balance between state and federal power achieved by Article III and the Eleventh

Amendment," remains good law.<31) This ruling has led to a significant number of cases that

examined whether a statute that might be applied against non-state actors under an Article I

power, could also, under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, be applied against the

states.<Jl) In another line of case, a different majority of the Court focused not so much on the

authority Congress used to subject states to suit as on the language Congress used to overcome


immunity.

Henceforth, the Court held in a 1985 decision, and even with respect to statutes that were

enacted prior to promulgation of this judicial rule of construction, "Congress may abrogate the

States' constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention

28
517 U.S. at 72-73. Justice Souter's dissent undertook a lengthy refutation of the majority's analysis, asserting that
the Eleventh Amendment is best understood, in keeping with its express language, as barring only suits based on
diversity of citizenship, and as having no application to federal question litigation. Moreover, Justice Souter
contended, the state sovereign immunity that the Court mistakenly recognized in Hans v. Louisiana was a common
law concept that "had no constitutional status and was subject to congressional abrogation." 517 U.S. at 117. The
Constitution made no provision for wholesale adoption of the common law, but, on the contrary, was premised on
the view that common law rules would always be subject to legislative alteration. This "imperative of legislative
control grew directly out of the Framers' revolutionary idea of popular sovereignty." ld. at 160.
29
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (the Trademark
Remedy Clarification Act, an amendment to the Lanham Act, did not validly abrogate state immunity); Florida
Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999) {amendment to patent
laws abrogating state immunity from infringement suits is invalid); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62
(2000) (abrogation of state immunity in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is invalid).
°Fitzpatrickv. Bitzer,421 U.S. 445 (1976).
3


31
Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 65-66.
32 See Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Definition of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, infra.

27
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 28 of 66

unmistakably clear in the language. of the statute" itself.<33>This means that no legislative history

will suffice at a11.< 34>Indeed, at one time a plurality of the Court apparently believed that only if

Congress refers specifically to state sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment will its

language be unmistakaPly clearP5J Thus, the Court held in Atascadero that general language

subjecting to suit in federal court "any recipient of Federal assistance" under the Rehabilitation

Act was deemed insufficient to satisfy this test, not because of any question about whether states

are "recipients" within the meaning of the provision but because "given their constitutional role,

the states are not like any other class of recipients of federal aid." (J6) As a result of these rulings,

Congress began to use the "magic words" the Court appeared to insist on.< 37) Later, however, the

Court has accepted less precise language,<38>and in at least one context, has eliminated the

33

34
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234,242 (1985) (emphasis added).
See, particuJarly, Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223,230 (1989) ("legislative history generally will be irrelevant"),

and Hoffinan v. Connecticut Dep't oflncome Maintenance, 492 U.S. 96, 103---{)4 (1989).
3
s Justice Kennedy for the Court in Del/muth, 491 U.S. at 231, expressly noted that the statute before the Court did
not demonstrate abrogation with unmistakably clarity because, inter alia, it "makes no reference whatsoever to either
the Eleventh Amendment or the States' sovereign immunity." Justice Scalia, one of four concurring Justices,
expressed an ''understanding" that the Court's reasoning would allow for clearly expressed abrogation ofirnnnmity
''without explicit reference to state sovereign immunity or the Eleventh Amendment." Id. at 233.
36
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 246 (1985). See also Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223 (1989).
37
In 1986, following Atascadero, Congress provided that states were not to be immune under the Eleventh
Amendment from suits under several laws barring discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance. Pub.
L. 99-----506, § 1003, 100 Stat. 1845 (1986), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7. FollowingDellmuth, Congress amended the statute
to insert the explicit language. Pub. L. 101-476, § 103, 104 Stat 1106 (1990), 20 U.S.C. § 1403. See also the
Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, Pub. L. 101-553, § 2, 104 Stat. 2749 (1990), 17 U.S.C. § 511 (making states
and state officials liable in damages for copyright violations).
38
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 74-78 (2000). In Kimel, statutory language authorized age
discrimination suits "against any employer (including a public agency)," and a "public agency" was defined to
include ''the government of a State or political subdivision thereof." The Court found this language to be sufficiently
clear evidence of intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity. The relevant portion of the opinion was written by
Justice O'Connor, and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and


Stevens. But see Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533 (2002) (federal supplemental
jurisdiction statute which tolls limitations period for state claims during pendency of federal case not applicable to
claim dismissed on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity).

28
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 29 of 66

• requirement of specific abrogation language altogether.(39>Even before the decision in Alden v .

Maine,( 40) when the Court believed that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity did not apply

to suits in state courts, the Court applied its rule of strict construction to require "unmistakable

clarity" by Congress in order to subject states to suit.(4t) Although the Court was willing to

recognize exceptions to the clear statement rule when the issue involved subjection of states to

suit in state courts, the Court also suggested the need for "symmetry'' so that states' liability or

immunity would be the same in both state and federal courts.( 4l)

Suits Against State Officials

Courts may open their doors for relief against government wrongs under the doctrine that

sovereign immunity does not prevent a suit to restrain individual officials, thereby restraining the

government as we11.( 43>The doctrine is built upon a double fiction: that for purposes of the


sovereign's immunity, a suit against an official is not a suit against the government, but for the

purpose of finding state action to which the Constitution applies, the official's conduct is that of

the state.< 44' The doctrine preceded but is most note-worthily associated with the decision in Ex

parte Young,< 45>a case that deserves the overworked adjective, seminal.

39
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356, 363 (2006) (abrogation of state sovereign immunity
under the Bankruptcy Clause was effectuated by the Constitution, so it need not additionally be done by statute); id.
at 383 (Justice Thomas dissenting).
40
527 u.s. 706 (1999).
41
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (holding that states and state officials sued in their
official capacity could not be made defendants in§ 1983 actions in state courts).
42
Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. Rys. Comm'n, 502 U.S. 197,206 (1991) (interest in "symmetry'' is outweighed by
stare decisis, the FELA action being controlled by Parden v. Terminal Ry.).
43
See, e.g., Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949), where the majority and dissenting opinions
cite both federal and Eleventh Amendment cases in a suit against a federal official. See also Tindal v. Wesley, 167
U.S. 204, 213 (1897), applying to the states the federal rule ofUnited States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882).
"C. WRIGHT, THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS§ 48 (4th ed. 1983).
209 u.s. 123 (1908).
45

29
----------------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 30 of 66

Young arose when a state legislature passed a law reducing railroad rates and providing

severe penalties for any railroad that failed to comply with the law. Plaintiff milroad

stockholders brought a federal action to enjoin Young, the state attorney general, from enforcing

the law, alleging that it was unconstitutional and that they would suffer irreparable harm if he

were not prevented from acting. An injunction was granted forbidding Young from acting on the

law, an injunction he violated by bringing an action in state court against noncomplying

railroads; for this action he was adjudged in contempt.

If the Supreme Court had held that the injunction was not pennissible, because the suit

was one against the state, there would have been no practicable way for the railroads to attack the

statute without placing themselves in great danger. They could have disobeyed it and alleged its

unconstitutionality as a defense in enforcement proceedings, but if they were wrong about the

statute's validity the penalties would have been devastating.< 46> On the other hand, effectuating

constitutional rights through an injunction would not have been possible had the injunction been

deemed to be a suit against the state.

In· deciding Young, the Court faced inconsistent lines of cases, including numerous

precedents for permitting suits against state officers. Chief Justice Marshall had begun the

process in Osborn by holding that suit was barred only when the state was formally named a

party.<47) He presently was required to modify that decision and preclude suit when an official,

the governor of a state, was sued in his official capacity,<48) but relying on Osborn and reading

Madrazo narrowly, the Court later held in a series of cases that an official of a state could be

sued to prevent him from executing a state law in conflict with the Constitution or a law of the

46
In fact, the statute was eventually held to be constitutional. Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S.
352 (1913).


47
Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 {1824).
(- 48
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 110 (1828).

30
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 31 of 66

• United States, and the fact that the officer may be acting on behalf of the state or in response to a

statutory obligation of the state did not make the suit one against the state.< 49> Another line of

cases began developing a more functional, less formalistic concept of the Eleventh Amendment

and sovereign immunity, one that evidenced an increasing wariness toward affirmatively

ordering states to relinquish state-controlled property<SOl and culminated in the broad reading of

Eleventh Amendment immunity in Hans v. Louisiana.<St)

Two of the leading cases, as were many cases of this period, were suits attempting to

prevent Southern states from defaulting on bonds.<51> In Louisiana v. Jumet,<53> a Louisiana

citizen sought to compel the state treasurer to apply a sinking fund that had been created under

the earlier constitution for the·payment of the bonds after a subsequent constitution had abolished

this provision for retiring the bonds. The proceeding was held to be a suit against the state. (S4)


Then. In re Ayers (55) purported to supply a rationale for cases on the issuance of mandamus or

injunctive relief against state officers that would have severely curtailed federal judicial power.

49
Davis v. Gray, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 203 (1872); Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U.S. 531 (1875); Allen v.
Baltimore & Ohio R.R., ll4 U.S. 311 (1885); Rolston v. Missouri Fund Comm'rs, 120 U.S. 390 (1887); Pennoyer
v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1 (1891); Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362 (1894); Smyth v. Ames,
169 U.S. 466 (1898); Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141 (1900).
50
Judicial reluctance to confront government officials over government-held property did not extend in like manner
in a federal context, as was evident in United States v. Lee, the first case in which the sovereign immunity of the
United States was claimed and rejected. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882). See Article Ill, "Suits Against
United States Officials." However, the Court sustained the suit against the federal officers by only a 5-to-4 vote, and
the dissent presented the arguments that were soon to inform Eleventh Amendment cases.
Sl 134 U.S. 1 (1890).
52
See Gibbons, The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity: A Reinterpretation, 83 COLUM. L. REV.
1889, 1968-2003 (1983); Orth, The Interpretation ofthe Eleventh Amendment, 1798-1908: A Case Study ofJudicial
Power, 1983 U. ILL. L. REV. 423.
53
107 U.S. 711 (1882).
54
."The relief asked will require the officers against whom the process is issued to act contrary to the positive orders
of the supreme political power of the State, whose creatures they are, and to which they are ultimately responsible in
law for what they do. They must use the public money in the treasury and under their official control in one way,
when the supreme power has directed them to use it in another, and they must raise more money by taxation when
the same power has declared that it shall not be done." 107 U.S. at 721. See also Christian v. Atlantic & N.C. R.R.,


133 u.s. 233 (1890).
55
123 u.s. 443 (1887).

31
------------------------------r--------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 32 of 66

Suit against a state officer was not barred when his action, aside from any official

authority claimed as its justification, was a wrong simply as an individual act, such as a trespass,

but if the act of the officer did not constitute an individual wrong and was something that only a

state, through its officers, could do, the suit was in actuality a suit against the state and was

barred.< 56> That is, the unconstitutional nature of the state statute under which the officer acted

did not itself constitute a private cause of action. For that, one must be able to point to an

independent violation of a common law right.< 57) Although Ayers was in all relevant points on all

fours with Young/ 58) the Young Court held that the injunction had properly issued against the

state attorney general, even though the state was in effect restrained as well. 'The act to be

enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so, the use of the name of the State to

enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of the complainants is a proceeding without the


authority of and one which does not affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It

is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the

State to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which

the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer

56
123 u.s. at 500-01,502
51
Ayers sought to enjoin state officials from bringing suit under an allegedly unconstitutional statute purporting to
overturn a contract between the state and the bondholders to receive the bond coupons for tax payments. The Court
asserted that the state's contracts impliedly contained the state's immunity from suit, so that express withdrawal of a
supposed consent to be sued was not a violation of the contract; but, in any event, because any violation of the
assumed contract was an act of the state, to which the officials were not parties, their actions as individuals in
bringing suit did not breach the contract. 123 U.S. at 503, 505---06. The rationale had been asserted by a four-Justice
concurrence in Antoni v. Greenhaw, 107 U.S. 769, 783 (1882). See also Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R.R.,
109 U.S. 446 (1883); Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52 (1886); North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U.S. 22 (1890); In re
Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 (1893); Baltzer v. North Carolina, 161 U.S. 240 (1896); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516 (1899);
Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 (1900).
58
Ayers "would seem to be decisive of the Young litigation." C. WRIGHT, THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS§
48 at 288 (4th ed. 1983). The Young Court purported to distinguish and to preserve Ayers but on grounds that either
were irrelevant to Ayers or that had been rejected in the earlier case. Ex parte Young. 209 U.S. 123, 151, 167 (1908).
Similarly, in a later case, the Court continued to distinguish Ayers but on grounds that did not in fact distinguish it
from the case before the Court, in which it pennitted a suit against a state revenue commissioner to enjoin him from
collecting allegedly unconstitutional taxes. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U.S. 299 (1952).

32 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 33 of 66

• in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that

Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is

subject in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct." 9
(S ) Justice Harlan was the

only dissenter, arguing that in law and fact the suit was one only against the state and that the suit

against the individual was a mere "fiction." <60>

The "fiction" remains a mainstay of our jurisprudence.< 6I) It accounts for a great deal of

the litigation brought by individuals to challenge the carrying out of state policies. Suits against

state officers alleging that they are acting pursuant to an unconstitutional statute are the standard

device by which to test the validity of state legislation in federal courts prior to enforcement and

thus interpretation in the state courts.(62l Similarly, suits to restrain state officials from taking

certain actions in contravention of federal statutes( 63l or to compel the undertaking of affirmative

• 59
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908). The opinion did not address the issue of how an officer "stripped
of his official ... character" could violate the Constitution, in that the Constitution restricts only "state action," but
the double fiction has been expounded numerous times since. Thus, for example, it is well settled that an action
unauthorized by state law is state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City
of Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278 (1913). The contrary premise of Barney v. City of New York, 193 U.S. 430 (1904),
though eviscerated by Home Tel. & Tel. was not expressly disavowed until United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17,
25-26 (1960).
60
Ex porte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 173-74 (1908). In the process of limiting application of Young, a Court majority
referred to ''the Young fiction." Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 281 (1997).
61
E.g., Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 156 n.6 (1978) (rejecting request of state officials being sued to
restrain enforcement of state statute as preempted by federal law that Young be overruled); Florida Dep't of State v.
Treasure Salvors, 458 U.S. 670,685 (1982).
62
See, e.g., Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278 (1913); Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915);
Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453 (1919); Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923); Hygrade Provision Co. v.
Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 (1925); Massachusetts State Grange v. Benton, 272 U.S. 525 (1926); Hawks v. Hamill, 288
U.S. 52 (1933). See also Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (enjoining state welfare officials from denying
welfare benefits to otherwise qualified recipients because they were aliens); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)
(enjoining city welfare officials from following state procedures for tennination of benefits); Milliken v. Bradley,
433 U.S. 267 (1977) (imposing half the costs of mandated compensatory education programs upon state through
order directed to governor and other officials). On injunctions against governors, see Continental Baking Co. v.
Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932); Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932). Applicable to suits under this doctrine


are principles of judicial restraint---constitutional, statutory, and prudential....-.discussed under Article III.
63
E.g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,664-68 (1974); Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978).

33
·~------~~~~~------------------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 34 of 66

obligations imposed by the Constitution or federal laws <64>are common.

For years, moreover, the accepted rule was that suits prosecuted against state officers in

federal courts upon grounds that they are acting in excess of state statutory authority(fiS) or that

they are not doing something required by state law<66) are not precluded by the Eleventh

Amendment or its emanations of sovereign immunity, provided only that there are grounds to

obtain federal jurisdiction.<67) However, in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman/68>

the Court, five-to-four, held that Young did not permit suits in federal courts against state

officers alleging violations of state law. In the Court's view, Young was necessary to promote

the supremacy of federal law, a basis that disappears if the violation alleged is of state law. The

Court also still adheres to the doctrine, first pronounced in Madrazo,<69) that some suits against

officers are ..really" against the state<'O) and are barred by the state's immunity, such as when the

64

65
E.g., Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664--68 (1974); Quem v.
Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 346-49 (1979).
E.g., Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. I (1891); Scully v. Bird, 209 U.S. 481 (1908); Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
v. O'Connor, 223 U.S. 280 (1912); Greene v. Louisville & Interurban R.R., 244 U.S. 499 (1977); Louisville &
Nashville R.R. v. Greene, 244 U.S. 522 (1917). Property held by state officials on behalf of the state under claimed

state authority may be recovered in suits against the officials, although the court may not conclusively resolve the
state's claims against it in such a suit South Carolina v. Wesley, 155 U.S. 542 (1895); Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U.S.
204 (1897); Hopkins v. Clemson College, 221 U.S. 636 (1911). See also Florida Dep't of State v. Treasure Salvors,
458 U.S. 670 (1982), in which the eight Justices who agreed that the Eleventh Amendment applied divided 4-to-4
over the proper interpretation.
66
E.g., Rolston v. Missouri Fund Comm'rs, 120 U.S. 390 (1887); Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. O'Connor, 223 U.S.
280 (1912); Johnson v. Lankford, 245 U.S. 541,545 (1918); Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co., 235 U.S. 461,471
(1915); Davis v. Wallace, 257 U.S. 478, 482-85 (1922); Glenn v. Field Packing Co., 290 U.S. 177, 178 (1933); Lee
v. Bickell, 292 U.S. 415,425 (1934).
67
Typically, the plaintiff would be in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, cf Martin v. Lankford, 245 U.S. 547,
551 (1918), perhaps under admiralty jurisdiction, Florida Dep't of State v. Treasure Salvors, 458 U.S. 670 (1982), or
under federal question jurisdiction. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002). In the
last instance, federal courts are obligated flrst to consider whether the issues presented may be decided on state law
grounds before reaching federal constitutional gr01md.s, and thus relief may be afforded on state law grounds solely.
Cf Silerv. Louisville &Nashville R.R., 213 U.S. 175, 193 (1909); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,546-47 & n.12
(1974). In a case removed from state court, presence of a claim barred by the Eleventh Amendment does not d~troy
jurisdiction over nonbarred claims. Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381 (1998).
68
465 u.s. 89 (1984).


69
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 110 (1828).
70
E.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Department of the Treasury, 323 U.S. 459,464 (1945).

34
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 35 of 66

• suit involves state property or asks for relief which clearly calls for the exercise of official

authority, such as paying money out of the treasury to remedy past hanns.<7t)

Plaintiffs Response to California Defendants' Argument

First. Wlder the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for California Defendants POINT I, Plaintiff denies

that the specifically targeted socio~economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential

injury-in-fact is Federal court does not lack personal jurisdiction over Califomia1s Governor and

Secretary of State in either official or individual capacity have six (6) months to rectify errors of

returns of the general election of8 November 2016.

A. Under Federal rules, Plaintiff, a Private National Citizen I Republican resident in the

United States of America among those similarly situated does not rely on New York's Long-Arm

• Statute to provide a Basis for Personal Jurisdiction, and is confirmed when CA admits that quote:

11
Strunk does not and cannot show that California's Governor or Secretary of State are
subject to jurisdiction under New York's long-ann statute. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302. The
complaint does not mention this statute, let alone invoke any of its particular
. . ... "
provtstons

ARGUENDO, however, were Plaintiff solely a Citizen of New York with a tortuous Complaint

against California's Governor and Secretary of State in either official or individual capacity

applying N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 as if in State Court would not only show minimum contacts <?l)

71
In Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004), Texas, which was under a consent decree regarding its state Medicaid
program, attempted to extend the reasoning of Pennhurst, arguing that unless an actual violation offederallaw had
been found bv a court, then such court would be without jurisdiction to enforce such decree. The Court, in a
unanimous opinion, declined to so extend the Eleventh Amendment, noting, among other things, that the principles
of federalism were served by giving state officials the latitude and discretion to enter into enforceable consent
decrees. ld. at 442. (emphasis by Petitioner)
72
Minimum contacts is a tenn used in the United States law of civil procedure to detennine when it is appropriate
for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The United States
Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a
court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that
the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional

35
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 36 of 66

but that California had extended its own jurisdiction (?J) and authority over out-of-state parties

under CA Election Code §690 1 with related code I rules, and or by criminal violation of 8 USC

§ 1324; and legal clarification, an illegal alien per se, is a person who poses a actual degree of

notions of fair play and substantial justice". A nonresident defendant may have minimum contacts with the forum
state if they I) have direct contact with the state; 2) have a contract with a resident of the state; 3) have placed their
product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state; 4) seek to serve residents of the forum
state; 5) have satisfied the Calder effects test, e.g. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) Uurisdiction over reporter
and editor responsible for defamatory article which they knew would be circulated in subject's home state). ; or 6)
have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state..
73
Jurisdiction Generally.-Jurisdiction may be defined as the power of a government to create legal interests, and
the Court has long held that the Due Process Clause limits the abilities of states to exercise this power, Scott v.
McNeal, 154 U.S. 34,64 (1894). In the famous case ofPennoyer v. Neff95 U.S. 714 (1878) the Court enunciated
two principles of jurisdiction respecting the states in a federal system (Although these two principles were drawn
from the writings of Joseph Story refining the theories of continental jurists, Hazard, A General Theory of State-
Court Jurisdiction, 1965 SUP. CT. REV. 241, 252--62, the constitutional basis for them was deemed to be in the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733-35 (1878). The Due Process
Clause and the remainder of the Fourteenth Amendment had not been ratified at the time of the entry of the state
court judgment giving rise to the case. This inconvenient fact does not detract from the subsequent settled use of this
constitutional foundation. Pennover denied fuU faith and credit to the ludgment because the state lacked
iurisdiction: and whereas: first, "every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and
property within its territory," and second, "no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons


or property without its territorv." 95 U.S. at 722. The basis for the territorial concept of jurisdiction promulgated
in Pennoyer and modified over the years is two-fold: a concern for ''fair play and substantial justice" involved in
requiring defendants to litigate cases against them far from their "home" or place of business. International Shoe Co.
v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,316,317 (1945); Travelers Health Ass'n v. Virginia ex rei. State Corp. Comm., 339
U.S. 643, 649 (1950); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977), and, more important, a concern for the
preservation of federalism. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945); Hanson v. Denckla,
357 U.S. 235, 251 (1958). The Framers, the Court has asserted, while intending to tie the States together into a
Nation, "also intended that the States retain many essential attributes of sovereignty, including. in particular, the
sovereign power to try causes in their courts. The sovereignty of each State, in turn, implied a limitation on the
sovereignty of all its sister States-a limitation express or implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution
and the Fourteenth Amendment." World· Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 293 (1980). Thus, the
federalism principle is preeminent. "[T]he Due Process Clause 'does not contemplate that a state may make binding
a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts., ties, or
relations.' ... Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before
the tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy;
even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an instrument
of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment." 444 U.S. at
294 (internal quotation from International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)). Over a long period of
time, however, the mobility of American society and the increasing complexity of commerce led to attenuation of
the second principle of Pennoyer, and consequently the Court established the modem standard of obtaining
jurisdiction based upon the nature and the quality of contacts that individuals and corporations have with a state,.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). (As the Court explained in McGee v. International Life
Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220,223 (1957), "[w]ith this increasing nationalization of commerce has come a great increase in
the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines. At the same time modem transportation and
communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages
in economic activity." See World·Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 293 (1980)). The first
principle, that a State may assert jurisdiction over anyone or anything physically within its borders, no matter how


briefly there-the so-called "transient" rule of jurisdiction- McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90, 91 (1917), remains
valid, although in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186,204 (1977), the Court's dicta appeared to assume it is not. This
'
l "minimum contacts" test, consequently, permits state courts to obtain power over out-of-state defendants.

36
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 37 of 66

danger I threat to U.S. Citizens when entering uninspected by Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE), and such person is properly compared to a burglar per se - not to be

confused with a house guest or legal alien entering with a visa, passport, and travel probable

cause inspected by ICE.

B. That somehow under Federal rules, were the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction would

violate due process, despite the facts that show California had extended its own jurisdiction and

authority over out-of-state parties under CA Election Code 6901 with related code I rules with

arbitrary and capricious state action, and or by California Defendants willful criminal violation

of8 USC §1324 to intentionally hann Plaintiff among those similarly situated as applies with 42

USC § 1983 I related law as to infringement of liberty for application of 14th Amendment relief.

Secondly, under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response


Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for California Defendants POINT II, Plaintiff denies

that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential

injury-in-fact is due to resource limitations as part of his socio-economic injury, Plaintiff does

not wish as of right to merely use civil provisions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 1968 (RICO), unless the U.S. Justice Department defers;

in that based upon information and belief nevertheless, the Federal court has jurisdiction over

State public and private agents of California, as if part of a corporate entity used with a RICO

corrupt enterprise, and is comparable to the circumstance of those directors /agents of Mohawk

Industries Inc. in re Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams (05-465) appealed from: 11th Circuit

Court of Appeals with SCOTUS Oral argument: Apr. 26, 2006, in which Mohawk Industries had

been accused of harboring and hiring illegal aliens in violation of the RICO Act.

However, there is a simplified basis of jurisdiction, notwithstanding the Eleventh

• 37
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 38 of 66

Amendment and or RICO per se, because the exhibited facts herein prove both prima facie and

probable cause by ultra vires state action that need provision of "fair play and substantial justice"

in the absence of another fonun to obtain relief, and that California Defendants willful criminal

violation of 8 USC §1324 that intentionally use the entity of California for enterprise unjust

enrichment under the continuing 84 year Emergency Banking Relief Act (12 USC §95 with 50

USC Chapter 53 under E.O. 2040) fractional reserve system that makes California the trustee of

all property for the National POTUS Trustee Connnander-in Chief (CINC) with legal and equity

title under the emergency to pay the national debt with every surety-indenture of Public U.S.

Citizen debtor(s) property registered in commerce obligated to the Creditors; and that a US DOJ

investigation of that enterprise activity even includes the Communist Party of the People's

Republic of China in its use of Wells Fargo Bank, NA owned by Wells Fargo & Company to


leverage public bonds underwritten for the accounts shown in the California Comprehensive

Annual Financial Report (CAFR); and wherein the pattern of Defendants ultra vires activity

harbors illegal aliens maliciously to harm the liberty of Plaintiff among those similarly situated,

and beyond the scope of Califumia authority its Defendants are not immune from suit under the

Eleventh amendment as if California and its public officers I agents were acting within the law.

Mr. Padilla and Mr. Brown are part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who as

trustees with fiduciary responsibly to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable.

c-
38 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 39 of 66

• Plaintiffs Response to New York State (NYS) Defendants' Argument

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for New York State CNYSl Defendants POINT I,

Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow as for Undersigned's standing that is the

''threshold question in every federal case," this proverbial frog has the good sense to have

jumped from the slow boiling cauldron in recognition of the genocidal social engineering injury-

in fact that is caused by the Cuomo New Age collectivist whack-a-mole methods that like those

of Jesuit Jerry Brown in California, use the multi-decade full spectrum invasion using the illegal
.
alien battering ram theft of individual Citizen free will in favor of docile drooling government

cheese eating peons captured in socialist amber; and as such socialist causation has destroyed the


economic and cultural well being of its citizens who if each remain aware are fleeing the city at a

rate of 4 to 5% annually, statistically unequalled by any other major city, and from the State

territory whose second numerous spoken language according to statistics is Chinese.

First as an arcane mouthful, Mr. McMahon has to prove that the Undersigned is not the

sole private national citizen in esse Sui juris sole beneficiary agent of his inter vivos express trust

and executor for the posterity singularly conscious enough to have expressed individual courage

·and leadership to have jumped from Mr. Cuomo's cauldron of witches brew of the slow boil

genocide subjugation of private U.S. Citizens invidiously discriminated against by the

enterprise's machine.

(I) Mr. McMahon's practice for Defendants obstructs justice in defense of the harboring

theft of Petitioner's birth right is tortuous interference with Undersigned's right to self-

determination, an "injury in fact," if one is able to express individual liberty, and if done so

• 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 40 of 66

.........
!---'.
notwithstanding the canard of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

reserved as inapplicable during the ongoing 84th year of the national I international emergency

under EBRA I TWEA whose fractional/ discount banking reserve system makes New York and

California the respective provisional trustee for all property within its jurisdiction, held as such

for the POTUS I CINC, the actual Trustee with legal aod equity title to secure the public debt

during the emergency, while and if the individual freely chooses to remain surety-indenture for

the Public U.S. Citizen debtor registered in commerce, freely remains the indenture without

availing remedy as of right to release the Trustee(s) per se to convert debtor obligations.

(2) Who of my fellow U.S. Citizens, presently reduced to peonage, is able to express

proof of a "causal connection" between his particularized injury while paddling in the cauldron

has challenged? As an individual birth right, each cognizant would at least have to clearly make


the causal connection with the self evident fact of the fraud present in every indoor setting where

a fringed flag is flown but not flown outside, and be able to explain why that violates the Hague

Treaty Article 23 for territorial occupation; and if Mr. McMahon wants to prove me wrong as to

the fact of my individualized injury then either remove the fringe on the inside flag or add it to

the flag flown outside - one or the other not both. How many individuals could fill this

requirement of complaint?

(3) Unde'rsigned's injury "likely" would be "redressed by a favorable decision as

expressed in the Complaint with relief available under to Private National Citizens under the

provisions of the 14th Amendment with related law, won't hold his breath for a miracle that

would order the proper flag fringe and or absent that ·requires an executive order cancelling the

emergency.

.·-·

40 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 41 of 66

• Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT II Plaintiff denies that the

specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-

fact is somehow that as New York State Defendants argue that quote: PLAINTIFF'S

COMPLAINT challenges the outcome of the election is done not only as to the substantive rights

infringement as a continuing injury in fact by Defendants state action to harbor illegal aliens, and

as such is NOT MOOT as long as New York Defendants and their agents are accessory to the

criminal harbor illegal aliens obstruct justice and facilitate the theft of Plaintiffs birth right as a

member of a class of US Citizen similarly situated has not been remedied by enforcement of law

Plaintiff does not tolerate a continued repetition without resolution or even a "voluntary

cessation" doctrine in form only to be substantively violated again in fact, focuses on the

likelihood of discontinued conduct recurring or a superseded statute being renewed. (74)

• Cessation of a challenged activity by voluntary choice, especially of an activity the actor claims

was proper, will moot a case only if it can be said with assurance ''that 'there is no reasonable

expectation that the wrong will be repeated.' " (7S) A person asserting mootness through

voluntary cessation bears the "fonnidable burden" of showing with absolute clarity that there is

no reasonable prospect of renewed activity. (76) Otherwise, "[t]he defendant is free to return to his

74
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897); Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U.S. 37
(1944); Porter v. Lee, 328 U.S. 246 (1946); United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953); Gray v. Sanders,
372 U.S. 368 (1963); United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. 199, 202-04 (1969); Defunis
v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312,318 (1974); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625,631-34 (1979), and id. at
641-46 (Justice Powell dissenting); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 486-487 (1980), and id. at 500-01 (Justice
Stewart dissenting); Princeton University v. Schmidt, 455 U.S. 100 (1982); City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle,
!no., 455 U.S. 283, 288~289 (1982).
75
563 United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953) (quoting United States v. Aluminum Co. of
America, 148 F.2d416, 448 (2d. Cir. 1945)).
76
564 Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S._, No. 11-982, slip op. at 4 (2013) (trademark holder seeking to
moot invalidation claim against it: assessing the effect of the holder's dismissal of its trademark infringement claim

41
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 42 of 66

old ways" and this fact would be enough to prevent mootness because of the "public interest in

having the legality of the practices settled." (77) Still a third exception concerns the ability to

challenge short-term conduct which may recur in the future, which has been denominated as

disputes "capable of repetition, yet evading review." (78) Thus, in cases in which ( 1) the

challenged action is too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or

expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be

subjected to the same action again, mootness will not be found when the complained-of conduct

ends. ' 79) Absent the State Defendants and their agents good faith to actually reverse their

expressed scoffiaw sanctuary cities to continue the harbor of illegal aliens, the case and

controversy is not moot.

As to Mootness.-Unlike this Complaint, a case initially presenting all the attributes


necessary for federal court litigation may at some point lose some attribute of justiciability and

become ''moot." The usual rule is that an actual controversy must exist at all stages of trial and

appellate consideration and not simply at the date the action is initiated. (SO)

against rival and submittal of a covenant not to sue), citing Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S.
167, 190 (2000)
77
S6S United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 34S U.S. 629, 632 (1953). But see A.L. Mechling Barge Lines v. United
States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961).
78
S66 Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, SIS (1911).
79 S67 Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (l97S); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478,482 (1982). See Super Tire
Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 125-26 (1974), and id, at 130-32 (Justice Stewart dissenting), Friends
of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 189-91 (2000),. The degree of expectation or likelihood that the
issue will recur has frequently divided the Court. Compare Murphy v. Hunt, with Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart,
427 U.S. 539 (1976); compare Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 318-23 (1988), with id. at 332 (Justice Scalia
dissenting).
80 551 E.g., United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950); Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969); SEC
v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403 (1972); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973); Sosna v.
Iowa, 419 U.S. 393,398-399 (1975) (speciaJ rule for class actions); United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445
U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (special rule for class actions), and id. at 411 (Justice Powell dissenting); Burke v. Barnes, 479
U.S. 361, 363 (1987); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305,317 (1988); Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,
477-478 (1990); Camreta V. Greene, 563 U.S.__, No. 09-1954, slip op. (2011); United States v.Juveni1e Male,


564 U.S.___, No. 09-940, slip op. at 4 (2011). Munsingwear has long stood for the proposition that the appropriate
practice of the Court in a civi-l case that had become moot while on the way to the Court or after certiorari had been

42
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 43 of 66

• "Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing
cases or controversies .... Article III denies federal courts the power 'to decide questions
that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them,' ... and confines them to
resolving 'real and substantial controvers[ies] admitting of specific relief through a
decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising-what the law
would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.' This case-or-controversy requirement
subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. To sustain
our jurisdiction in the present case, it is not enough that a dispute was very much alive
when suit was filed, or when review was obtained in the Court of Appeals .... The
81
parties must continue to have a 'personal stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit." ' '

Because, with the advent of declaratory judgments, it is open to the federal courts to "declare the
82
rights and other legal relations" of the parties with res judicata effect, ' ) the question in cases

alleged to be moot now seems largely if not exclusively to be decided in terms of whether an

actual controversy continues to exist between the parties rather than in terms of any additional

older concepts. (SJJ So long as concrete, adverse legal interests between the parties continue, a

case is not made moot by intervening actions that cast doubt on the practical enforceability of a


granted was to vacate or reverse and remand with directions to dismiss. In U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner
Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994), however, the Court held that when mootness occurs because the parties have
reached a settlement. vacatur of the judgment below is ordinarily not the best practice; instead, equitable principles
should be applied so as to preserve a presumptively correct and valuable precedent, unless a court concludes that the
public interest would be served by vacatm.
81
552 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990) (internal citations omitted). The Court's
emphasis upon mootness as a constitutional limitation mandated by Article III is long stated in the cases. E.g., Liner
v. Jafco, 375 U.S. 301, 306 n.3 (1964); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312,316 (1974); Sibron v. New York, 392
U.S. 40, 57 (1968). See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305,317 (1988), and id. at 332 (Justice Scalia dissenting). But
compare Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 756 n.8 (1976) (referring to mootness as presenting policy
rather than constitutional considerations). If this foundation exists, it is hard to explain the exceptions, which partake
of practical reasoning. In any event, Chief Justice Rehnquist has argued that the mootness doctrine is not
constitutionally based, or not sufficiently based only on Article III, so that the Court should not dismiss cases that
have become moot after the Court has taken them for review. Id. at 329 (concurring). Consider the impact of
Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton lnt'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1993).
82
553 But see Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452,470-72 (1974); id. at 477 (Justice White concurring), 482 n.3
Justice Rehnquist concurring) (on res judicata effect in state court in subsequent prosecution). In any event, the
statute authorizes the federal court to grant "[t]urther necessary or proper relief," which could include enjoining state
prosecutions.


83
554 Award of process and execution are no longer essential to the concept of judicial power. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937).

43
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 44 of 66

final judicial order.< 84) Again Defendants state action to harbor illegal aliens, and as such is NOT

MOOT as a continuing injury to Undersigned along with his US Citizens similarly situated.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (a) as to Substantive

Due Process Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON
WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" as to (a) Substaotive Due Process

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (b) as to Equal

Protection Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON •
WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (b) Equal Protection

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III {c) as to Conspiracy

To Deny Equal Protection Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of

the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue,

quote:

"PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON
WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (c) Conspiracy To Deny Equal Protection

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (d) as to First

84
555 Chafin v. Chafin. 568 U.S._, No. 11-1347, slip op. (2013) (appeal of district court order returning custody
of a child to her mother in Scotland not made moot by physical return of child to Scotland and ...

44 •
-----------------,--------------------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 45 of 66

• Amendment Speech and Association Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socto-

economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS

Defendants1 argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON
WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (d) First Amendment Speech and Association

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (e) as to

Disproportionate Dilution of House Representation and Dilution and Diminution of Vote

Property Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON
WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (e) Disproportionate Dilution of House
Representation and Dilution and Diminution of Vote Property "

• Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (0 as to Insurrection

Against the United States Through the Use of Illegal Aliens Plaintiff denies that the specifically

targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is

somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON
WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (f) Insurrection Against the United States
Through the Use of Illegal Aliens.

As to Point III in its entirety, to wit Strunk contends that NYS Defendants are all a part of the

Enterprise Machine challenged herein have a among State duties a Federal Trustee Fiduciary

duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT IV Plaintiff denies that

45
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 46 of 66

,... .....
1----"
the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-

in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST lHE NEW YORK STATE DEFENDANTS ARE
BARRED BY THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT"

As to Point IV in its entirety, to wit Strunk contends that NYS Defendants are all a part of the

Enterprise Machine challenged herein participating in the harboring of illegal aliens are part of a

crime not granted 11th Amendment Protection or immunity as each has among State duties a

Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and further

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for New York State Defendants POINT V Plaintiff

denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing

existential injury-in-fact is somehow quote: "LACK OF PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT."

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response •

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for New York State Defendants POINT VI Plaintiff

denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing

existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST GOVERNOR ANDREW M, CUOMO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
CAP ACITY ARE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY"

As to Points V and VI in its entirety, to wit Strunk contends that NYS Defendants are all a part

of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein participating in the harboring of illegal aliens are

part of a crime not granted 11th Amendment Protection or immunity as each has among State

duties a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and

furthermore, Mr. Cuomo and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYS Board of Elections

are part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein as trustees with Federal and State public

officer fiduciary responsibly to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable.

46 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 47 of 66

• Plaintiffs Response to the city of New York (NYC) Defendants' Argument

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYC Defendants POINT I Plaintiff denies that the

specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-

fact is somehow that NYC Defendants' argue, quote:

"LACKS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PROCESS AS
HE DOES FACE A CONCRETE AND PARTICULARIZED INJURY",

To wit Mr. Di Blasia and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and further

Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow NYC Defendants' argue that quote:

• "BUT RATHER ASSERTS A GENERALIZED POLITICAL GRIEVANCE CONCERNING THE
POLICIES OF TWO STATES THAT PURPORTEDLY FOSTER THE INTERESTS OF
UNDOCUMENTED RESIDENTS, A POLICY POSITION OPPOSED BY PLAINTIFF"

To wit Mr. DiBlasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYC Defendants POINT II Plaintiff denies that the

specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-

fact is somehow NYC Defendants' argue that quote:

"THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED AS MOOT, AS IT SEEKS TO HAVE THE
ALLEGEDLY TAINTED ELECTORAL VOTES OF CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK BE
VACATED AND RE-CERTIFIED BY A FEDERAL COURT, HOWEVER, THE


ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP AS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE
CONGRESS AND NO EQUITABLE RELIEF IS AVAILABLE."

47
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 48 of 66

To wit Mr. DiBlasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYC Defendants POINT III to wit Plaintiff denies

that the specifically targeted socio~economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential

injury~ in-fact is somehow NYC Defendants' argue that quote:

"THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED AS IMPLAUSIBLE UNDER THE
ASHCROFT V.IQBAL STANDARDS, AS THERE IS NO REASONABLE CORRELATION
BETWEEN THE CITED LOCAL LAW AND THE CONCLUSION THAT IT HAS LED TO
SIGNIFICANT IMPROPER VOTING PATTERNS AND POPULATION INCREASES."

To wit Mr. DiBlasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are


part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYC Defendants POINT IV Plaintiff denies that

the specifically targeted socio~economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-

in~ fact is somehow NYC Defendants' argue that quote:

"THERE IS NO COGNIZABLE SECTION 1983 CLAIM AND NO ALLEGATIONS OF
WRONGDOING AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL NEW YORK CITY DEFENDANTS, AND
SO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED AGAINST THEM."

To wit Mr. DiBlasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and furthermore,

That as a matter of further obstruction of justice prohibited by 8 USC §1324, on April3,

48 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 49 of 66

• 2017 the New York State Supreme Court Justice Minardo in the Article 78 Petition with Docket

No.: 080528-2016 issued the Decision and Order (see Exhibit L-9) denied therein petitioners

request to preserve the underlying documents used to issue identification in NYC to illegal aliens

as belligerents per se, involves Title 12 provisions under the EBRA and that as a national

security matter during a time of war or emergency with the 8 USC § 1324 subject matter the State

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and thereby its Decision and Order is denied full faith and

credit, Pennoyer v. Neff. 95 U.S. 714, 733-35 (1878), and also violates privileges and immunities

due Plaintiff, who now differs to this Court for such relief and remedy.

Plaintiffs Response to United States Defendants' Argument

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part I

• to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio~economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury~in~fact is somehow evades the "Standard of Review"

To wit Strunk contends that Mr. Pence and the trustee Fiduciaries of the respective

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION and UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS among others yet named are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who as trustees with fiduciary responsibly to

Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable even if it to the lesser degree of the

maintenance of an accurate public record of the election, investigation and or promulgation of

enforcement of law based upon the finding herein (hereinafter referred to as "part of the

Enterprise Machine challenged herein Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with

those similarly situated'); and further .

• 49
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 50 of 66

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part I~

A.. to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio~economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow evades the "A. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(l)" To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all along with those yet

named are part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary

duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part I~

!!... to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury~in~fact is somehow evades the "B. Federal Rule of Civil


Procedure 12(b)(6)" and Strunk acknowledges the application of the dicta that quote:

"To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6),
each claim in a pleading must set forth sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, ''to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In applying this standard, the Court must
"accept[ ] all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw[ ] all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiffs favor." Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152
(2d Cir. 2002)."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all have part of the Enterprise Machine

challenged herein a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly

situated; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon ihe foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part II

to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury~ in~ fact is somehow that quote:

L-
50 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 51 of 66

• "Plaintiff's Causes of Action Must Be Dismissed Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(I)." Strunk asserts seven causes of action in his Complaint: (1) denial of
substantive due process; (2) denial of equal protection; (3) conspiracy to deny equal
protection; (4) infringement on plaintiffs speech and association; (5) disproportionate
dilution of house representation using illegal aliens for partisan unjust enrichment; (6)
dilution of "vote property" using illegal aliens; and (7) insurrection against the United
States using illegal aliens."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated. ;

and further

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part II-

A to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that quote:


"A. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert His Claims Against the Federal Defendants" as
Strunk acknowledges the application of the dicta that as Strunk asserts that "Article III of
the Constitution confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding actual 'Cases'
or "Controversies.'" Hollingsworth v. Perry,_ U.S.~ 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013).
Standing is "the threshold question in every federal case," Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490,
498 (1975), and "one essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the
power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at
2661." As Federal Defendants argue "Respectfully, it is clear that Strunk does not have
standing to bring whatever claims he is attempting to assert against the Federal
Defendants."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Mac~ine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part II-

B to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

51
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 52 of 66

"B. Plaintiff's Claims are Barred By Principles of Sovereign Immunity". As Federal
Defendants argue that "Strunk's Complaint must also be dismissed because his claims
against the Federal Defendants are barred by sovereign immunity. It is elementary that
"[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued · · ·,
and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to

entertain the suit." United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). A waiver of
sovereign immunity "cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed." United
States v. King, 395 U.S. I, 4 (1969)."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part II-

C "C. Plaintiff's Claims Against the Federal Defendants are Moot", to wit Plaintiff denies such

that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential

injury-in-fact is somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunk's claims are moot because Congress has already declared the winner of the
presidential election. The mootness doctrine limits Article III courts to deciding "actual,
ongoing controversies." Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988)."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part III

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Cause of Action, to

wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Each of Plaintiff's Claims Must Be Dismissed Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

52 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 53 of 66

• Procedure 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Cause of Action. In addition to the foregoing
threshold jurisdictional defects, Strunk's Complaint must also be dismissed because each
of his causes of action fails as a matter of law. At most, Plaintiffs Complaint consists of
a series of conclusory and unsupported allegations and conspiracy theories."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. l. substantive due process, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-

economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as

Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunk's first cause of action alleges an unspecified denial of substantive due process by


the "California and New York Defendants," and by its terms states no claim against the
Federal Defendants. Even if it could be construed to state a claim against the Federal
Defendants, it must be dismissed. "A substantive due process claim has two elements: (1)
identification of the constitutional right at stake, and (2) consideration of whether the
state action was arbitrary in a constitutional sense." See Drain v. Freeport Union Free
Sch. Dist., No. 14-CV-1959 SJF, 2015 WL 1014451, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015);
Bryant v. City of New York, No. 99 Civ. 11237,2003 WL 22861926, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec.2, 2003) (citing Lowrance v. Achty1, 20 F.3d 529, 537 (2d Cir. 1994))."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 2. Equal protection, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic

nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as Federal


Defendants argue that quote:

53
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 54 of 66


11
Strunk's second cause of action alleges an unspecified denial of equal protection under
the law by the "California and New York Defendants," and by its tenns states no claim
against the Federal Defendants. Even if it could be construed to state a claim against the
Federal Defendants, it must be dismissed. A claim of violation of equal protection by
selective enforcement of the law generally has two elements: "(1) th(( person, compared
with others similarly situated, was selectively treated; and (2) that such selective
treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to
inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicioUs or bad faith intent to
injure a person." LaTrieste Rest. & Cabaret Inc. v. Village of Port Chester, 40 F.3d 587,
590 (2d Cir. 1994). Under Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)
(per curiam), an individual, not alleging invidious discrimination on the basis of
membership in some group, may nevertheless prevail on an equal protection claim
provided she shows that (1) "she has been intentionally treated differently from others
similarly situated and" (2) "there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment." As
Strunk's second cause of action contains no allegation that he was intentionally treated
differently than other similarly situated persons, his second cause of action fails as a
matter of law."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;


and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 3. Equal protection conspiracy, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-

economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as

Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunk's third cause of action alleges a conspiracy to deprive him of equal protection
under the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 by the "California and New York
Defendants," and by its tenns states no claim against the Federal Defendants. Even if it
could be construed to state a claim against the Federal Defendants, it must be dismissed.
To make out a violation of Section 1985, a plaintiff "must allege and prove four
elements: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly,
· any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges
and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4)
whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or
privilege of a citizen of the United States." Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 508 Fed. App'x
7, 9 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 828-29
,--.

(1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to the second element, a plaintiff

54
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 55 of 66

• must show that the conspiracy was motivated by "some racial or perhaps otherwise class-
based, invidious discriminatory animus .... " Id. (qUoting Britt v. Garcia, 457 F.3d 264,
270"

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

Ill. 4. First Amendment- Speech and Association, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically

targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is

somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunk's fourth cause of action alleges a violation of his First Amendment right to
freedom of speech and association by the "California and New York Defendants," and by


its terms states no claim against the Federal Defendants. Even if it could be construed to
state a claim against the Federal Defendants, it must be dismissed. This cause of action
fails as Strunk has not identified any putative speech or associational right which was
allegedly infringed upon."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and

further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 5. Disproportionate Dilution of House Representation for Partisan Enrichment, to wit

Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunk's fifth cause of action alleges that the "California and New York Defendants aid
and abet the invasion of illegal aliens by provision and theft of public funds . . . for


partisan unjust enrichment[.]" By its terms, this cause of action states no claim against the

55
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 56 of 66

Federal Defendants. Even if it could be construed to state a claim against the Federal
Defendants, it must be dismissed. As noted above, Plaintiff has previously raised
substantially similar claims in at least one other lawsuit heard in this district, which was
dismissed with prejudice and affirmed on appeal. See Forjone, 2010 WL 653651, *2
(dismissing claims that "various states have failed to prevent non-citizens from voting in

elections" and that "by allowing non-citizens to vote, [plaintiffs') votes have been
effectively diluted."). He has also unsuccessfully raised simjlar claims in a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See Strunk v. United
States Dep't of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, et al., 2010 WL 960428, *1
(dismissing Strunk's claim that "defendants improperly are counting tourists [i.e., illegal
aliens] in the 2010 census," and as a result, "plaintiff asserts that he is disenfranchised-
the strength of his vote is diluted."). Each of these cases was dismissed in its entirety with
prejudice."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response


Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 6. Dilution and Diminution of Vote Property, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically

targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is

somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunk's sixth cause of action alleges a conspiracy among the defendants to use public
funds "in the enticement for the invasion of illegal aliens to dilute and disproportionate
take vote property using illegal aliens to disproportionately dilute intra and interstate
representation." (Dkt. #1, '1196). While this cause of action is unintelligible, to the extent
that Plaintiff intends this cause of action to raise a gerrymandering claim; it fails for the
same reasons that the fifth cause of action fails as a matter of law - i.e., that he has failed
to allege the essential elements of such a cause of action. To prevail on such a claim,
plaintiff would have to prove both intentional discrimination against an identifiable
political group and an actual discriminatory effect on that group. See Davis v. Bandemer,
478 U.S. 109, 127 (1986). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that could support such a
claim here. n

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

56 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 57 of 66

• and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 7. Insurrection Using Illegal Aliens Against the United States, to wit Plaintiff denies that

the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-

in-fact is somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunk's final cause of action alleges that the Defendants "aid and abet the invasion of
illegal aliens by provision and theft of public funds in the enticement for the invasion of
illegal aliens to are [sic] engaged in insurrection against the Posterity of the United
States." (Dkt. #1, ~ 102). This cause of action fails for the simple reason that there is no
civil cause of action for "insurrection" under the law. Accordingly, Plaintiff's seventh
cause of action must be dismissed."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

• and furthennore.

To the extent as referenced above that the NARA and US Bureau of the Census are here

as a matter of an accurate Public record due to the non/mis/malfeasance of public officers

involving 8 USC 1324 Harboring of illegal aliens for so many years that goes to the impact upon

the operation of Title 3 USC §1 thru §21 for Election of the POTUS that includes the President

of the Senate, now is Mike Pence; .and Mr. Pence was appointed by President Trump to oversee a

special commission to investigate voter fraud, which he says helped Hillary Clinton win the

popular vote. About which, the announcement came up when Mr. Trump was asked about

criticism that his claim of voter fraud is not backed up by the data. Mr. Trump said.: "Many

people have come out and said I'm right, you know that," Trump said. "You have illegals, you

have dead people ... it's really a bad situation." The Washington Post reported that Pence

• 57
~-~--------------------------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 58 of 66

pledged to GOP lawmakers at the annual Republican retreat in Philadelphia that the

administration would initiate a "full evaluation" of voting rolls nationwide." (see Exhibit V -7). •
Plaintiffs Request for a Declaratory Judgment on Defendants illegal alien harboring

The 1934 Declaratory Judgment Act provided that "[i]n cases of actual controversy"

federal courts could "declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning

for such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be prayed .... " (SS) Upholding the

Act, the Court wrote: "The Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934, in its limitation to 'cases of actual

controversy,' manifestly has regard to the constitutional provision and is operative only in

respect to controversies whiCh are such in the constitutional sense. The word 'actual' is one of

emphasis rather than of definition. Thus the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is

procedural only. In providing remedies and defming procedure in relation to cases and

controversies in the constitutional sense the Congress is acting within its delegated power over

the jurisdiction of the federal courts which the Congress is authorized to establish." <86) Finding

that the case presented a definite and concrete controversy, the Court held that a declaration

should have been issued. <87) The Court has insisted that "the requirements for a justiciable case

or controversy are no less strict in a declaratory judgment proceeding than in any other type of

suit." (88) As Justice Douglas wrote:

"The difference between an abstract question and a 'controversy' contemplated by the
Declaratory Judgment Act is necessarily one of degree, and it would be difficult, if it
would be possible, to fashion a precise test for determining in every case whether there is

85
520 48 Stat. 955. The language remains quite similar. 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
86
521 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227,239-240 (1937).


117
522 300 U.S. at 242-44.
88
523 Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 461 (1945).

58
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 59 of 66

• such a controversy. Basically, the question in each case is whether the facts alleged,
under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties
having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance
of a declaratory judgment." (SII)
It remains, therefore, for the courts to determine in each case the degree of controversy

necessary to establish a case for purposes of jurisdiction. Even then, however, the Court is under

no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction.<90) Use of declaratory judgments to settle disputes and

identify rights in many private areas, like insurance and patents in particular but extending into

all areas of civil litigation, except taxes,<9ll is common. The Court has, however, at various times

demonstrated a substantial reluctance to have important questions of public law, especially

regarding the validity of legislation, resolved by such a procedure. (!n) In part, this has been
93
accomplished by a strict insistence upon concreteness, ripeness, and the like.< ) Nonetheless,

even at such times, several noteworthy constitutional decisions were rendered in declaratory


judgment actions.<94> As part of the 1960s hospitality to greater access to courts, the Court

exhibited a greater receptivity to declaratory judgments in constitutional litigation, especially

89
524 Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270,273 (1941).
90
525 Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491,494 (1942); Public Service Comm'n v. Wycoff Co.,
344 U.S. 237, 243 (1952); Public Affairs Associates v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111, 112 (1962). See also Wilton v.
Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995).
91
526 An exception "with respect to Federal taxes" was added in 1935. 49 Stat. 1027. The Tax Injunction Act of
1937, 50 Stat. 738, U.S.C. § 1341, prohibited federal injunctive relief directed at state taxes but said nothing about
declaratory relief. It was held to apply, however, in California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982).
Earlier, in Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293 (1943), the Court had reserved the issue but
held that considerations of comity should preclude federal courts from giving declaratory relief in such cases. Cf
Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981).
92
527 E.g., Ashwanderv. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936); Electric Bond Co. v. SEC, 303 U.S. 419 (1938); United Public
Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947); Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U.S. 426 (1948); Rescue Army v. Municipal
Court, 331 U.S. 549, 572-573 (1947).
93
528 United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961); Altvater v.
Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (1943); International Longshoremen's Union v. Boyd, 347 U.S. 222 (1954); Public Service
Comm'n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237 (1952).


94 529 E.g., Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. l (1939); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939); Ashwander v. TVA, 297
U.S. 288 (1936); Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202 (1958).

59
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 60 of 66

cases involving civil liberties issues. (9 S) The doctrinal underpinnings of this hospitality were

sketched out by Justice Brennan in his opinion for the Court in Zwickler v. Koota, (%}in which the

relevance to declaratory judgments of the Dombrowski v. Pfister <97) line of cases involving

federal injunctive relief against the enforcement of state criminal statutes was in issue.

First, it was held that the vesting of "federal question" jurisdiction in the federal courts

by Congress following the Civil War, as well as the enactment of more specific civil rights

jurisdictional statutes, "imposed the duty upon all levels of the federal judiciary to give due

respect to a suitor's choice of a federal forum for the hearing and decision of his federal

constitutional claims." <98) Escape from that duty might be found only in ''narrow

circmnstances," such as an appropriate application of the abstention doctrine, which was not

proper where a statute affecting civil liberties was so broad as to reach protected activities as


well as unprotected activities.

Second, the judicially developed doctrine that a litigant must show "special

circumstances" to justify the issuance of a federal injunction against the enforcement of state

criminal laws is not applicable to requests for federal declaratory relief: "a federal district court

has the duty to decide the appropriateness and the merits of the declaratory request irrespective

of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of the injunction." (!J!J)

95
530 E.g., Baggett v. Bu1litt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Turner v.
City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350 (1962); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). But see Golden v. Zwickler,
394 u.s. 103 (1969).
96
531 389 u.s. 241 (1967).
97
532 380 u.s. 479 (1965).


98
533 Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 248 (1967).
.- 99
l 534 Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 254 (1967).

60
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 61 of 66

• Plaintiffs Summary Argument as a Social Contract scope of harm

measured with 18 USC §1091

So that the Court is given juridical notice as a matter of establishing the breadth of

inflicted harm that this part of the challenged Enterprise Machine herein trustees with fiduciary

responsibly under violations of 8 USC § 1324 are liable as to a scope of harm inflicted upon

Plaintiff among those similarly situated as Domiciliary private National Citizens of the United

States of America the 18 U.S. Code Chapter 50A § 1091 Genocide, also known as the Proxmire

Act of 1987, applies herein under the Hague Convention Treaty of 1907 along with the Army

Field Manual of Regulations for Civil Occupation during the ongoing time of war or national

emergency for measuring severity of harm from the margins of the basic offense notwithstanding

whether this is a civil or criminal action applies nevertheless as follows:

• (a) BASIC OFFENSE.-Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the

specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious

group as such-

(!) kills members of that group;

(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;

(3) causes the pennanent impainnent of the mental faculties of members of the group

through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;

(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical

destruction of the group in whole or in part;

(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or

(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; shall be punished as

provided in subsection (b).

(b) PUNISHMENT FOR BASIC OFFENSE.-The punishment for au offense under subsection

• (a) is-

61
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 62 of 66

c (1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(l), where death results, by death or

imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and

(2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years,

or both, in any other case.

(c) INCITEMENT OFFENSE.-

Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more
than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d) ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY.-

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished

in the same manner as a person who completes the offense.

(e) JURISDICTION.-There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c),

and (d) if-

(1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or

(2) regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is-

(A) a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. I 101 (/uscode/text/8/1101)));

(B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as

that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

U.S.C. 1101 (/uscode/text/8/1101 )));

(C) a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or

(D) present in the United States.

(f) NONAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.-Notwithstanding section 3282, in

the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted,

at any time without limitation.

To wit Plaintiff is a private national Citizen of the USA whose group defined above has

been harmed in all manner of socio-economic and civil ways by the crime associated with 8 USC

62 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 63 of 66

• §1324 harboring by State and Municipal Defendants with acquiesces by members of Congress

who if not silent aided and abetted the Executive themselves in the crime for personal gain and

admit to their crime by public pronouncements and enactments in breach of public duties and

maliciously done, despite the fact that under Title 8 as Mr. Cutler states, shown in Exhibit W,

and worth repeating that quote:

"Mayors of "Sanctuary Cities" are not helping illegal aliens who fall victim to criminals.
In point of fact, illegal aliens who assist law enforcement authorities are able to ·acquire
visas that enable them to live and work legally in the United States.

"If our political leaders truly want to assist aliens who fall victim to crimes and they want
to go after transnational criminals and hmnan traffickers, they need to encourage illegal
aliens to cooperate with ICE to provide actionable intelligence that can ultimately
identify, investigate, arrest and prosecute these alien criminals. Shielding illegal aliens
from detection by ICE is illegal and undermines public safety and national security.

"The 9/11 Commission made it clear that terror attacks, and not just the attacks of 9/11
were made possible by multiple failures of the immigration system ... "

• As such there is no legitimate legal rational other than ignorance for there is no defense

that a Public Officer may harbor an illegal alien per se, logically any Public Officer activity in

harboring is suspect activity involved in crime, and that act of harboring with no immunity and

or Eleventh Amendment protection. IN both New York and California the banks through the

banking fractional discount system are using illegal aliens against Federal law to profiteer as they

had done in 1999 to get rid of Glass Steagall for the theft of the Special Trusts Funds and by

commingling funds for egregious speculation that continues niow even worse that seen in 2008,

and that Defendants are acting in a quid pro quo collusion to facilitate unjust enrichment using

illegal aliens. At this point in time the nearly sole remaining pieces of personal property are the

individual vote and life itself and even those are taken by harboring and corruption driven greed

That when harboring is so closely tied to the provision of drivers licenses and or any form'

• of identification to be used to assume the identity of a domiciliary US Citizen with exclusive

63
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 64 of 66

protected privileges and immunities including the exclusive right to vote throws suspicion over

the entire voting process that must be scrutinized extremely closely as a matter of the pattern of

fraud at elections that started during the 1990s when the National Voter Registration Act "Motor

Voter" was initiated and with enactment of the Help America to Vote Act implemented

"Provisional Voting" whereby "Voting by Mail" previously termed "Absentee Ballots" extended

the basis for fraud under the cloak of a secret ballot whereat the polls or main office in effect no

one could be efficiently chaiienged to prevent fraud. Such was the 1996 General Election

California when Robert K. Doman was defrauded by illegal alien vote fraud that by operation of

law the House of Representatives, with Newt Gingrich as speaker, was the final judge of the

member elections and by a cynical deal between the Democrats and Republicans racketeering_

enterprise that aided the fraud despite the fact that the INS had proven iiiegals in considerable


numbers had voted and absent that involvement Mr. Doman won, nothing was done to correct

the voter rolls then in 1996 or now despite HA VA court cases especially here in New York.

Now especially with HA VA the national registration rolls that should show who is

registered where as a result of political interference and sedition by the likes of George Soros and

his NGOs still remains unenforced as to multi-state registration by moving, student attendance or

otherwise even the dead live on election day and even before hand by aid of the US Postal

service ·as mail fraud too - Undersigned has not expectation that Mr. Pence's' commissionership

will be able to correct the situation without this Court to assist by way of relief and scrutiny done

herein. There have been very few opportunities to correct this scandalous theft of Private

National Citizen rights since 1976, with the exception of the present political atmosphere with

Misters Trump and Pence in office, and we must not miss taking the initiative to straighten out

what should be obvious.

64 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 65 of 66

• CONCLUSION IN RESPONSE

The evidence shows both prima facie and actual proof of Defendants" harboring of

Illegal aliens in collusion with person/ entities under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government

for unjust enrichment to the detriment of Undersigned; as such Plaintiff wishes an order of the

Court to proceed with a schedule for pre-trial conference, as there are several Federal questions

along with substantial Constitutional claims raised above in support of the Petition with

Complaint and contends that with the affidavit of Robert K. Doman proving a pattern of

malicious infringement that there is a substantive request for Three Judge Court with 28 USC

§2284 for enforcement of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment as to all defendants

subject to the further and different reason and proof provided in the Undersigned1s trial with

testimony of witnesses to provide evidence of harm complained of for available relief under the

14th Amendment and related law along with further and different relief the Court deemed

• necessary for justice pursuant of a Declaratory Judgment on the matter of harboring, along with

different and further relief the Court deems necessary for 'ustice herein.

-=~pher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
State ofNew York )
} ss.
County of Kings )
BEFORE ME, on this day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk, known to me to be the person
described herein and who solemnly affinned under the penalties of peljury that every statement given
above was the whole truth to the best ofhis knowledge.

Subscribed and Affmned before me on this Lfj_day of April, 2017.


Notary Public

65 Nollrj' hlllc, -oi-\WI<
CAMILE TAYLOR
~~q~~o~n~~oatllTAtiJm7
Qlliollllod ill~ Co!mtv, ..,_
E:rplndoll: f.ti(-= £::2.¢ T .
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36 Filed 04/20/17 Page 66 of 66


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 19
U.S. DISTRICT COURT- N.D. OF N.Y.
FILED


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 2 0 2017
FOR; THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AT O'CLOCK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS) Lawrence K. Baerman, (1:---c,,c-_-;-Sy-,"-""

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER E~ STRUNK, Individually ofNew York;
Plaintiff, Petitioner
versus

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA with Edmund Gerald "JERRY" BROWN Jr., Individually
and as Governor; and Alejandro "ALEX" PADILLA, Individually and as Secretary of State
(SOS); THE STATE OF NEW YORK with ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and as
Governor; THE STATE'' OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ELECTIONS; THE CITY OF
NEW YORK (NYC); \\jarren "BILL DE BLASIO" Wilhelm Jr., Individually and as the
Mayor of NYC; THE N)'C BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE;
UNITED STATES DEPJ\RTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS;


Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PLAINTIFF'S DECL~TION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
FOR PLAINTIFF'S OMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DIS SS THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Undersigned, Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris sole beneficiary agent in propria persona

for the inter vivos express trUst CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (Plaintiff, non-belligerent)

similarly situated as Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment Private National Citizens of the United

States of America (USA) (I)• Republican Party member, and also a Private New York Citizen;

complies with the 20 March 2017 ORDER for Response by April 19,2017 to the Defendants'

respective Motions to Dismiss the Petition with Complaint filed 15 December 2016 (Complaint).

1
Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution recognized two
separate types of citizenship -''national citizenship" and "state citizenship"-and the Court held that the Privileges


or Immunities Clause prohibits states from interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of
national citizenship. The Court concl$ded that the privileges and immunities of national citizenship included only
those rights that "owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws."

I
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 19


1. Undersigned's felldw New York acquaintance for 14 years is Michael Cutler, who is an

expert witness available to testify as a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS

(Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an

Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who

rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was

assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional

hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around

the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, "The

Michael Cutler Hour," on Friday evenings on Blog Talk Radio. His personal website is

http://michaelcutler.net/. Mr. Cutler contends in a number of his latest article (see Exhibit W)

for a variety ofwebsites, that by operation oflaw under Title 8, quote:

"Mayors of ''Sanctuary Cities" are not helping illegal aliens who fall victim to criminals.
In point of fact, illegal aliens who assist law enforcement authorities are able to acquire
visas that enable them to live and work legally in the United States.

"If our political leaders truly want to assist aliens who fall victim to crimes and they want
to go after transnational criminals and human traffickers, they need to encourage illegal
aliens to cooperate with ICE to provide actionable intelligence that can ultimately
identify, investigate, arrest and prosecute these alien criminals. Shielding illegal aliens
from detection by ICE is illegal and undermines public safety and national security.

"The 9/11 Commission made it clear that terror attacks, and not just the attacks of 9/11
were made possible by multiple failures of the immigration system ... "

2. Although my focus is upon harboring of illegal aliens per se, malicious policy that

applies to Undersigned's hann as State Policy of socio-economic malice is to be measured under

18 USC §1091 as an attack upon U.S. Citizen Nationals to destroy living standard and culture, as

policy that facilitates harm, Mr. Cutler published an analysis entitled IMMIGRATION

'REFORM': ENGINEERED DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS: The plan to reduce

• "wage inequa/itv" bv making Middle America poorer -- while the super rich pocket the

2
~-------------.-------------------~ --

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 19

dif&rence. on July 21, 2014 in FrontPage magazine that exposes the malicious policy pursued

• !
by government as expresse<!l by Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve (see Exhibit X) during

his testimony at that hearingp Greenspan spoke of the:

"...advantages to the ' employment of foreign workers both illegal aliens, as well as high
1
skilled aliens admitted into the United States with visas that enable them to take the high
tech jobs."

Stated In fact, he called for greatly increasing the number of higbly skilled (and educated)

foreign workers. In this excerpt from his testimony, it is clear that he understands what most

Americans want, but he coul4 not care less:

'There are two distinptly different policy issues that confront the Congress. The first is
illegal immigration. the notion of rewarding with pennanent resident status those who
have broken our immig:ration laws does not sit well with the American people. In a recent
poll, two thirds would like to see the number of illegals decreased.

"But there is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a
significant contributioo to the growth of our economy. Between 2000 and 2007, for
example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor
force ... 11

Greenspan glossed over the significant costs on state and local governments and minimized the

issue of wage suppression. When people are among the working poor, every cent they earn

counts. He noted the imposition of significant costs on some state and local governments, but

what is significant is that corporations will make more money even as they offshore their

manufacturing facilities and their profits to minimize labor costs, violate safety and

environmental laws and standards and certainly dodge paying taxes in the United States.

Ibis should surprise no· one. What level of empathy would you expect of someone who

could complain about too much money being paid to middle class workers (the privileged elite as
1

he referred to them)? This is precisely the position he took when he went on to support the

claims that had been made by Bill Gates at a previous hearing that the United States needs to

• 3
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 19


admit far more high skilledl workers into the United States. Here is how Greenspan's testimony
I

addressed this issue:
I
"First, skilled wor9'"s and their families form new households. They will, of necessity,
move into vacant ~ousing units, the current glut of which is depressing prices of
American homes. A~d, of course, house price declines are a major factor in mortgage
foreclosures and th~ plunge in value of the vast quantity of U.S. mortgage backed
securities that has corttributed substantially to the disabling of our banking system.

"The second bonus wbuld address the increasing concentration of income in this country.
Greatly expanding d.ur quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of
skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our
skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage
pricing mechanism.

"In the process, we hqve created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at
noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating
such restrictions would reduce at least some ofour income inequality. "

And Mr. Cutler contends as do I. that with systemic malice Mr. Greenspan refers to the

American middle class workers as the "privileged elite" is such an outrageous statement made at

a Senate hearing and go unreported. Yet this is what happened, is genocidal warfare against me.

3. Undersigned's first exposure to systemic harboring of illegal aliens goes to the pattern of

harm done while employed by the NYS Facilities Development Corp. (FDC) (see Exhibit A-3);

created by Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller (bankers) in cooperation with Democrats

(people managers) such as Congressman John F Kennedy who as a U.S. House member

managed to divide the Social Security Fund (SSI) into components to be used to support those

persons deemed permanently disabled to be afforded SSI separate from the Mentally ill; and

wherein - Office of Mental Retardation versus Office of Mental Health was transformed into a

vehicle to finance construction, individual care and bonded finance for housing and care for the

Developmentally disabled. Frdm 1981 thru 1987 I was simultaneously the field engineer I

manager for projects at Staten Island Development Center (Willowbrook), The Institute for Basic

• 4
------------ ----------~

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 5 of 19

Research, South Beach Psychiatric Center, Brooklyn Development Center, Kingsboro
;
I • Psychiatric Center, Rocklanfl Psychiatric Center. From 1984 thru 1987 was assigned the job of
'
shutting down the Willowb:rbok facility under the Federal Court Willowbrook Decree, where as

project manager supervised five (5) inspectors, and reported directly to the Governor's Office in

Albany weekly. I discoverer 8 USC § 1324 harboring violations at Willowbrook and aroong

other care facilities. Forei~ aliens who would fly roundtrip into JFK with their retarded/

disabled infant/child with thei purpose to abandon them at the terminal -then to return home. The

Foreign alien had an understanding that the infant I child left behind would to be given U.S.

Citizenship arranged by the local U.S. House member or Senator, and then be interned for life

for long-term care being paid individually between $30k to $80k per armum by the Social

Security Administration out of the Social Security Fund- Charles Schumer knows about money.

4. My next experience with harboring hann, referenced by Mr. Cutler in Exhibit X, while at

NYS Facilities Development Corporation was government policy to replace Veterans and U.S.

Citizen employees, especially those registered Republican, with refugees from Eastern Europe

and Africa that I was to train, and in time who replaced me at less pay before my pension vested.

5. My next set of experiences with harboring harm occurred in NYC from 1992 after I left

FDC as a private contractor who over time was economically smashed by the NYC harboring

policies, and where obligated ~y Court order stayed in the city to be with my son weekly, then in

his mother's custody, and recently due to economic policy by NYC harboring relocated upstate.

6. Undersigned's associate: of 12 years, Robert K. Doman, will testify as to his Affidavit of

March 5, 2017 as a Virginia State Resident (see Exhibit U) that supports the causes of action

complained of as to California Defendants with sufficient probable cause evidence of harm and

rights infringement because of 8 USC § 1324 harboring of illegal aliens as a result of the leniency

• 5
------------~---,----- ----

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 6 of 19

'


afforded by the NVRA as Il'fS investigated and proven illegal alien vote fraud in 1996 that shows

a pattern of vote fraud under voter registration with NVRA and provisional voting ease with

HAVA made increasingly easy for actual vote fraud against the requirements of 18 USC §611.

7. Mr. Doman and others have been injured by harboring of illegal aliens by State action

because of Sanctuary City mrdinance in place since no later than 1989, when e.g,. San Francisco

Administrative Code Chapter 12-H and 12-1 the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance was

passed (see Exhibit 1-1) (similar to the NYC Sanctuary Ordinance since the Koch administration

that prohibited a police officer from asking when apprehended the person is a legally present in

the city), and ia which the Sanctuary Ordinance prohibits City employees from using City funds

or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of

Federal immigration law unless such assistance is required by federal or state law.

8. The ease of uninspected registration and voting by illegal aliens is admitted as a problem

statewide under CA AB 1461 October 2015 (see Exhibit 1-2) that holds the voter and public

officer harmless for law violiation and or dereliction of duty, and as of March 30, 2017 is

compounded with Senate Bill 54 as amended published March 30, 2017 (see Exhibit 1-3); and

since no later than 30 January 2017 as reported by SACRAMENTO CBSLA.com/Associated

Press (see Exhibit 1-4) there is seditious insurrection in California prohibiting local law

enforcement, as in NYC since the mid 1970s, from cooperating with federal immigration

authorities, creating a border to border sanctuary in the nation's largest state as legislative

Democrats ramp up efforts to battle President Donald Trump's duty to enforce the law. Further

legislation is scheduled to enact code Democratic lawmakers allege somehow protect immigrants

(SIC) from the Republican president who has promised as his duty to enforce the Federal law.

• 6
-- --- T

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 7 of 19

I
9. That similarly situated with me, J.B. Williams of The North American Law Center

• (TNALC) whose director isl attorney Stephen Pidgeon, have acted to stop California harboring
I
and illegal voting earlier in the year having proposed Federal legislative Bill to Disqualify the
1
State of CalifOrnia from Pahicipating in the 2016 Federal Election (see Exhibit Y-1) and on

October 27, 2016 with follow-up article published on NewsWithViews.com (see Exhibit Y-2).

10. In March 2017, TNALC issued a White Paper entitled Report On USA Patriot Act

Violation (see Exhibit Z) that outlines the necessity to use the Patriot Act against the

organizations that illegally facilitate harboring, sedition, insurrection and terrorist belligerency,

well beyond free speech, all financed by the traitor Gy5rgy Schwartz. AKA George Soros, who I

sued in NYS Supreme Court by the Complaint with Index No.: 6500-2011 filed in March of

2011, and about whom I have written with consequence, as has my fellow New Yorker Dr.

Robert E. Kaplan PhD. who wrote the book THE SOROS CONNECTION: How the Exposure o[

George Soros as an Agent o[ Germanv has Led to the Revelation of Germanv's Here-to-fore

Unrecognized Aeparatus tor Controlling the United States and Achieving World Rule (2011).

11. That since filing the Complaint on 15 December 2016, additional exhibits apply for

evidence and named individual testimony at trial as listed below with a short explanation:

a. Undersigned as a registered non-belligerent continues to be the Executor for the

Express Trust of the Posterity of the USA filed with the Superior Court of Georgia

(see Exhibit A-1) and that applies as germane due to the fact by operation oflaw that

the continuing National Emergency for 84 under EBRA with Executive Order 2040

remains until revoked as jurisdiction to be observed by the Court as explained with

the Judicial Notice in the Memorandum of Law applies to Defendants' malicious

• 7
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 8 of 19

'


illegal acts to facflitate use of banking in commerce including obtaining mortgages in

competition with U.S. Citizens and or those aliens legally resident.

b. That 10/4/2016 jhe California list of POTUS I VPOTUS Elector slates for the

November 8, 2016 Ballot previously marked as Exhibit B is now Exhibit B-1;

c. The California E~ecutive Department Certificate of Ascertainment for Electors of

President and Vice President of the United States of America (see Exhibit B-2);

d. For the California Certification of the Election Results (see Exhibit B-3).

e. The August 5, 2016 American Independent Party of California letter to James Brulte,

Chairman of the California Republican Party and Cynthia Bryant, Executive Director

of the California ~publican Party From: Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent

Party of California Chairperson And Markham G. Robinson, Executive Committee

Chairman (State Party), Chairman (National Party) Re: American Independent Party

2016 Presidential Ticket Intentions (see Exhibit C-1);

f The August 26, 2016 ALEX PADILLA I SECRETARY OF STATE I STATE OF

CALIFORNIA Steven J. Reyes Chief Counsel ELECTIONS DIVISION notification

RE: General Electidn: Ballot Layout Issues (see Exhibit C-2).

g. The August 26, 2016 American Independent Party of California letter To: County

Registrar of Voters From: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent Party of

California Chairperson Re: Urgent Questions about the form, content and handling of

the November 8, 2016, General Election Ballot and the September 9, 2016, Military

Ballot Mailing (see Exhibit C-3)

• 8
----------·---

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 9 of 19

F\l DEFECTIVE CALIFORNIA PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST from

h. The email re
!

<mark@masterpUmner.com> Markham Robinson Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:59 PM

To: suretynomor"@gmail.com Strunk Aide to Robert K. Doman (see Exhibit C-4)

1. The October 30,; 2016 American Independent Party of California A Petition to the

County Registrar of Voters with TABLE OF REPUBLICAN ELECTOR

NOMINEES and analysis of slates (see Exhibit C-5).

J. The October 7, 2016 American Independent Party of California letter to the County

Registrar of Voters From: Dr. Robert Ornelas, American Independent Party of

California Chairman Re: A Public Records Request about the November 8, 2016,

General Election Electors for President and Vice President of the United States,

especially as regards voter rights to see the list(s) of said Electors and about the ballot

masthead contents for the Presidential contest (see Exhibit D-1);

k. The October 27, 2016 American Independent Party of California letter To: Governor

Jerry Brown Attn; Constituent Affairs Subject: Request for Special Session of

California State Legislature State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas State Vice

Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg (see Exhibit D-2);

I. The November 7, 2016 American Independent Party of California DEMAND

LETTER TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE From State Chairman:

Dr. Robert Ornelas State Vice Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg (see Exhibit D-3);

m. County of Sacramento Ballot Type 009 Page 6 for 11/8/2016 (see Exhibit E-ll;

n. Sample of County of San Francisco Ballot for 11/8/2016 Election (see Exhibit E-2);

o. The New York list ofPOTUS I VPOTUS Elector slates for the November 8, 2016

Ballot previously marked as Exhibit B is now Exhibit F-1;

• 9
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 10 of 19

p. The New York C~rtification of the Election Results (see Exhibit F-2) .

• q. 11/18/2016 Statd Unauthorized Immigrant Populations

Exhibit G).
I Pew Research Center (see

r. 10112/2016 Breitbart by William Bigelow article Jerry Brown Signs Bill Allowing

Illegal Immigran$ to Vote (see Exhibit H).

s. City of San Fran¢isco Office of Civic Engagement & Immigrant Affairs "Sanctuary

City Ordinance" (~ee Exhibit 1-1).

t. CA AB 1461 October 2015 (see Exhibit I-2);

u. CA Senate Bill 54 as amended published March 30, 2017 (see Exhibit I-3);

v. 30 January 2017 ·as report by SACRAMENTO CBSLA.com/Associated Press (see

Exhibit 1-4) California prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating with

federal immigration authorities,

w. Thursday 2 Apri12015 14.45 EDT The Guardian by Kanishk Tharoor Non-citizens in

New York Citv could soon be given the right to vote (see Exhibit J-1);

x. July 14, 2016, by NYC press office Mayor de Blasio Launches Voter Registration

Forms in Five New Languages, Expanding Access to Voting (see Exhibit J-2);

y. February 22, 2016, Breitbart by Caroline May - Effort to Open Voting to Illegal

Immigrants Underway in NYC (see Exhibit J-3);

z. Commissioner Alan Schulkin to resign over his claims of voter fraud BY Madiiia

Toure • 10/18/2016 4:25pm (see Exhibit K-1);

aa. Elections Cmnmis~ioner Admits to Widesp[read Voter Fraud on Hidden Camera by

Jack Burns on Ocgtober 12, 2016 (see Exhibit K-2) .

• 10
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 11 of 19


bb. December 5, 2016 THE ENTIRE Order to Show Cause with TRO Castorina eta! v

Bill Di Blasio eta! NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 including

the transcripts of NYC City Council Committee on Immigration (see Exhibit L-1);

cc. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Nisha Agarwal pages I thru 79 (see Exhibit L-2);

dd. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Steven flanks pages 80 thm 112 (see Exhibit L-3);

ee. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Commisjioner Jobn Miller pages 113 thru 142 (see Exhibit L-4);
i
if 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of
Witness Assemblyman Ronald Castorina pages 143 thru 176 (see Exhibit L-5);

.. gg. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis pages 176 thru 203 (see Exhibit L-6);

hh. 1-18-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Bank Expert Jobn Burnett pages 204 thru 245 (see Exhibit L-7);

ii. 1-18-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Sergeant Edward Mullins pages 246 thru 296 (see Exhibit L-8);

jj. 4-3-2017 New York State Supreme Court Justice Minardo in the Article 78 Petition

with Docket No.: 080528-2016 issued the Decision and Order (see Exhibit L-9).

kk Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document I Filed 12/09/16 Page I of 10 Koller v Brown

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(see Exhibit M) .

• II
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 12 of 19

!


/1. April 16, 2008 Department of Elections for the City and County of San Francisco
'
voting handbook (see Exhibit N).

mm. November 8, 2016 Non-citizen Voting in School Board Elections- San Francisco

Voter Information Pamphlet & Sample Ballot (see Exhibit 0).

nn. 111128/16 Election Clerk Frances Austin for CA Ventura County re CA Election

Voter Complaint Form and correspondence with SOS (see Exhibit P).

oo. March 4, 2013, 80th FDR Inauguration Anniversary, Order by the NYS Supreme

Court Appellate :qivision that denies provision of Civil Due Process, and confirms

Martial Due ProceSs (see Exhibit 0)

pp. 5 May 2016, the ~ndersigned Executor for the Posterity non-belligerents obtained a

jurisdictional Order from the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) with Docket No. 16-0512 (see Exhibit R)

qq. U.S. Army Field Manual 41-10-1962 Civil versus Martial Process depicted in the

Field Manual Diagram between the grey of Transition "A" and "B" (see ExhibitS).

rr. November 4, 2016 Strunk FOIL #2016-4195 rerecord destruction (see Exhibit T).

ss. Robert K. Dornan, a National Citizen along with Undersigned, and who according to

his Affidavit of March 5, 2017 is a Virginia State Resident (see Exhibit U).

tt. Alex Padilla_Califomia Secretary of State Provisional Voting in California (see

Exhibit V-1).

uu. BlackBoxVoting.org Accountability: In governance, accountability means

answerability to the public and the obligation to report, explain_and be held

responsible for consequences of decisions ? by Bev Harris November 18, 2016 (see

Exhibit V-2) .

• 12
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 13 of 19


vv. BlackBoxVoting.brg AUDITS OR FRAUDITS? by Bev Harris November 18, 2016
!

(see Exhibit V-31

ww. BlackBoxVot\ng.org ACTIONS: THE BRAKEY METHOD_By Bev Harris

November 15, 2016 (see Exhibit V-4).

xx. How the vote is counted in California after Election Day By JANIE HAR

Associated Press Wednesday, November 9, 2016 (see Exhibit V-5).

yy. Did Obama Encourage Illegal Immigrants to Vote? No, But YES BY: JAMES

BARRETT on NQVEMBER 7, 2016 an interview highlighted by Fox Business

News' Neil Cavuto(see Exhibit V-6).

zz. On February 5, 2017 THE HILL BY ALEXANDER BOLTON- 02/05117 04:36PM

EST report on Trump taps Pence to head voter fraud investigation (see Exhibit V-7).

aaa. On Aprill3, 2017 the website, lunacy of Sanctuary Cities. MICHAEL CUTLER

MOMENT: LETHAL SANCTUARY CITIES (see Exhibit W).

bbb. Mr. Cutler phblished an analysis entitled IMMIGRATION 'REFORM':

ENGINEERED DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS: The plan to reduce

"wage inequality" by making Middle America poorer -- while the super rich pocket

the ditlerence. on July 21, 2014 in FrontPage magazine that exposes the malicious

policy pursued by government as expressed by Alan Greenspan of the Federal

Reserve (see Exhib!t X).

ccc. The North American Law Center (TNALC) whose director is attorney Stephen

Pidgeon, have acted to stop California harboring and illegal voting earlier in the year

having proposed Federal legislative Bill to Disqualify the State of California from

• 13
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 14 of 19


Participating in lthe 2016 Federal Election (see Exhibit Y-1) and on October 27,

2016 with fol1o~-up article published on News With Views. com (see Exhibit Y -2).

ddd March 2017, tNALC issued a White Paper entitled Report On USA Patriot Act

Violation (see E'!fibit Z).

12. As for HA VA '"Provisional Voting" the State of California instructed as shown in

Exhibit V-I that quote:

"Provisional Voting: If your name is not on the voter list at your polling place, you have
the right to vote a proviisional ballot.
What Is a Provisional Ballot? A provisional ballot is a regular ballot that is placed in a
special envelope prior to being put in the ballot box.
Who Casts a Provisiornti Ballot? Provisional ballots are ballots cast by voters who:
• Believe they ewe registered to vote even though their names are not on the
official voter re~istration list at the
polling place.
• Vote by mail but did not receive their ballot or do not have their ballot with
them, and instead want to vote at a
polling place.
What Happens After Y Qu Cast a Provisional Ballot?
Your provisional ballot will be counted after elections officials have confinned that you
are registered to vote in .that county and you did not already vote in that election.
You may vote a provisional ballot at any polling place in the county in which you are
'
registered to vote, howelver, only the elections contests you are eligible to vote for will be
counted.
How Can You Check The Status of Your Provisional Ballot?
Every voter who casts a [provisional ballot has the right to find out from their county
elections official if the bflllot was counted and, if not, the reason why it was not counted."

13. Based upon infonnation and belief Undersigned alleges that on 8 November 2016

the States of California pro'fided "provisional ballots" under HAVA to say 750,000 persons

and that the CA SOS conteOcts that such must remain under seal as to whom of the 400,000

of the rough total were recorded to have voted by absentee ballot renamed "Vote by Mail" .

• 14
~------------~---- r--

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 15 of 19


14. In late JanuWy 2017, Undersigned spoke with Bev Harris of Black Box Voting

concerning HAVA 11 Provisional Ballots" in California that according to her is the new means

to conduct vote fraud. Bev Harris influential reporting by Black Box Voting is referenced

worldwide, founded in ,2003, performs nonpartisan investigative reporting and public

education for elections. Author Bev Harris became known for groundbreaking work on

electronic voting machines, which can remove transparency of the vote count; other

important reporting pertaiins to voter lists, election chain of custody, transparency problems

with absentee voting, election industry corporate governance, and financial accountability in

elections. Opaque, non-tr$lsparent voting can afilict voter lists, poll lists, vote counting and

chain of custody; political finance can also be "black box."

15. In the January phone conversation with Bev Harris, she confirmed Undersigned's

suspicion about the fraud with use ofHAVA "Provisional Voting" evidenced by theCA SOS

treatment of the Provisional ballot records as sealed to protect the secret ballot,

notwithstanding the fact that we are merely interested in knowing who is registered as a

result of the issuance of the ballot and who voted that way and is information that must be

available but kept secret by either California, New York or any state per NVRA and HA VA.

16. That based upon a series of word Acrobat advanced searches and review of the

accompanying at least show room for considering prima facie harboring of illegal aliens

aided and abetted by the NYC and NYS Government agencies and even Judge Minardo in

conjunction with the Banks !per se, and as similarly used by the California Defendants under

the continuing National Em,ergency, and that a search of Bates paginated Exhibits for key

words in effective with proper use of tenus goes to the mens rea of the court, attorneys in

• 15
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 16 of 19


their papers and at testinb.ony, as to witnesses, the court and various government officials is

instructive as to intent an~ underlying bias:

a. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (F;xhibit pages 184 thru 967) search for the word "Bank" lists 135

instances in use ljy official correspondence and transcript testimony both at the NYC
'
Council Committ~e on Immigration and Testimony at trial.

b. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit
'
L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Alien" listed twice (2)

c. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "lnunigraot" listed 117

times of the 209 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

d. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for the oxymoronic term

"Illegal Immigrant" listed 38 times and not once in the L-9 Decision of the 59

instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

e. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Undocumented" listed

109 times of the 116 instances in the entire set of Exhibits

f. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Undocumented Alien"

listed only twice (2) on pages of the Mullin Testimony and nowhere else in the entire

set of Exhibits.

g. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

• 16
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 17 of 19


L-1 thru L-9 (llxhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "lllegal Aliens" listed

only four (4) ti~es, twice on pages of the Mullin Testimony and not once by Judge

Minardo, of the :h instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

h. As to the full O~C supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Federal" listed ISO

times of the 299 iftstances in the entire set of Exhibits.

1. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Registration" listed four

(4) times and not:once in the L-9 Decision of the 168 instances in the entire set of

Exhibits.

J. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Citizen" listed 29 times

and not once in the, L-9 Decision of the 166 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

k. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit
'
L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Vote" listed 64 times

and not once in the L-9 Decision, of the 1275 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

l. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Voter Registration"

listed not once ofth~ 90 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

m. As to the full OSC supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) generic word search for "American" listed

29 times and not once in the L-9 Decision of the 312 instances in the entire set of

Exhibits .

• 17
--- "]

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 18 of 19

I


n. As to the full O~C supporting documents ofNYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit
I
L-1 thru L-9 (E~hibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for the generic term "Legal"

listed 54 times otthe 116 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

17. Notably Judge Minardo shown in Exhibit L-9 (Exhibit pages 947 thru 967) mentions

"Bank" seven (7) times "Inunigrant" four (4) times, "Federal" four (4) times, "Undocumented"

twice (2) referencing the :Mullin Testimony and "Alien" "American" "Vote", "Voter"

"Registration" not once.

18. Undersigned based upon the argument of Judge Minardo refusal at trial to argue the legal

'
basis for his jurisdiction, remarkably Minardo to Batra at Exhibit Page 683 of L-2 Testimony

Page 38 Does not allow the review of Federal law germane to the trial stated-- "THE COURT:

Wait. Mr. Batra, please. We are not going through legal questions here as far as what the

pyramid of law is and so forth. 11 - shuts down the petitioners' attorney.

19. It is clear from that the "city doesn't consider legal status when determining whether to

issue an ID card."

20. That Judge Minardo at L-9 page lO refers to the Testimony of Bank Expert John Burnett

regarding State and City collusiOn with the banks per se :

"John L. Burnett ~rks in financial services and writes for the Huffington Post.
Petitioners brought this witness as a financial expert. He testified that the IDNYC
card could be used to open bank accounts, but such use could not supersede federal
law. He testified tha~ there was a concern that the City of New York, could leverage
those institutions that do business with the City of New York to use the IDNYC card
as identification. Further, the letter of the Superintendent of the New York State
Department of Finanfial Services, dated September I, 2016, which provides guidance
on the use of the lli>NYC card as proof of identity for the use in opening bank
accounts could enha.t¥:e such leverage."

21. In my opinion the State Court admits it does not have jurisdiction over the matter before

it by refusing to allow discussion of Federal plenary power of immigration and the duty of all

• 18
---------,
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 19 of 19

public officers to observe t~eir duty of their oath .

• 22. As time is short a$ to the deadline for filing this response Undersigned reserves an

opportunity to go through the exhibits line by line as to actual and prima facie evidence of

harboring of illegal aliens and collision if allowed a sur-reply.

Wherefore, Plaintiff wishes an order of the Court to proceed with a schedule for pre-trial

conference, as there are several Federal questions along with substantial Constitutional claims

raised above in support of the Petition with Complaint and contends that with the affidavit of

Robert K. Dornan proving a pattern of malicious infringement that there is a substantive request

for Three Judge Court with 28 USC §2284 for enforcement of the provisions of the Fourteenth

Amendment as to all defendants subject to the further and different reason and proof provided in

the Undersigned's trial with testimony of witnesses to provide evidence of harm complained of

for available relief under the 14th Amendment and related law along with further and different

relief the Court deemed necessary for justice pursuant of a Declaratory Judgment on the matter

of harboring, along with different and further relief the Court deems necessary for justice herein.

e)Q~
Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
StateofNewYork)
} ss.
County of Kings )

BEFORE ME, on this day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk, known to me to be the person described herein and who
solerrmly affirmed under the penalties of perjury that every statement given above was the whole truth to the best of his
knowledge.

Subscribed and Affinned before me on this _L&ay of April, 2017.

• '
'
'I
I
19
Notary Public
CAMILE TAYWR
Nolll)' . - , S111e of New\Wk
~IIJTA613m7

=~~~~
I
I.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 78

PLAINTIFF'S DECLAMTION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMB!:m:D RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
'THEPETnlONVITTHCOMPLUNT

Exhibit A-1

-- --- ------~

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 78

·mi!.FM QEED IN tlWaT TO THE UNIDm S'tATiS,OF~C4 .
WlTllBENEFJCIARY mScBETION FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS OF TilE ~STA'J!E!I WHO·

ARETKWN~CITIZEN.SUNDER~:~$'1'~~'!!'...~W· ·
RESPE~~~~~:n~~~~~~..w.·
. GoVERNMENT WITH ACONTUMNG NA'rtON;\LEMEim~r'· . . .. .
This Express Deed i_a Trust is a claim of beneficial interest in aild over aU tM pub~ and jl:rivate
real personal, tangi~l& and intangible Property within THE UNITED sTATES OF ~CA geograplric
border to safeguard and secure for the posterity of WE the People ofthe United Statelcof America in the
nation given by GOD for securing each private' Citizen's unalienable 'rights and~ iiltere8t in
pursuit ollife liberty and happiness in perpetuity, and with the ~ecutor and Bene~ .j;.tj, lo this
Tru.t shall guarantee that aU incumbents and future candidate(s)fur the Oftico of ~rdor Vice
President of the United Stales (POTUSlshnU be a beoallde Nalwol·&m Ci!~·(liilie)~ie Ci~n of
the United Stetee agent who is surety no more to tbe Debtor Trust Efttily in comp~..wi the: United
States .Colllltitutinn Article 2 S..:tion I Clause s; either ander IZ USC 115 and 50 ttS!J~; .ll(b)~tll the
Military <l<\_,.,.ent authority of renewud annual National Emmgency:or otherw1ee (ll!t:l!:l:Ua 'faUST).
- - - - - - - - -

That this NATION of THE UNITED ST/L~QF AMERICA ili•Jrtft rromQ(!~Jiblillje>j, !!<>\lOrding
to the Declarotionofl~ependence in CONGRESs. July 4, me as the: ul.animou8 ~i:;OO of the
Freemen«lhe thirteen unitud Stares ofAmerica atate, quote: •

.::
The Preardhle. t(> t'h~ CoWitiP.tlOn of the U"'ted S!ateilli!'iYiil!f! ~ilthority ~~~~a: .·.
'< '~' - '-~-':\~_,; :,_}, ;~,:, ;
We the Poopkof ~ UrUI«i ~--. in Order U> form a t!Wre petfe#'f.li#JJn:. eswbliA/t!li#Pii!:<?.:i~ ,; · <• :·
do~tic Tiuitqldlit:l. j>i'iiuiil8 fi>r'the ''""m'l!i ~ promilit tfw~ Wel/bi\;i'<i"it;~~ :r :
Blusi!Wa.of Lill<irl, ro~l~ <md our l'b4ten6(. do ordain Qilil:.it~Qbliilllhi8 c~~~P:liiliMI
$tateRO{Anuiri.Ca.: _ ,:

Page 1 of15
, , - ,_ ,~~ ~-~ :~-,,~_,:

\

' '
::,::_:; :- :'"
\ .,, '

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 78

That WE the People are onlf those private Citizens under GOD, not public citizens under men, and that
guarantee within this Nation that each Private Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest is
secure in perpetuity as long a~ the Sovereign People of this Nation act under GOD as expressed in the
ll<)ok of Isaiah Chapter 55 Ve""' I thru 5, hereafter quoting from the King James V.rsion of the Bible:
I .
L Ho, every one that thir;teth, come ye to the waters, and he tha.t hath no money, come ye, buy, and
eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
'
2. Wherefore do ye spend ~oney for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which
eatisfieth not? hearken !diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight
itself in fatness.
3. Incline your ear, and COflle unto me: hear, and your soul shall hve; and I will make an everlasting
covenant with you, even the sure mercies of ,David.
,L Behold, I have given hUb.' for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5. Behold1 thou shalt caft a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that k:new not thee
shall run unto thee ~cause of the LoRD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he
hath glorified thee. 1

'
:: t '
That the geographic borderland size orthis NATION ofTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
including its population accordjilg to the Censue of 2QIO is depicted in the map and chart below with a
map showing public and private land that ineludes the coastal waters out to the limit of 200 miles as
follows:
F¢deral Government Lomd&tn the U.S.

i •
.......-..
=:.:..
• ~~
Exhibit A
-
·•·
.11_.;·-·..·.:·=--.:-'""
Page 2ofl5
...............
.....,..,.-....
..--~· " '
...
t #""'
.:.:!\':'-~
.,, __ _
_,..._.
h-·
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 78

- ' -- GOY Owned!.-'
That the "natuiAI.Jiorn !lltlzen"
ciause expreUed in thO ratified u.S.
_ConatitutioO Artide 2 Section 1
cra... s .,.. ~b)tthePoople

of New York with emphasi&_'that was
expreaeed as disp~te ~:t~July
26. 1763 ratification docU!tlent of
what should have boon. quotA>:
'That 1!9 Pfri!®Jl e;wmt natural born
CUizens. or ~h as were Citiaens on
or be{Qre the /01.1rth day of July one
thouoond seve~ hlli:TUlred, and sevenly,
six;. or such gs held Commissions-
under the- United- Slgtes during the
.l!W:,. and haue at ait.Y rime since tlw
fourth day of July one tlwtistmd sct.>en
hundred and seventy six become
Citizens of one or other of the Unitro
States. and wliq skql! be Freehql,dgrs.
s/w/1 be •li&:ibl« 1!1 llw Plam 9l
Pr.admit.lice~ orMemW.
of eitlwr l1gww 91 tkt ¢~ of the
U~tiled States. "

And the People of New York •
warned:
That the Powers of Ggveml!W!t max
be reossumed bv t!Jf &/Pk.
l<Jiienwever · il shaU blo:ome
~ lo their H~ ihat
evety 1\>wer. Jurisdidio8 imd right,
wkich is 1Wl by the said-
<;on;~titution ctetirty 'rli:Zegated to the
' .. o{thiJU:
~trgreBB , , n~:~·~· ,, ,, __ prJ].,
deparlmenUi .of iJ.s, Government
t/u.reo{. h!mainlt to ihs Ptopk 'i>f ihs
. staUt!.:
several . ir'ki
• . . their:'
. . ~ .. lioc
State GowCIIJIIimlB to .whom J/uty.
may ha!!e grr.mted lhe· ~m<t; And
that thase CIOW... in the · liOid
Constitutilm. W/ikh ~: 'that
~- shall nat htlv6 Or '.x.Tcise
certain Powers. .. do rWt ilnpl1, t/l<ll
Congress is en.UiW to cmy PoWers
Ml- given by th4 said Coiu:titu~ion;
but such C-are to liiixJMti'Ui!d
. li£ ' . .i/OM ,;. ·. ' ··lain.
ett r tJ& ,~ , _ '~""-~
specified Powers. or -OB; ,iMerlfMJ_

Exhibit A Page 3ofl6
mere~ for greaU.r Caut~rL '


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 5 of 78

That the Natural·bor! Citizen clause does NOT derive froin the term ot art "'natural-
born Subject", but instead w ~ <lerived from ancient consideration of.GOD's Natural Law as expressed
in Greece by the works of Aris tle and -carried forward for use in Roman law by the works of Cicero.
Aristotle did not define ~tizenship like the English did.in the EngU.h common law in which they
did not give any relevaocy to ''¥
citizenship of the child's parents, provided the parents were not
diplomats or military invaders.IA.ristotle included in the definition of a "citizen" a person "'of whom both
the parents arecitizens." "' It io this definition which was haoded down through the millennia through
the law of nations and which tbb
Founders and Framers adopted for the new republic. We also see that
the then Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Mi(!Qr v. Hq1111ers(tt, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162
(1875) (Minor) (decided after tht Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868) held that "all children
born in a country of parents whq were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens akJo. Tlte8e
were natives or natural·born ci,..ens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners" informed that a person
who became a citizen by being bpm in the country to "citizen" parents was known in eommon law with
which the Framers were familia). as a "notural-born ~itizen.." How do we know that the Founders and
Framers looked to Aristotle's viJw of citizenship? We learn from the historical record th~t Supreme Court
Justi~ James Wilson wrote in 1~91: '"'Generally speaking,' says the great political authority, Aristotle. 'a
citizen is one aartakittg equally (f{ power and of subordination.' ... In Wilson's view, "a citizen of
Pennsylvania·is he, who has resi~ed in t.he state two years: and, within that time, has paid a state or
county tax: or he i.s between thl! a,es of hventy orw ()ndlwenty tWo years. and the son of a citiaen." James
Wilson,. lst commentaries on the! Constitution. Here we clearly see Wilson referring to what could only be
a "~tural born Citizen" as "the sOn of a citizen."
We also know that the FoUnde1'8 and Framers studied Roman law. The Framers were weU read in
the Roman and Greek classics aBi is expounded upon in their writirtgs in the Federalist Papers. ,Jefferson

Aristotle also gave us a definition pi a "natural born Citizen.''ln "PoliticS, Book Thiee, Part II, Aristotle, writing in
1

350 B.d.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave Us his definition Ot cltizenshtp;-
;
"Part I! ,
But in practice a citiWJ is: ' tnn«< tg bC 2M gfwhgm bqth I he ~qrent&are cittuRB; others insiat on
goiJlg further back: say -to tw or threa nr more ancestors. This is a short and practical defurition but there ,
are some who raise the ~r question: How this third or fourth 'ancestor carne to be a citizen? Gorgias of
~ti:ni, partly ~cal;ise he, ~s in a difficulty,_ partly, ih irony, said~ 'MOl'tal'$ are what~ made by'_the
.mortar-makers,, a:nd the citizfns of Lari~E!Il are tbO&e who are made by' the ~;£or it ia their trade to
-~e-Larissaeans.' Yet the Qll~~on is. re~.r simple, for, if ~c_cording to the-detmition just given they shared
mlhe governmen~ they wetli Cltlzens. This ts a better definibon tban the other. For the words, 'horn of a
-f3the:r or mother who iti a <#t$-.en,' cannot possibly apply to the fi.rat i.l)habitants or founder-& of a state,

There_ iR a greater difficult:r_ i~ the case of those who have been made Citize~ a.ftet Q reVolution, as by
Cleistbenes at Athens after ~e expuhl:ion of the tyrnnt:s, for he enrolled in tribes many metiCI:'!, both
atrangers and slaves. The doUbt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he who is ought to be a citizen;
and there will still be a furthering t.heo state, whether a certain l(let is t?t ia not an act of the state; for what
out{h~ not to 00 is what ie: faJsf. Now, there itt1= OOine Viho hold o~~1 and yet ought not to hold office, whom,
we describe as ruling, but rulipg unj\llltly. And th• citizen was defined by the fact of his belding some kind of
rule or office· he who -holds a j:UdieiaJ or legiSlative offu:e fulfills our definition of a citizen. It is evideu:1t.
the~fore, that the citizens ~~ut whom_ the dotlbt hil$ aNteD mUst 1?e ~ed citizens."
... h!tp;Us!a§S!;;s,llll~!lllli14\J:~~Ipolllics,hlml ,

EXhibit A Page 4of15
-- ----~- -------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 6 of 78

and ?ther Founders had a love for Ro!llan history and education. The Founders and F*amers were g~at
admirera of Cieero and read many of his works. It is not inconceivable that they wonld have read this
English translation of The Proposal i 2l.and seen the clause "natUral born Citizen.." This:
shows that they

did riot JieCd to borrow the cla:use from English cOmmon law's "Mtitrol born sub)ect.~-Riither~ they Q.ad
SOuree6 that they read which contained the exact clause, "naJural born Citizen." which clause- also bad its.
own meaning which was different from that of an English "natural born subject" whim, allowed children
born in the King's dominion and under his allegiance tc aliens to be English "MturQ/ lx>tn su/iiects."
A definition of a "natural born Citizen" was also provided by the world· renowned, Emer de Vattel in
hia The Law of Naljons. Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel175S). Vattel had a great
influence on the Founders and Framers in tQeir constituting the neW republic and Wtitb\g-the
Constitution. See, for exampl~, J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Low ofNqture Upon International Law
in the United States. 3 Am.J. Int'l L. 547 et. seq. passim (1909) (Vattel exerted such a Profound political
influence that it i!J often poin~d out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence)
Lee A. Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Darin R. Bartram, Unlawful Belligerency and lts Implications
Un®r.lnlm!Otipngl Lou. bttn:llw;rw.fed·sO<;.Qfg/gu\>lit:atio,.teuoiD.lQ41Qu!; 2£mU.!!§Il (concerning U.S.
constitutional analysis. ·•vattel is highly important. He was probably the in.ternatf,o1Jill ktto expBrt most
widely read a~ng the Framers). In fact, Vattelcontinued to be practically applied in our nation for well
over 100 years after the birth of the republie: .F.S. Ruddy, The AcceP!allCJ! of l!attel. J}rotian $0cj.ety
Papers (1972) (Vattel was mainstream politiCal philOS<>phy during tho writing of the C<lnstilution, Xhi!


La.w o/Nqtions was significantly the most cited legal source in America jurisprudence between 1789 and:
1820). The Founders and Framer• studied and were greatly influenced by VatteJ: R.G. Naielaon. 'I1H;
Original ConBtitulkm 49 and 69 (2010} ("Vattel UXJ8 probably the Fo_unders, fouoritt authority on
international law ...." and his, treatise, The Law p/ NatWns. was their favorite).
·What Minm: said about a "natural born Citizen• W\UI confirmed in i!,!:l, 11. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S,
649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirinintr Minor's American common law definition of a "Mtural-liorn
citizen' but adding based on the English common law that since "(t)be child of an alien, if born in the
country, is as much a citiZen {lJ:J tJUt natural~ born. child_ of a dtizf!-ri, Und by opeiutWn:o{tke Sa~ principle
[bitth in the countryr (bracketed information supplied), a child bom in the United8tate.s to domiciled
arn;n parents was a Fourteenth Am!!ndinent "Citizen of the United St<Jtml}. This- AnieriCatt contllion-law
definition of a "OOlural_born. Citizen>$ has never' been changed. not even by the- Fo~l',l~ ,Mne~dlnent_
(only uses the clause 'citizen of the United States" and doas not mention 'natural 11(/m Citizm") 0r b~ .
W<»1:-4 Kim Ark., and therefore still pwvtrils todAY. Both those u:s. Supreme Court Useadefine a''natiu-al
barn Citiurt-" as a ch-i).d_ bo~ in a country to p+nts who are citiZens of that countrY.',,

1 Roman law -P',OYidcd: ''Lea: M!NSIA, That ·acltild abould be beJstal Aforeiaier. iteitJJQ Qi'the-PWia
-~ , , . . .
(patrem sequunturlibeii. Ltv: tv. '4,) an~ if~m~d, Qfthe mother. l)lpiaD." Alennde,r ~ ' ' a'Dtiquit:ies:
or, Ari ~unt ofthe manners imd cW.tmna oitba Romans 210 (6th -ed. corrected 1807). c~ wrote iQ AProP<>aal:
,"'The bolopbanians claim Hotner as -tbeir own: tree, Denizen, the Chians challenge him as th~, _the -&lanli~
demand him qain for their own. but the Smy:rneamo assert him to be their natural brim Cititen;,and:t4ere£oxie have
al~ dedi~~ ~:rem~le- to ~.i:n in 'their 'Tnwn of Sm¥roa. Thete· are a great many besidea ·at Da~~-4t1lWi~ aMori(


tbem8e1ves, and contend for him.• ,,-

A Proposai)'or j'rinting in English, The Select Oration• ofMarcue Tullius Cicero, According to the 1aat Qxrord
Editionl7 (Henry Eelbeck lrlina. London 172!)), : . · · · ·' , ·
Exhibit A · Page 5 of15
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 7 of 78
.------,...,..-------------------:--~·- -~--

lAMAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT
Mji),~OE2TINC'f:~~
I BPABOOK::.:&: PAG~-
: zll.i'!
DEPUTY ClERK

In the matter of Rome's hwp d'etat over the "Accursed~ United States of~riea

by Eric Jon ~elps with edits by Christopher Earl Strunk (2014)

On March 4,1983 Franklih Delano Roosevelt (FDR) assumes the Office of President of the
Uni.Wd States, and with hisiinaugural Address seizes and gives ALL Propercy and persobs as
collateral fur the debt of the United States in national "consecration'' to its prime Creditors, the
Vatican State and Crowlj's City of London, and as Commander in chief FDR Issues
Proelamation 2039 on Mlirch 6, 1933, as the Military Conqueror as if he were "Augustus
Caesar'' of the American fRepublic, declaring a state of National Emergency based upon
The "Trading With the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917 (40 Statute Law 4ll)i

Congress at the demand of elry
Governor on Mareh 9, 1933 passes the "Emergency Banking
Relief Act" (12 USC 95a), thEby Amending the notorious World War I Statute ''Trading With
the Enemy Act" of Octo r 6, 1917, (50 USC App. 5(b)) (TWEA), and then FDRissues
Proclamation 2040 on Ma 9, 1933, also confirmed by ''Emergency Banking Relief Act"
(12 USC 95b) and h · ging the TWEA inland, imposing Military Government
i
• This Amended W\\1 Statiute in fact regards all "PERSONS" "Within the United States" as
seized-property of the feq.eral government to, be treated as an "enemy" and '"enemY ally" or
"betligerents and rebels" by the Conqueror's Military Government.

• These "belligerents anJ rebels" are publicly residing in the Several States Now considered
to be "conquered territPries."

• By-1939 all American CofunonLaw Civil Process will be gone. In its place will be Roman
Civil Law Martial Pr-ss imposed on all "PERSONS" (natural and artificial) !lllbject to
tP,e Conquerots De fact~ Equity Jurisdiction of the "United States."
'
• This Martial Process wjll apply te all Publie ''United States Citizens."
i
• Thi,• !~fartial Process c""""t apply te Private "Citizens of the Un.lted States; Privately
residing on the land at C<}m!llon Law, while .holding Pnvate State Cttizenship pureuant te
. !lOOfjQn 1 of the 14"' Ameidment.

"The Emergen~y Banking Relief Act" (EBRA) (48 Statute Law 1)
'
This Act accomplished the Desillfl of the Society of Jesus _in "the Company's" Great Conspiracy
.
against the Liberties of the Unit~d States set f~h in .Samuel Morse's Nineteenth century .
ml!aterpiece, Fore' Cons · ' · · ' n· te (1835}. Just as the Order
had broug!lt the Britioh Admiral (possessing both a criminal and.civil jurisdiction Ul)1ike ~eriean
Admiralcycwith oni.Y a ciYil juri,s<jiction) inland in tbe day• of Jesuit· ruled King Charles St~ I of
England thereby attempting to dP away .with the English Common Law on the laud, the Jesllits
a-pJls!ied essentially the sanie thing here in Ame,jca with this wicked Act.aided by ti\e
"~veltCourt." ' .

Exhibit A Pages of !I)
------ ~ ~------------------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 8 of 78

DEPUTY ClEl!l( . . tdJ!' •
In the passi~ of this Act whieh the emotionally distf9f;sed Congress rwver read, the following must
be understood: ·

I. The "Tr.iding Wilh the Enemy Act," as passed originally in 1917 and amended in 1918, was
made to apply to any "enemy" of the United StateS. . .

2. The "enemy" was defined to be "any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals of
any natiQnality, resident within the territory of any nati~n with which the United States is at
war, "

3. Other enemy ":individuals" were defined as "natives; citizens, or subjects of any nation with
which the United States is at war. other than citiz-ens of the United States.'" -These
"citizens of the United States" in 1917 held Private citizenship of the United States without
having been tedueed to the inferior citizenehlp status ofbeing property of aJ1d ourecy fur tbe
State-created Publie "'citizen of the United States," which public citizenshiP -StatuS was
imposed on March 9, 1933. ·

4. The "Trading With the Enemy Act" also defined the term "person." A "person" was "dee.med .
to mean an individual. part~ership, association, company, or other unincorPora~ body of •
in<Uviduals, or corporation or body, politic." Therefure in 1917 a 'J»e:~n" could niean both a _
natural personll'rivate Citizen. of the Unit<ld States and an artiticial personll'uhlic citizen of
the United States in privilege.

5. Therefore, a "person" aa defined by the "Trading with the Enemy Act~ DID INCLUDE a
"t...-iti7.en of the United Staws," which at the time was a: Private"'citii.en:ofthe United States."

6. The "Emergency Banking Relief Act" <>fMarch 9, 1933, amended the "Trlldinr With the.
Enemy Act" of 1917 (previously amended fourteen tim.., from MArch 26, 1918;•to M4rcli 10,
!980), bringing the "Trading With the Enemy Act" inside the Urule!l Sl&l>s iiPI>~tino•any
pl11ce subject to the Jurisdiction thereof [all t1ie Sui!es wU/Uir. th.e Vmu.l Sta(eal. w{!ei!
previously, under the "Trsding.Witb the Enemy Act,• all tranilactions "-"-liid.
jg~·
wlt/ltrUhe United
. States" were .excluded;
. . . . • . .- ·.' .. .. .- .

7. The "Emergency Banking Relief Atr: defined any "person'.to .mean "an individual,.
partnership, associatiQn or corpot:ation."' The term ..person.. was-clcefin®. ~ -tnefma :Public:
"citizen of the United States."' The tar~ -.. person"' exclude& a Private ~citizen of the United
States."

8. Therefure, the "Trading with the Enemy Act" defined a "person• to include a Private Citizen of
the United SUites. The "Emergency Banking Relief Act" defined· a "person" te l.i an ariilitial
'

ExbibitA Page 7oH!Ic
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 9 of 78
lAMAR COUNTY. OA. SUPERIOR COURT
l(frfdlfO~JNCL •.
1!001{ C!~ . p

I
entity (o~viously being ~tpartne~sh~p, ass~iatio?• or corp~ati~) ,to inclu~e an "~~dividual" ,
"J"lrson:' to be treated "f an arttficrnl entity which cannot mclude the Pnvate Citizen of the
United States. •

9. For that "individual" ~erican to be treated as an artificial entity, his Private "citizenship ()f
the United Statea" h;ad t'be reduced by an implied 1_constructive contract by operation of ~w
to the inferior grade of q¥asi~corporate citizenship.

10. The corporation that is aicitizen is a "Publie' citizen of the United States. It is created for the
benefit of the public. Th corporation is not a "Private" Citizen of the United States. Only
individual Men and Wo~en can be "Private" Citizens of the United States as intended by
Section 1 of the FourteenltbAmendment. ·

11. Therefore, the Private •cjti.en of the United States" is protected in his citizenship status by
Section 1 of the FourteenE'h Amendment to the Conetitution of the United States. Federal
'statute 12 USC 95a ;.,. ding and resting upon 50 USC 5(b) doe~ not apply to the Private

Citizen of the United Sta s.

i
12.Because tbe individual P#vate "Citizen of the United State&" is protected by Section 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment. /'• was specifically EXCLUDED by definition from the "Emergency
,Banking Relief Act," wlilijhact of FOR's Emergency War PoweN Congress (by WaY of the ,
,-nqed "Trading With~~ Enemy Act," Section 17), imposed a martial process upon the
pourta, federal and state, ~Uter Ap.;il25, 1938.
'
13. Therefore the good news~, all Private "Citizena of the United States'' are protected in their ·'
~~ate right to a civilia' due prOcess oflaWo~ a federalle'VW. bytlie FifthAmendme~:aricl
"t<> a civilian due proce on a state level by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. ,"

H.~fore every Prival!l "Citizen of the Uni~ State&" is neither a ''Jie.r8'1n• nor "propert:f .,•
"s~tbject t<> the jurisdict'-on of the Uni~d States" refumd to in the Emergency Ba~
· Relief Act (12 USC 958) pissed by the Emergency War Powers Congress on March 9, 1933.

15:'Aiid therefore, all Private["citizens of the Ullited States" are not Subject to the proviaioi:is of
the·"Emergency Banking jtelief Act" (12 USC 958) having amended the "Trading With the ·.
lilnemy Act" of October 6, l917; as previously amended onMarcll28, 1918, now codified as 50:
Uf!C App. 5(b)), inclqQlug a ""!riial due process of!aw impOsed by the amended ''Trading
. W:ith the Enemy Act" upo+ ~ny artificial "persol!" within the.lJnited States and "subject t<>
the,iurisdiction thereof,,. i.e, "subject to the de facto Emel1!"itcy War Powers jurisdiction
thereof." ·

Exhibit A Page 8 of15
- ---- -- - -----------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 10 of 78
~-----------------------------------~--~-------

AlVord for Word

Between GO USC App. S~c?U ll(b~.of the
Gfti»MiiSon •
' ""' '• ;".- '·:,-
"The »adlna1 With the .EneJW Ae~>" 9f Oei;Obe,.11,.t917,
. . 40 St~ot.. Law
' 411
.

as Amettd.wioli March 28, 1916. and Section 5(1)) oftbil "TraclinrWttli the Enemy Act"

"The Em<!rgency B!mk;!ng Relief Act" of Ml!rcb 9, 11133, 48 Stat. Law 1

This WOI.'\I !l>r.:WOI.'\I ~"" crjl;,icel in und•"lttull!in!l lw,w "The Em~"'!Y Bljnking Relief
Act" (1938)<\.llljmned ':The TJ;ading With the Enemy Act" (191'1) ao Amended in e\lbSI<!noo making
"The Traililig
.
With:•:the Enilmy
.
Act" the LOw ofthe t:and cltthe United States ofAinO.iica.
. ;:
"The Tl:ading With the. Enemy Act" as Amended on .March 9, 193S,imposed a: de;[w:/.0 Emergency
War Powet"l Militliry Gov.ilnment;, wbneoustmg
-· <ki!U'<1 Civi!ilin
.. Conatitntiol)al.~ent. .
. ...
All Courts, ~ral_and-State,. 110\¥ impose a Martial Due PJ'00088 instead of a- Ci~ ~pe ?rocess
qn every "Per~
. \fith,inlhe United $taff;s~" Natural andMijiciat.
. ·

.
" -.
1917-"'l'Iult tl!e Prelli.dent may in£!':"'!ticate,
~
regnlatet:Ol'
. ... ptVhibit,
. . . -
1933-'~Durlng time of war 'or 'd~ng any othet< p~ri~ ~·natidnal emerg.,J;J(ly declared b:Y
the Pre~idfnll the Preoi.dl">;t:may. thro..,~h ""1:""""q that he m..,• d."!'ipate. or

othe:rwtse,inveatipte.re~,or prohibit; ·, ,,
•;',' "' ,,, ' ' ' '' :~.·->:; ,, ' ~.,;" ,,, ,, ,,. '
· !)haft#'!:~•·~ i&now.~.iJulid~ the g~Phijlil!lli;ted State• ~a de~d.
Statanf~tlO!Iali>J11llri!IODC)'. .: . . : :. •: . . .: ::: .
" ' '' ' '

t91<-~!!io~~llf iUJe~ arid·~~~~ •• ~:uq{Yc~~i~, byme~~~\!!fe••~.or
1983-"qttder ·~ tide& and .,..,~~ .,,.. he.m..,~J>e.
. .. hy lll"eW11.,.~eW'esor
.. - . .... . . .. ,.."..... .
•"" , ..

ExhlbltA . '
·:··· \.
.. •
-----------------,---------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 11 of 78

or 'PAyments by bank g institutions as defined by the Pnn~ident, and export:,

hoarding, melting, or armarking of gold

Cha!l!(e 3. Banking iostituti~ns
within tbe Unl~
States are totally regnlated . ~
.Con!(rtlSll without limltation~ro "lndivldual" may "board" blsgold. All gOld will be taken
from "any person within thelnited States" on June 5, 1933, viA HJR-192 m. ·

1917-~or silver coin or bullic or currency, transfers of credit in any form <otho_r tta•Jt

crtdite relating solely trans@ptioos to be executed wbp)!y witbin the UJalted

~H!tet), tnd tr11nsfers kevide!We• of in!le!rteduess or of the ownenhiJI of
ID'!IPWY btt:!!ee!l till\ ~!li~!l ~~~~ M!IIIDY (OJ:eiliD !l!IIIDUY,.:!!hetber 8MI!\V.
at~ ofenemy or othertise._ or betWeen resiMrits of one or more for6kn
coyntries, by any persjn within the United States;

1933-"or
. .
sUver coin or bulliOn
I
or currency, by anv
,
person
.
within the United States
.

3 Wlift,!h<l of 1933 ""'lite Gold ReoerveAl:<of1934outlawod:the\lSeofgold,--
b«ame saurCefQfcontroversy.ln the Nonrwn ys._/kJ/tl~ ~ OJ:Ho Railrood[o.._ ~U.S. ;M(){l9~}, tlle-l.L§. ,
$upRmfl CoUrt ruled !hat gold cl~ invalid. However, Congress lllterJeinstated the option to use gold clauses fair obiiptions
(..W~)ISiuedafterOctoberl977~-eewbhl!U.S,C.UUl(d)(2~. · · . ·
_ , __ Tile ;U~~ Stam Gold R.esene t o!Jaaaary 3D. 1~~ rtl'l~ ~~~and_ tmld cgtifiqates held. bY qte f8al
RcmyebcsUu~tcd and vesmt in the' tide of the United StJied.?i;rMfp:mofthc TieaSj.try." ·- - ' ; -
- -, ,-,lb~,QQ}4,R~~ Act outlawed =private~lot! ~{goi~.Jbrclns, individuals til self it to tbeTreasurq(dtr wbicb it
was. storedinlh\ifed~ llu!lion ~at Foil ~>noli and oth« locations. 11te act also cllang«l111f! nominal price ofgold tiom
S20.67pei-ffio\r:hct'«>S35. ' :- - '" ·- ., " ,. , ..,

inthow~t::;:~=~~f~~~=:~~=u.i=:~~
certifiOII!j!$ • o8ain alklwed fur ~;r;;,;;;.. on April24i 1964; altlloUgh tho obligadoril<l pay tho Qerlificate holder"" d!lmand
in gold !P""ie.wOOid not be honored. By 1 ~ ·""""- cpohjagajn ~own and.~ gokl ..
The Oold' Reserve Act authorized · Eillumfe Stabili11rtiog Ftmd to \lse suclrassets as were not needed rot Qdwigo market
Slllbilizationro dilal in
Si'
T1te Gold Reoervc Act hod
·· . ·
nunitiClllioM!iu: beyond !WionAI ~. At !hoi lime man)' ~ lltipulatod lhat
·

theii moiletaiY terirts could be dettun1decf in ·· d. Such gold claM \Vri'fnteruted to proteCt 8a*inst the llOited. su.ies ~the
. <lo118f. Wbetl;thollJnewtwy Bl!jlkiyActo 1933 andtheOoldReoerv<Aetof 1934 oirthlwo<Jihe.,.. ofgold,sUcb-became
-~of ~~f. In the _ _ Norman vs. BaiJimOre & Q!rio RoiJrood,.Co.~ 294. U.S. 240 (1935~ the q.s; $upreme
·~ruled lhatf!Oid elauses were Invalid. owev<r, Congres< 11'" ..ini!!Atedlhe opt1oo .,.,.gold'clliUSes!or oi>Upl!Ciis'{new
...--)iss!iod.after!lctob<d977 in a<:c with >I U,S,C, UUl(d)(l), . . . . .
. '" :nic~~~ deQision Z16 Jtmiot<;(£A'veimc, LLC:n SdR flaf~Jlt:ally Co. cst#bti3ttt4thlt a gOld~· in~ ~pcd
t.er... lm "'"''only _..,ded not~r undei«rlioin Umlted ,u¢um......,.. mlgbt be niactiVated.

Exhibit A · . ·. Page 10 of 16
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 12 of 78


1917-"anc:l b& may require any sqch person engaged in any swh trans•ct_ion to furnish

1933-'"or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require
any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this Subdivision to furnish

Change 5. The "new jurisdiction of the United States" established by the -ergency war
po)Vers military governJ!lent of the United States nn.der Proclan:l8.tiqn ~O•ll apprQved and
confirmed by the EBRA amending the TWEA. now extends to an
states and territories.
1917-"'under oath, complete.information relative thereto, including the production

1933-"under oath, c<>mplete information relative thereto, Including the production
~ ' .

1917-"of any books of account. contracts, letters or other papers, in connection.

1933-"of any books of account, COntracts, letters or other papers, in connection

1917-"therewith In the custody or control of S!lch perscn, either before or after

1983-"tberewith in the custody or control ofsuch person; either before or after

1917-"sU.ch. tranSaction is Conlpleted.

1917_:.{EDd of Statute)

1933,--''Whoever willfully violates any of. the provisions of tbis sul!diviltl,oll .or,o£ llJl)C
. . . ; ; .
license, order, rule. or regulation issued'the.reUncleT, shaU,·upOn eon¥ictiott, bet·
fined not nitm> than $10,000, or. If a natural person, may be iiitpflsoned for not
more than ten years, or bOth; and any' otfieer, directOr, or agem t;r any·
corporation who knowingly participate• in such violatlinl may l)l, pUnialtiia tiy a
like fine. i~risonment~ or both. ·As ~sc!d in this ~ubdi~~9~ ·~hfi Jei'm ~~
means an indi\'ldual, partnership, assooia~on,.or:corporatio~" (E~~ ~t!!fiatuteJ •
Exhibit A Pafl"lloflli'
------------------------------ I

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 13 of 78

• "t!Ub)eel to the jurisdiction ~-
I
Chanq_l. New penalties ate I p<>sed for vlolatb!t:!!he """'"~~ e&knded)l;tto ~"-
tiiukd !itates affeCting "any p n within the Un!Utf StatllS" (iliitural or artilicial)
.~_-ly, to the
n<1wly imposed. non-clviUan,
··
etnerl'~ltcy'W'ar-powers,_marti fJUriSdictiOn ot't.Jie Uldted"Stat:M:' c

NOte;, ,"Person» as define under the TWEA is id~tical :to a "~er~ defined in:the EB~.
However, an individual naira! "Person" under the TWEA was a Private Citizen of the
United States' under SectiO 1 ofthe 14th Amendment. The natural "Person" under the
EBRA amending the TWE and tberoby extending the TWEA inro the_ t]nited States is a
~ublic "U.S. citizen" trear·_ like a corporation in commercial privilege.

_ CONCLYSION

Citizenship srtu• and Jurisdietlon of~e Vnited States

I
I. Privnte Citiwnship of th~ United Stat~. Section 1, 14'' Amendment
'

• "Ailp.,..,ns born or nxlized in the United SttJtes, and 8Ub)eello the )urisdictioll
thereof, ore citizens oft United States and o[the State wherein. thej reside.•

A. An individual is ana , "'person."
'
ll; '!'hat individual naturaliperson" is "born or Mturalized in the United Stoteti' (the
geographic: "United Stn s"' composed of the states in union under the Constitution of the
United Sta~). ·
'
q: That individual natural rperson" is "subject to_ the jurisdiction thereof/' the jurisdiction
of the Vnited States.

b. The "jurisdiction thelr (jurisdiction of the United States) is tb~ constitutionally~
est~blished, constitutio~:Hy~limited, de jure. t.ivilian jurisdiction ortbe U~ted States that
began on March 4, 1789, and that ended on March 6, 1933, ciitlfirined and approved on
March 9, 1933, by the E ergency Banking Relief Act.

E. The citizenship ofthe "citizen of the United States"
. is private, not public.
.
'
F. Therefure, the Private .. ~1tizen of the United States" under Section 1 of the 14m
Amendment is n "perso~ ••• 6Ub}ect to the }urisdictioll of the United Stotes." That
jurisdiction is a civilian jUrisdiction.

• Exhibit A Pag:e 12 of 16
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 14 of 78

ll. Public CitiO<mshlpofthe·United Sta~. Section trl4'-A!llendment ...

A A corporation
. .. is a "pertiOJl"
.. . .un<Wr
. . . Amendment.
Section I. 14,.

B. A corpo~tion i$ a ""ci~ian" uDder. Section 1, 14th Al;n~~~nt.

C. A corporation is created by a state for the benefit ofthe public.

D. A corporation is a public ..citizen of the United Sta_~es."

E. By operation of law, the Certificate of Live Birth, on the day it was filed with a public office
of the slate of nstural birth, created an individ!utl corporatil/trust entity, a Puf>:Hc "citizen.
of the United States,' ita propertY being tbe Private "citizen of the United States."
.
F. On March 6, 19ll3 (apProved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA). all
J:eiiatered proJl&rtY (land,.la,hor and bn~.ware seized as "bQ<>ty ~~ar" bx
Preclamation 2039 ofl'resident Franklm D. ROOsevelt acting under the World War I
statutoey authority oftbe "'l]ading With the ~e!llY Act" of October 6, 1917, as. amended
14time8'up to and including March 10, 1930. ·:·

G. On March 6, 1933 (approved and. confirmed oJ!'Marclt 9, t983, via !he EBRA);the •
conatitutinnaL limited, de jure, civilian government of the United Statea waa ousted and
replaced with a.statutory,1lJilimi,tOO, ck fi;wto,'li>i!itiey governm.mtoftho United Statss.

H. On March 6, 1933 (approved, and confirmod ol!;March 9, !9.'l3, via. the EBRA), the civilian
. ")tJ.rllJdktion of tMUnltedStut&i' uiU!Or aeclicnt
i ottlie 1~ Ameildment was removed
and replaced with the~ "}ruisdtiition ~the llnited &at&/' un~er the
"Einergeiicy Bai>kinlf l!o)~!etl' imw C<ldlJie4:i!i i21..1SC 9i>a haslicr upoii the iiiilitacy
"Tradffig With the Enemy Aetl' now C<ldlJie4: a. Sq USC App. 5(b). ·
' ' ' '

.. ' ' -;, ' ,,

I. Therefure, the Public "cltken of the. United&iltei' under S~ 1 of the 14"'
AIJi(,.,dl!l<int ;., a ·~rilon,;,,~ subj~ to 1;/J,e~~ of t~.i/.~ f!t~~cf!!li' pfl!ler
th" "EnU.rgency Ban!ring &J;.rAct" (12 USC ,.q.liased UJion tlii>0 ~g With tlie
Enemy Act" (50 USC App. lilbJJ. That illl'ilKlicli.m lti a miU!acy jurisdictinn im)lOI!ing
iDJh.tlai iiiOceas in evecy oieia'dn. ot.ite ~nd ~ ciiiu and crimi~il ·•• · · •·· ..

fiNAL PQNCLfl&lON
.•.
The J.'i:iyate 'citizen of the United st-- is a ·~....m.> .subject to the cnnstitntional, d<i jure,
peace~me, j~n
,. ;
oft,he Unitad,, states
'
under
,
S..CtiQid
,,,
of. the 14'' Aml!!ldme~t.
'C;' , '< ,, , ,,,


That peacet~_e j~isdiction of the Utrited States is a cl'"'ian jurisdictio':l, ~ins civilian p~qcesa
to gain in ~nom jurisdiction. .. · .•• · < · . ·

.EdtibitA
'"' . ,,,
Page 13 af 15
'" '
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 15 of 78

~~'

• ,;; 'l'llt!J&blis:'Citlzl!"off{t:e ~ ..
,~il a 'pit~ s~.fl> ~•-101':!', ~/w:ll!,,l'llnillll' ,
" j~n~thetlnite<IStates ndertbe"Em~Ba~ilingReliefAcll'.(codifiedao12USC95a)
; ~UJIOD~mllilary"Tra · ~ith tbe~ne~ Acll'(ooi!ifledao50USC!ApV,.5(b)). A!).,.-.
.fe4Et~· @d State, criminal and ci · u&jng martial procees £0 confer in personam jurisdiction of the
, ernergOJicy w~ PI\'IVer& courts Jonnded upon tlieee tw<> statntas.
That wartime ~diction of the t. nited States is a mUitary jurisdiction, usinJj: martial process tQ
gain in personam jurisdiction.
'
.
" '
. .. .
I

You are either a Ciilstitutiimal Piiyat.f "c#izen·ofthe u:Dited States"
!Jr
You are a ttatutory publie"citl7A>n of the United States".

You are either a~~VCfSo/1" und~ Section.! of the 14tll ~ndment

• .
.
You are a "oerson" uir '
.Or . .
Banking Relief Act" (1933)

. Based upon t :. !ll!ll'lial'Trading · " the Enemy Act'(1917)
, . (50 USC App. O(b)) . . ,

You are either sub' tu a !l!vili.!m "jurisdiction of the United Btatetl'
. Uod~r Section 1 ofthe:t4th AmendrMQ.t ··· ·

I Or .
You are sub;e4t to a martial")uri~JiiU!tion ()f the United Sl.atR.s"
"Emergency B~JWlief At::t" (1933). filnd
1
Under thf
The rading With thel\:nemy Act" (1917)
( USC 95a and 50 USC }.pp. 5(b)) .

I Or
You are one oft~ conquered ~lp ~f the United S~tes ~f. Am~rica

The End
EXhlbitA Page )A oi' Hi
---- -- -----.----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 16 of 78

. ThatW.the-o~ao... no~whetiler&ll8Mal~iflxli'I1Wi!bina
StateofUV.:UniledStetea6f.....i.i.t~•i>w-paren~the~anC!·~oftbiirEXl'RESS
I>EElliNTRUS'fTOTim~~TESOFAJo:IElUg>\.~.pfa~~.~!!>awl,_.

trom thooe wbolii\l either IUJ.turali>oed;"!bol'll a citiaan;antlueuoable to~.elisib!e POTUs w.
®e of<he !WJ!a!Ui!edlii!O!>It oftllii Uilllild State~~ of~ ull>ile ~to.>~~ olt!... UDited
Smtes "'maino the aurety.inde-b-the Debtor troat with li8Miicial ~In the surety, W. that
a
naturnl person is the propertyohhe ~Stet$ aiid Ia ~y;,uniii>le tofUUliltlle.lntieaofiioTUS.
Tha...fure, tho Executor and~ are boond by their~_... aoprivaie <itioena
of the United St$tea with their bonafide atatus as • naMal-honi Citioen ..itl.iaihe dlltiea and
obligaOOna of tbiir DllED in TRUST to only certify a c:tmd.idl!te5~ ba..,a.jpon the furogoing aud
shall seek equity rvllef of a elutncelleey eou:t routtsmpt te USURP the POTUS.I!> the eontrary.
That the 8eilellciariea 1\>r thi$ DI!JID 1D TRUST ate privaie.eltioellltofthe iliuted.Stetlls in respoct
to tbedebtortr\UitOI!tity~ wj&hthe United ~s..:..tsryofthe~witba<:<eptance
conllrmed mr ea<h respective -'<s&e by Certified Mail with nuinhsniW.thoiri!munt In reganla to
the period ,euding hefure the lillng oftbiir DEED in TRUST and that the ~ Benefioiaries ""'
certified naiural~ Cit.ize.fta -~ble of :rendering a~ ~to~ status Ofti PCY:rus candidate.
That Executor and SettlOt ~R), who privately li! of<!<~Ual ~~~to the
Beoeficiarreoor any member of tho c!asa defined above in the .....,mnof!'he ~of this DEED
in TRUST. is ChrillclpheJ' Ea•l Bmmk in ...., Suijuriopi'iYaiO oil:ilion oflil!li;Uniled States, tile
oe<:1ll'Od beneficiary agent of tho l:lebto!' Trust transmitlingutilif¥ "'CHRRSTQ~ .EARL
STRUNKC as dub- rOgiotered with the UnltedStatell Seeretiar.Jofthe ~.With il<:count<W I 7 •
~fl10.~1~1.3and70l~*"'otlantl~~.ilt~
~._...~t;it'' f)'Pi~tt.Nc'Miknmz ••t_.»M1xtriX
w~o1<......, ...he _.,his ai:ae~willduly......, t)ll&+m.t puhlielywitbollt.beMI!ciai
interest until turtlll!r..ntten nolif;e •maaimonoly aw-<1 by i&Dderslpad llenelldatiea and he
mimburoed fur bli! timeaud expenei,.lcoepteblHo t~'~... . . ·.
'J'he qQdenitpteod~arieahenb;f~thi&SXPRSSa_~~:r&USTand,Q~~~Allt:

Exhibit A Page 16ofl&

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 17 of 78

••

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF TilE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMB~ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
1Im: PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit A-2

~-----~~-~~~--~~~~~-

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 18 of 78

Thiola allenefiOiary

thel'eople
CitiZen's
pe~uity, and wi~lt the
incumbent&~ futuie
(POTUS) oJ,aU be abenafide _ Citizen (NBC)
whe~suretyno ~re ro:the Debtor~Entity
Article 2 s..tion I Clauae 6, eithqr under 12 USC 95 and
Gov~:ra;m~t~uth~ity ~(ren~EJ4 an~W Nf\tiontd
T!Ult todhe reaB.ns el<pre.....t --

OF apart
from th~.who ~~~ Jl8.tural.ized in:. bont
One ofihe ®l1Qruel!4chH;otlle otthe; Unl~ Stares Uiijted
States re1XIfliJ:l8 the JPU:ety-indentu:re tOt the Debtor
natu.-.1 pe~:U.Ii.\'~rtyo!the tfUlted
Tbel-eu.ro:; the nud<>i&lped BeverlY Waldorf Tokara
DUD In TWST- ~th1>1lnanimouo deCillion of the
B~ficiari Eric Jdn" Ph6!Ps ha~ au~d me to become
_ , my~..,;d•lotuau~iivat<t_oitizeo_R(Ihe United
'witliln 'the·riUtiea'&nd obligatioD$ of tliiiibEED jn
upon tbe ~goinJHnd sq~U ..,.k equity rebef of a cb••colle'l' t:<>Url CO._""¥
to US11kP ihe P<ITUS lb the cont...,.Y3: - --- ' - --
t. Beverly Waldorf.TOkari,. the ~er,signed bel1!.,Y 4~t.~he. te~s, co~ion$.a,nd duties a$ a
~l'JliHlliiiBPREss DEEDil\IT!WlST,
,, . ' ' ' ' . ",,, '
- :,;;:- ,,;__
'
: -,-i:: ' - -
'

-.t$1""-'
". •:oo:•j': :. ;. ~..r>
.. .. . . ". -11
<P<P1't-t;.7·'-· :.?.-
1
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 19 of 78

PLAINTIFF'S. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF TilE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED REsPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit A-3

"--------- ---
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 20 of 78

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK·
clo3ts Platbush Avenue PMllt02 ilmokiyn,New York 11217
Pb. 118-414-3760 Emailo ~.com

RESUME

WORK.tXPIBIINCI SUMMARY: My skills include as a'oonstructkm tnaiagera wide range of in depth work
hiso>cy ...,.,._ing 30 yean of New Yorks... government experience, Ita! propm:ty - - . l i f e safety
aDi bui.ldfrig: codes, Construction managc:me04 constructioo mctbods, lmY inCome OOusiilg ~lojmlenf. 8nd
man&gell>!nt. 40 yr. computer experience, cazpentlyo layont, bouse framing, finished caspeDII)', kit<:hon/ balhroom
rehab, weatberprooli.o& roofing hot and cold, ceiling and flooring systems, structum1 .,..1, tile, 1lluCCO, llia$0my,
ooncrete fcinning and finishing, plwnbingmughing, sprinkler, elec1rical rougbing and finislted, alarm systems,
artistic tialning, strong pllllllegal background in State and Fedelllllaws related In litigation, banking and FOJL.

1986 mP,....t SelfEmgloyedConsu]tant- producing real property feasibility studies, community
development/ program smices reports and stlldies, Ita! propm:ty surveys and coll!r.ICiing
worl< with ~ids in FilA "'lated -b. work; T"" Credit fillancial planning and business plans, mortgage clOsing I
due diligence, lll<l.ues! !Or Proposals In NYC I HUD ISBA I DHCR otbets. able In mpidly pro<lm:e c-~e oolutioos
for projeobo of all kinds wilh detailed reports using marl<e~ I scientific research and financial feasibility studies,
Sources & Uses plans, startup cash flow projections, and accounting methods based upon sp-models of
operation, CPM; and have organi2ed a statewide netwmk to addmss endemic New York Slate systemic problems.
Starting in 198_6. on my own time separate fronrthen State employfllCI;lt. I developed a turnkey
specializedJO unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Multiple DweUing Housing in Bedfonl Stuyvesant Brookfj>n in
connection with the U.S. Housing and UtbonDevelopment (HUD) loan gua1Btl!ee I low income bousing sUbsidy to
be obtained thrua NYC Housing Prescrvatien Develo-nt (HPD) 75% nf cn-.:tion bridge Joaa; and in which I
designed all tbe tmdewotk and developed the program presented to the local Cororouni!Y Boanl, HPD I HUD,
pmpared aD code analysis and OOB 11Ubrnis5ions tO obtain a permit for the loan closing and lbereafter perfom:led the
~llitation .......Js, structum1 sieel.fmming, new bydmulic Elevator, and oonstroction t-.and ov"""'w •
mechanical. sprinkler. mechanical plumbing, Electrical tmdes applications~ and wberein to assist Ule Architect I
provided all document p<Cpllllllinnand submission, ¢omplk:atod<:Ontrotled inspection submissiOns, plan
''""""""""'and sign<>lfwotkfor ;.,.....,., of penniis and application for TCO, which invoked roeering at the
Brooklyn 008 with assistants commissioner and commissioner in regants to code compliau;e and SRO waivers.
2001 tu 2001 Benbrlsk & Comguy, lac. Directorfor ConstnwtiOn Management Lhat utilized the strviCCS'
of an architect for DOB expediting on a small Brooklyn Hotel that had been disrupted by a ftre in
one wlit that c:lamages four- l prepared DOB paper and filed for sign-offfor pennit as the rehab contractor.

1983 to 1992 New York $tate FacllijigDeyeiOQ!M!tCOI'IID!Jdion. NY. NY (public benefiteorp.)
COnstruction Engineer lManaget 1 Developmeat Administrator I supervisor of 5 stafffor NY&
OMII, OMR, DAAA, DSS projects; gnodo MC leve12 approved by Gov. Cuomo as special Jlfllioct manager for Sl2
mil in new' CQnstructiOn projeCts' from 1~ dUu 1988 responsible for the Staten Island Devel9pioent Ce'!!ter closing
under the 'Willowbrook Fedellll Court Decree"; as a Public Oft'u:er reported to the NYS Altomey Geoeml as" a
professional resp:msib~ for project development, management (see NYS Legislative Resolution Commendation).
WbiJ:c> Project Executivefor the Willowbrook Closirrg l was responsible for the wotk ~nand
job petfotlltjjtlCC oft!te five (S) inspectols, who l supel\'ised in accotdance with the FDC's polici«< and applicable·
laws. My RSpoASibilities included intotviewing, biting, and trainiog employees; plannin& assigning, and dbocring
work; appmisingped'oml;ulee within the 6 month evaluation 'Ysrem ~annually for Pll!ltiDtion I""Jl05<5;
rewarditlgofnd di$cijiliniog employee~ adihoosing oomplainrs and resolving problems, evalwu.d and supeJVised as
many as ten iuchitectsl~ fwe impectors on my staff. 30 thitty contnletots under "Wicks l Davis Bacon
and
legal lll<l.uin:menta', co111111111lity diplotnae!' government agency cliellt cnonlination simultaneously at multiple
remote lOcations.

1989 to 1992: l was promoted to a Deve1opmem Adminisuator and BuildinB Codes Manager for projects
, at Cencral Islip, PUgtim. Sagamore,. Ki.ngsboro. '-:fanhattan~Bmnx. K.iiby. ~Beach Psychiatric
<;ent,ers for NYS OMS, wherein [ als~;~ ~ed on a cotnmittee to select an::bitects engtneers anctwo!ked ~ the •
cUeat to dcvdopprogmm and projects then to be pu.t to public bid and then bonded.

l
Exhibit A-3 Page 001 of 7
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 21 of 78

• 1982 to 1983

1981 to 1981
Stquimon Smi11t:Bamsi Mbifedt. NY, NY (architttt for R.R Macy's nationwide)
Arcbiteets field representative- New Yolk State work with Facilities Development Corp,

Project Manager I
Inc. Bronx NY (25 person Gen Contractor NY govenuncnt bids)
pen Market Bid eUlttgellC)' work for DGS.

1?19 to 1981 ' -NY NY (software dev, /OEM computer sales}
Facilities Planner r 17K s.f. Manhattan & NJ offices /labs. ln 1980 as a private
consultant doing interior design c rcial off'tce space for my client at 81Q 7th Avenue I personally prepared and
expeditedDOB Building Notice a lication wi!h an Architect hired for plan review and DOB submission, in which
I obtained a sign-off for issuance of Permit for a contractor under my control.

1978 to 1979 AQsn~~~~~~~~~~~~~w·~-NY.NY(~pro~ny
development and gement for ArG teinsurnnce internationally) 1 of2 Construction
Coordinators for Manhattan Office eadquarters at Pine St., Wall St. and Maiden Lane. While with American
Intcnmtional Group on Pine I Wall d Maiden Lane I coordinated in bouse construction in which an outside
e~:pcditor obtained all necessary

1977 to 1978 Ru Brooklyn,. NY (Arehitects 1.2 mil SF
NYC HHC hospitlt complex) I of 5 Construction Coordinators at Woodhull Ho&pital.

1974 to 1977 NY. NY (family arohitectumlfum doing Health and


on ..mtC" and private bcallh facility projects) Architects
rep~ive in greater New Y01k . While employed by Vogel and Strunk Architects partnership, that did all
of its ownDOB expediting for alto. thelr rehab and new Medical facility work ln NYC.

MILITARY SERVICE:

1966 to 1972 -Rank &S Sergeant withHonorableDi.scbarge Training: Weather
Observer, Rawinsonde Technician, C31her Satellite Mapping. Aerial Photo .Mapping.. R&D -Inflated Structures I
Support Syslems, Theodelite, w· nde, dropsonde, pilot balloon tracking. weathe~ mdar, misc. equip., tractor
tnliler certified, photography B&W film and prir4ing. small arms expen, Duty: U yr. domestic ID Y: 2,5 yr.
Europe, Mideast, North Africa, Centml America.
.
EDUCATION BACKGROUND for T11rakey Desiga. BuUC Construcrio• Maaager

1995 Pratt School for C~ntinuing Education; Low fucome Housing Management
1990 to 1991 New York D~ of State: 100 hr Building Codes course- certified Code Manager
1986 New York University : Asbestos Abatement course series
1975 to 1976 City College of N4f YOI'k; School ·or Architecture - DeSign. Materials courses
1971 to 1974 University of So~. Florida- Tampa, Florida- Geography Major, Anthropology & Engineering Minor
1965 to 1966 Westchester Co 'ty College- Valhalla,
NY - Libemt arts Science
1964 to 1965· Certified Scuba Di -YMCA- White Plains, NY
1960to 1965 Valhalla Hig;b School- Valhalla, NY· Science Cirriculum
1959 to 1965 Eagle Boy Scout~ 11(1 Silver Palm I Brotherhood Ordecofthe Arrow 14 yrs. JAS.M.

• Exhibit A-3 Page 002 of 7
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 22 of 78

Slate of New'brk
..,...-LegislatiVe 1\esolution~--
r.et

Exhibit A·3 Page 003 of 7

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 23 of 78

• 1¢-to-••

••)
ts:•a ca STRUNK
P.elt

~ IN SEH4'te Ott
I ...

m.;
I .
Adbf6LY ON

• Exhibit A-3 Page 004 of 7
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 24 of 78

Plaoo:
Cfllii:
Ch8ir:
S6!lalor Vl!l<ient L Leibel! Ill and SeMte standlnQ ~ 011 TfansportaUon
Senal«lbomas w. llbous PubliC Heerlng~ Protecllnq .... stala'a Sec:llrtly

---
Van Bulet1 H&aling ilccm A. L.aQialatiw QlfiCoi Builcling, 2!" ~loc!r,~ny, New Y011<
Time: 10:00A.M. ContaCt RoberiT.FII!feY/MarlalmeRellly-faX(618)428-69n
' '

In appreeiation of the opportunity to speak on Protecting oilr State's Security as a matter of
notional se<:urity,..ith global signific:anc:e.l Cbristopherllart Strunk am a Vieluam Era Ve!enm,
hom in Manhattan. resident in Brooklyn, devoted to God and CoWIIry, have taken tho oath to
del<nd illld prot..: I the USA and tho constitution> on which tho Fede111 republic is based again$!·
any """"'Y foreign or domestic; as such give warning of Govemor Eliot Spilzer's sedition as an
""""'l' whose treachery is in conspimey with others aiding and abetting .with satiCtuAiy for illegal
aliens in New York against federal law must be impeached pursuant 10 NYS Articles IV and VI.

Warning herein is done in good faith with the May 1985 adoplion of Senate 1073 and Assembly
1249 c:ommitment to lhe ~ effiorescenoe ofh- digni!y' with whiCh they did praise
my "rmseljlsh lkdtcatlon and cotr1petent discharge ofduly ... alm1e and beyond the
rt!.rponsibilltles ofjob and duly .• ,pen:eptton ofthe volue and worth ofothers, for his lnnote and
ingeniou.v concern for the preserv<dion and enhtmcement ofhuman dignity''.

That beyond the honor and praise: of22 years ago, I am vigilant 10 mainlain individual
inalienable ftoedoms given by Almighty God, wge1his Comminee to suppoltmy nolion with
Attorney Carl E. Person for an independent investigation of the perfidy unleashed on g.II-01
again$! the sovereign People of tho Slate New YOJ!<; wemge the Slate Legislature 10 bring •
sllnlight upon treason and sedition as a - ofproteeling our State's Security.

That as a matter of ~urity andjustiee denied after g.)t-01 involves the matter of providing
for illegal aliens with impunily in violation offedeml and stale Jaw, that then.Attomey
Slllletuar)'
General Spitzer by seamless acts of sedition now a& oo- mchea the lovel of treason subject
to impeac:bment under NYS Altiol~ VI seotlon 24, and that pumuont to Article IV must be
removed; Mr. Spitzer shall give testimony witlrout imllllmltypUISuant to Article I sectioo 6.

That notwithstanding the majority vole of our Assembly CODirolled by a top.<lown ""'J.'.'lllis
elite, with political districts~ beyond dii! Jetter and intentofS-Constilullon
Article IX Homerute, this conuniilee nevertheless mUst act as a matter ofour State's s.:.unty to
review the population li2e ofthe<!ily ofN- Yodc, wiDd. .. a Hom~~-rul• eatity has 26 of62
SenatOrs violatille ofNYSC.Arliele mSection 4; and as a home-rule entity exl!eeds tile-.
maximum siu of persons delenniiBid by the census allowablft by tho NY'S Constitution; and as
suc:h BIQOklyn must halle Homerule again for our Stale's Security.

A review of the filets will show that Governor Eliot Spitzer ill a globalist driven by oxymoronic
Liberation Theology in COIISpilllcy with the CUomo and Clinton~. wlw$e modemm-
progressive praxiS is that ofFr.Oeorge Tyrell, SJ. (18tH-1909)andFr. PiorreTeilhard De
Chardin. s.J. (1881-19SS).
That b;yusing the God and Countey;principkas our inalienahle fouodalio!' for.~linuation of.
our federal republic with 50 sovereign SillieS is apposed by the 0<!\'elllllr, as ifNew YOlk were a

Exhibit A-3 Page 005. of 7
1
•.-.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 25 of 78

provinoe often provinces, mmly au subset. amona $3 provim:es globally, and the multiC!lkural

• ~<H:qualil:, it wpposes rather than lh~ fiercelY iDdependent Ctll!llttY under 1111 Alnlighty God
~ ci!izeos of one Srate are sov~ign among the fifty
~and oulture distinct from the whole world.
Fedetal members with bordets

Funbcr, qnly our Coagms ::·the agenda under Article I Section 8 clause 4 i\)r the
~ of ci!izeos per not the governor or I~as if lllli10' UDder duo Alliclca of
C.qnf--on. As such goes Mt. Spitzer's violation of the Logsn Act by offedng residency
that UDdcrmines each citizen's:vote and right to have each vote counted in the sunshine.

Furthennore. were illegal al~'or aliens -'granted drivers licenses by the Governor's sedition
and treason, 0 contend that y the Fedetal govmunent may issue a license to an alien whether
here legally or not) the People s sovereignty guariiDiced in our State Bill ofRigbls Law in .U
Jllllltei'Sit affCCied, especially the Sllllctlty of the vote under Allicle nwould be undarmined
and stolen by dilution and fi:a My associate the Honorable Jtohert K. Doman bas suffered
siooc tbc 1996 stolen election the perfidy of globalist Republicans and Democrats who in
Califomla and elsewhere use · gal aliens to vote as a weapon against our sovereignly, a copy of
Mt. Doman's letter to the in the Fedetalcascin Westem DistrictofNewYork WDNY 06-
cv-0080 ease Forjone v. Cali aetal. is herewith .-bed (now transferred to NDNY 06-<:v·
1002 assigned to Judge La E. Kahn).

Uke me, Mr. Doman puts 0 and CountJy before party politics dedicated to the Sllllctlty of our
individual vote demands that laws of each Slllte be enfOrced and the right to vote by each
citizen be accompanied by the · of knowing that each vote is duty counted in the sunshine as

• a matter of natiooal security. 've on the public .....,.j suffiage perfidy exists in New Vork that
.Uows aliens to vote. Here in bany, were Mr. Soanlllto compare the graveyards ofAlbany that
rise as if by commaod ofMa Coming's ghost on election day with those who do vote,
liewise Mr. Hynca compariaglvoting roles census in NYC grows aa:ordingly each election day
with votesclloro all over the$. That electlons in New York prooeed as if by rcmotc control at
a di.muK:e and brings into q • the use of'NVRA ("motor-voter act") and HAVA ("help
IUI)'One to \lote act}; aod as su duo standard il!rreview by this Co~ oboll be strict and
thorough as a Slate and natio security malter.
'
hi deference for the time of~ommittee I am 110t going to burden the reader with copious and
rcedily a~le (actsabou( dlillgerthe SIUICIIWYpolicy upon the
citizens, slates and nation. I · at the beck and eoll ofthis Commiuee fur . supporting
evidenC<! for what I contend, am availsble for lrulli

Dated: October IS, 2007 I
Brooklyn. New York

593 Vanded>ilt Avenue- #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
631-745·6402
email: Jreel>rooklYJl!Pl!ublic@yahqg.som
Attaehment: JtKD letter to the Court

• Carl E. Person. Esq.
'
cc: the HQllorable Robert K, D<1fnan
1

echlblt A-3 Page 006 of 7
2
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 26 of 78

Fotjone v. EAC • wnNY Okv.SO
EXHIBIT D-2
Th<Honor..blc R.>bcrt K. Dornlln(IJ.S.
ll 341 ........, ~ Mood
c..._, 1077- 1•~17)
San Juara CUpb1mno.; Ofi(Omill 9267!{

JulyS, 2U(Ht

The Hoourabl• ('hief Judi!< Richaltl J, Arcara
for'thc l'niled Swre" Ohotnct Ci)Uit
\\o/~...lcm Dl....trkl ot'NC\\ YMk
JOil U.S. l ounhouK
Ni C\ltlrt Sf1\.'Cf
Buff.-lo, New Yorl. 14202
Re: Hw/dll\' fl.m l". £.I C.' rtJJI. WDNY i~·..SO (IUA)
S(hjl"dl lgtmspliol u qf IJaMt"RC)·P RpJcJ. .

The Honorable Clucf JULJ~ Richml J. AtTara.
J am former l'. S. Hou11e RcprescftfDiiw Robert K.
o.m.m pro,. "idwtn b<uls an altorncy.IVho was ......-..~y- ill<plly by o.......,
l9Rn.a San\:lt~z b)· a minimum of.2,369 ;~lk.-n \·otn. omd uc:corJing 10 1.(.£. ti.N.S.) rcconls4.02l
o.~lien Hlt~o-s tlkg:tlly c;~lit in tM 1'J% CaJiforoia Gt:neral Elcdion; and that by COf1&Cihi:lb ofb.>tli: the
RcruM!t'IU'I ahd Dcmomttc pertic:sixohind tbc ~fncs In vioJatiOft oftbo majority()( VOICft' rights
COfl'ii'ircd then and MW for control a\'~r 1l.l o~li-m vutin; row\!r in Callfomi11 and ~ingly
notlk.lll" tdt. AliCilS illc,wal. \'(lting with impunity nnd ~·bereas not a !lingiO' indi,·iduat '\\'ft dwgcd
\\'itA thm.~ of relmtl.~!t hllnng ftc:en t.~itwd.to dittcdy bring about m) los.. t, nine 't'ote.-
nnm-'irh... randirt¥ rh4! I.e.:£. M:<U'f.k hl tM c(lfllrary. I ~rc to tt"'ify •nd-lnicr\1~- in: wtpport ofthe


-.-nlbahkd pro ...c Plaintiffs ~in. both in nty 0\\11 ~lf..inicc'«t and for the- i>urvival ofour nahan u
It t;011iotllutionaJ republic.
My Jtrect injury Ill I'Nh ;utd at\crwurd ~~the: $1Jbj.,."d of Plli!f!tiffi" AmtAdcd COmplaint
p.~r.!J!ntplu 9l. t l7thru 118 .md 141. A~ l>UC'1t tn)' intcrv4mtion il!rqqPired to C)ltabliWI M"<Ut;~Cy in
~ n:1.-ord tl(thc underl)-ing pRX'I.'C:'Jin!,!S duttnv. ~k rtltlf'e rhol'l ten )Uh. and lhat I aka"""''"'"'
w1U ~oupporr and tbnn~ ha!>b for rro,·inM ~ puncmand C(lflducr•~•atcd withhotfl harbariQl!.
uf dl~:p.l alien, und ~i~>latton of U.S. C'itilen proprilltiry \Olin& ngbucompW.inod of'b)t PL.. inti$
lll"kkr ...-~ il RICO JU'01.-b:ionJ.
W 1th lca\·e af1he Court u!Wr Jf,.po..itton .:.f the~ ctii'Nm J-4. 2111.16 tcuCI otllct I)(Defc:ndaat.
ll.l fl:"!"liW Jl.1 1he "Ret'lll:ult' Docker #7 :t ( r~in n:qur...,(m..s a ~~~ I'Qa5tcf' to-~ a~
and jurlxhctio;. tw~r defendant~>" ithin the itatc of New York ~·,1\cally prior m PlaiRrit'l1
coosolidotN re'iranst in ~tion to the- \1lric1m motions todivniH!I). ifPloinlif& sQrviva J cbirc
Itt lP.ICf\C"!JC fttnnally undc:r l'fOVm_Oil:l of~tP Rule 24(1) WAd or be .VC:R stamliaJ to fi~if;
Wtdtr outh ""'"" "'''"d of !he rroo:.:ding a<<ordi..ly. That by'""'' rut.. I haw··"""" .....
Wfl'e'ipon.Jcmtoc to f"C JuJy "'1'\ed upon partie;~ Ji«cin .ilnd tha1a dupJkatc and Cft'tif"lttlfe of ~ice
h heM\ ith :Utachc<J, R~tfull)• >ubmin\!d (.,...- $:liM by:

~~<
~ht=~.
t. >:i1lfJIOillC nf Set\ ICC'
t c; P1arnuf& prl.l ~
Dd'~nJ:~ntf. (" oun~J:.;

EXHIBITD-1

Stxunk'• ll.q>ly to Defendanrs' Response to Jteinarlt - Plif!'140 of 41

Exhibit A-3 Page 007 of 7

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 27 of 78

PLAJNTJFFS DECLARAnON IN SUPPORT OF TilE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINjiD RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit B-1

--··--------------------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 28 of 78

NQvember 8, 2018, General Election


Presidential Elector Ust for the State of California.
Domocrollc Polly Proeldentlal Electors
Pledged To: Hillary Cllni:Dn
Tim Kaflle
D\Jslln R. Reed Javier Gonzalez Shawn S. Terris
Conconi,CA SanJose,CA Ventura, CA
John M. Ryan Marf<W.Heodley Gall R. Tfl!on.Undls
Sanl!afaei,CA Berkeley, CA SanlaBe-.CA
Faith A. Garamendi Ana A. Huerta Marla s. TomtS
Davis, CA Bakenlfield, CA ..-nda Heights, CA
Kathfeen R. Scott Donna M. Ireland RobertS. TOfl'88
Unooln,CA PleasantQn, CA Pomona,CA
nmothy J. Farley ChrtstirteT. KehOe Dorothy N. Vann
Ma!tinez. CA San Diego, CA Long Beacll, CA
AnaleaJ.P- Vinzenz J. Koller Oallld s. Wannulh
Sacramento, CA Carmei,CA Pasadena, CA
Janlne V. Bera Andrew R. KrakofT Karen D. Waters-
Elk Grove, CA Or1nda, CA Inglewood, CA
Sandra M. Aduna Katherine A. Lyon Shldey N. Weber
Laguna Woods, CA Coronado, CA San Diego, CA
Saundra G. Andrews John P. MacMurray Denise B. Wells
Oakland, CA La Habra,CA VICtorville, CA
Jane c. Block
..-.CA
Edward Buck
West Hollywood, CA
Sheldon Mak:hlcofJ
Westlake Villago, CA
Nury Martinez
San Fernando, CA
Gregory H. Willenborg
Los Angeles, CA
Laurence S, Zakson
Los Angeles, CA

,_,CA

L.aphonza R.
Los Angeles, CA
8-
Francine P. Busby

Benjamin Ca!donas
Gwen Moore
Los AngSies, CA

Call1y A. Morris
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Stephan J. Natoli
Montebello, CA VIsalia, CA
Jackl M. Cisneros Mark A. Olbert
Los Angelos, CA San Carlf?S, CA
Ra....,.,.,d L Cordov8 Christine P. Pelosi
Garden GfO'II&t CA San Francisco, CA

Steven 0. Dlebert Cormen o. Perez
Fresno,CA Long Boac:h, CA
James A. Donahue Celine G. Purcell
EICermo,CA RodwoodCily,CA
Patrick F. Drinan Andres Romos
Escondido, CA Elk Grove, CA
Su.an Eggman OliVIa A Reye&8ecemt
--.cA stanford, ¢A


Eileen Feinstein Mariano PriSCilla G, Rich~son
San Francieco, CA Cothodral CRy, CA

Nalalle P. F011man Steve J. Spinner
Valencia, CA A-.CA
101412016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 29 of 78

November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
• Republican P•rt¥ Pnlsldontial Electors
Pledged To: Donald J. Trump
Michael R. Penoll
Joel Anderson M11111He- Mike Spence
Alpine, CA San Martin, CA West Covine, CA
Marilyn Bar!<e Tbm Hudson Shawn Steel
Loa AlamitOs, CA
Jennifer BeaU
EM,CA
neth Korbin
Surfside, CA
Mark Vaflades
Rancho San!a Margarita, CA cramento, CA La Crescenta, CA

Robert Bemosky n Krick Marcelino Valdez
Homster, CA. F~ilfax; CA Fresno, CA
Arun Bhumitra Jl.ffLal- Errol Valladares
Rolling Hills, CA lrylne, CA Valencia, CA
Jim Brulte lilda lopez-Alvarez Cyndi Vanderhorst
Fontana, CA VIsta, CA San!a Clarita, CA
'

r~~
Nachhattar ChandJ Megan Vincent
La Quinta, CA mel, CA Wilton, CA
Claire Chi&ra pa Doug Manc:hester Elissa Wadleigh
Bar!<eley,CA Jolla, CA Sonoma,CA
Tim Clark
Aubum,CA
t:yMa*Robles,CA
Deborah Wilder
Grass Valfay, CA

• Greg Conlon
Atherton. CA
MattheW Del C8rlo
San Francisco, CA
Harmeet Dhillon
San Franc16co, CA
q>uck McDougald
S()uth San Francisco, CA
DaveWilmon
Riverside, CA
JohnYouog
Aubum,CA

Elizabeth Emken Osborn
Fair Oaks, CA
Jean Fuller iJPuglaa Ose
Bakersfield, CA sfJcfamento, CA
Ted Gaines
El Dorado H!Us, CA
Ron Gold
Woodland HIUs, CA

Lisa Gnlc&-Kellogg
Agoura Hills, CA
Barbara Grimm Marshall nfa.Revell
BakersfleJd, CA lteBay, CA
Howard Hakes Sfott Robertson
Pasadena,CA ~n Francisco, CA
Diane Harkey
Dana Point; CA

-Hannon
• Roddfn, GA
Noel Irwin Hentschel
Los Anaeles, CA

1G'412016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 30 of 78

November 8, 2016, General Election.
Preslden.tlaUEJactor List for the State of California
American lndopemlent Party Prealdontlol Electors

Pledged To: IIQ""Id J, Trump
llli:liiiel R. Pence
Linda Lea AlsbUry' Chades Edward H...-, Jr. -rtOmelas

Winters, CA Redding, CA Anahelm,CA
t.te.wyn Alsbury Thomas Nowten Hudson Marilyn Plumb
Winters, CA Elverta, CA VacaviUe, CA
The Honorable Steve BaldWin l1le Honorable John LeBoutllller Jamie Rangel
Santee, CA Old Westbury, NY San Diego, CA
Gary Brown The Honorable Robert Marc Levy Jeffrey Rangel
Fairfield, CA Plnehumt,NC San DiegO, CA
Ruth Brown Mary Parker Lewis John Daniel Robertson
Vacaville, CA
Mark Brownlee
V.cavllle. CA
-cio
Alexandria, VA

Gene lopez
East Palo Alto, CA
Pleasanton, CA
Marl<ham Robinson
VacaYIDe, CA
William c. Canloza Judy LOpez Mary Robinson
Saaamento, CA Vacaville, CA VacaviKe. CA
Joseph J. Cocchi Raul lopez Stephanie Roundy
vacaville, CA Denville, CA Simi Valley, CA
Julie~
Hays, NC
Kayle Cdglazie<
Hays,NC
Pel!fcke.;glazle<
Sheila SohuHz LOpez
Denville, CA
Leonard luna
Hllnlihglon Beach, CA
Kim McOennott
Terrance Arthur Rust
Truckee, CA
Dustin Paul Salsi
Shasta, CA
Richard Scott Andrew ~lo

Hays,NC Vacaville, CA Reddlng,CA

Or. J. Steven Davis Eric McDermott David James SchoU
Buena Park, CA Vacaville, CA Oixon,CA ·

Sallie Hansen Doman Mhur Loyal Moryan Mark J. Saldanbarg
Fairfax Station, VA Redding, CA Aliso Viejo, CA
The Honorable Robert K. Doman MatlheYt Justin Morgao· Chris Smentech
Folrlax Station, VA Raddlng,CA Obcon, CA
Wlloy Drake Richard Mathew Nettkrton, Sr. Gtenn 5mentech
Buena Pa!f<, Cl\ Shas1a Lake, Cl\ Dixon, CA
Sally S. Eastsr Julio Marie Nelllatoo Michael Warnken
Cl1rua Heights, CA Raddlng, CA Dlxon,CA
Ron Gold Marc Nettleton JaCk Warren
Woodland Hils, CA Raddlng, CA Rocklin, CA
The Hon018blo Vllgi Goode Jayoob Androw Ornelas
Rocky Mount. VA An""'eifp, CA


JoffGnoge Melissa Omelas
Simi Vafley, CA Anaheim, CA

10/412016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 31 of 78

Nov9mb9r 8, 21)16, General Election
Pre$ic!entlal Elector Lls.t for the State. of California
• G..,.n P~rty P..,.idential Electors
Pledged To: JIH.Steln
Ajal!lll Baralql
Daniel Atvanido G_reQJim, Nancy Shaw;
OoWney,CA Oakland; CA Ttm~pleton, CA

Saymh Amirabrahlmi ScottKam Dana Silvemale
Los Angeles. CA. . San lufs ObispO, CA Blue Lake, CA
William~ Tarik Kanaana Susan Sonne
A~•. CA Santa Rosa, CA Buena Park, CA
Janet Arnold Janet Kobren AngellkaSonne
Oakland, tA Oakland, CA BuEMla Park, CA
Doug Barnett Margaret Koteen Pamela Spevack
Los Angefes.. CA s8:n Lui& Obispo, CA Oakland, CA
Meredith Bates Susan c. Lamont Lisa Taylor
Mom> Say, CA Santa Rosa, CA Los Angeles, CA.
Marla Bernstein Hass'ina Leelarattma John Torok
los Angel~ CA Arlela, CA Oakland,CA
Megan Buckingham Jessy M. Lemieux Jesse Townley
Clovis, CA Riverside, CA Berkeley, CA
Timothy Casebolt Wimda Jean Lord Jack Wagner
~Dtego,CA Bak.ei'Bfleld, CA Sonoma. CA

• Jose Trinidad Castaneda
Fullerton, CA
Unda Chimenti
PasoRobles,cA
Susan Ctiunco
Bernard c. Macdonald
AlbJon, CA
Genevieve Marcus
LOS AngefGs, CA
Patricia Marsh
Paul Weiss
Mariposa. CA
Laura Wells
Oaktand;CA

Santa ROsa, CA BerJ<eiey,CA
MargotCoK Robert Marsh
santa Rosa, CA Berl<eley, CA
Frisco Del RDSarlo PeggyOI<i
Sao Mote<>. CA ca-a.CA
Rachaet A. Denny Samuel Payes
Bmdlay,CA San Jose, CA
Sanda EVerette Linda Plera Avila
San Mateo, CA.- Santa Monica, CA
Michael FolnsteU1 Ajay~
Sant8J.tonice, CA los Angeles, ~-
John Farah John EdWard Reid
Santa Barbara, CA Paso Robles, CA
Michael Goidbe\>1< Ron Stacy Rodarte
CarlSbad, CA San Clemente, CA
Richard Gomez Lu~ Rodriguez
Fresn<>t CA S8n Femarido, CA

• Undsey Hanns
Sonita,CA
Ttan Harter
Mountain vrew, _CA
Michael Rubin
oakland, CA
~yklSha~
' Saint Helena, CA

1014i2o16
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 32 of 78

·November 8, 2016; .$eneral Election
P~id~tntial Elec;tor List for the State of ~llfQmia
L~Hrtirtan Party l'lllside.,ual S~I'S
1'18dgeo~ T<!: GillY Jolin..,.,

-Appleby
Bill Vl!eld ·
Davk!Kelterinq
· ···

Kurt ScllOJib<

Stocl<ton,CA Ufaye~,-cA
..."""""' CA
BarohBninD Manuel S. Klausner John SfagUano
Marina Del Rey, CA Loii AAQeles. CA Malibu, CA
Alman Cllahal Janln$ K(oss AaJ"Qn Sb;vT
Modosto, Cl\ SaCf'Br0ento, CA Oxnard, CA
Alicia Garcia Clark Tyler t<usk.fe SriSn Thlemer
Pasadena, CA cameron Part<, CA Fa(rfield, CA
Edward Clark PauiUlzaga Emily Tllfon:l
Pasadena, CA Ben lomond, CA Folsom, CA
Tracy Cram'er ~ito Leibman J~TIIford
trvine, CA -.CA Folsom, CA
-ph W. Oehn. Ill l'l1olnaS Lippman Susan Marie Webtt
Stlflnyvale, CA elisbaile, CA Pakn Desert. CA
BalbaraEngeihanlt Behjamln T. Maes R-.G.Weber
Sacramento, CA SuiSun City, CA. Culver City, CA
Keith Ericson Michael Martin Randall WeiSSbi.leh
San Diego, CA Saota Ana, CA Arcadia, CA
Rlchan:l Fl_elds
Oavf&, CA
Aubfey Freedman
San Francisco, cA
Nicholas Gerber
Moraga, CA
AJe)tMattls
Sacramentd, CA
Denis t.IBhullc
Pleasant HI", CA
Catherine Mellor
Lod( CA
William c. White,
Los Altos, CA

Martha de forest
San Diego, CA

Joshua Gf8wson GaloMofwm
P~na,,CA Sacramento, CA
Noel R. Gregorio SamueiW.Oglesby
C.s!alc. Cl\ .. Gerdeii 13\ovo, CA
Harland Hartison Kenneth Sreot Olsen
Be!moot,CA . Hanfold; CA,
Jane Heider G8rdner Osboroe
Carmel,cA La Jol,., CA
Nathan Hoffman Sliash( Ramchandali
tos-~8s.CA- $uM'Yvall!f. CA
JohO ti9oP JoeflOynoso
Signal HIU, CA Cloverda~, CA
Linden Hsu Hooor Robson
San Jose. CA lnng~,CA-

Jonathal1 Jeecfl, Brlan W~ RYman
~AnQelee, ,CA, Adelanto. CA

.........,CA
~~!lander

John Kendail
~rta.iach. CA
Brian Sch8r
Menlo P8}14 qA

David -Schrader
H6nnosa Beach. CA · •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 33 of 78

NoveiJI~r 8, 2016;. General Election ..
Pre$id~tntial Elecj:or Ustfor the State ot California
• Peaound ~reodom Puty Pnosld•n11al 1:1..,.,..
Pledged TO: GIOrra E8tola La Rlva
· · · ·· Det!nla J, Banl<s
1\!egllann Adomil Ruben La RIYO Lehma Ainena Sawez.-
O.ly City, CA San Frlinclsco, CA OaviS, CA
l<evlnAkkt Gloria La Rlva Michelle Schuele!
RMimlde,CA San Francisco, CA San franCisCo, 'CA
Margie Akfn Tll)it landiS Fred Short
Riverside, CA _San Francisco, CA Ukiah, CA
Richard Becker Frank lara Margaret M. Smith
San Francisco, CA O.lyCity, CA Aplos,CA
Jon LOwell _Britton Shelby Uppenoott Neal $weeney
campbell. CA Sacramento. CA Davis, CA.
Sarah Carlson Esmeralda Loreto Tahnee $we$nay
San Franclsco, CA Los Angeles;, CA Oavfs, CA
Tanya Chase Abel Macias Dennis Terrill
Sail Frailclsco, CA San Diego, CA Sacr.imento, CA
John COmly Evelyn C. Martinez Cristina Vlllatoro
Berkeley, CA San Francisco, CA S8aamento, CA
Yohana Oe Leon isaac Munoz Mackenzie Elizabeth Wilson
North Hollywood. CA Mod-.CA Sacramento, CA

• Gerald Allan Frink
Saolamento, CA
Anne M. GemtJor!r
San Franclsco1 CA
NyreeHa!!
Sacramento, CA
Susan M. Muysenberg
campbell, CA
Toni Novak
Healdsburg. CA
Keith A. Pavtik
San Francisco, CA
Preston Wood
Los Angeles, CA

Sheila Xi&o_
los Angeles, CA

Maile Hampton Samuel Petker
sacramento, ~ Manteca, CA
Norma Hanlson Adarl PIEISC$nsla
Berkeley~ CA Irvine, CA
Estovan- Kant Po-
St<:ra_mento, CA &crame:nto, CA
John Henstley Emily Power
ChrusHelghls,CA ~ento,CA

Gary Hicks \iictor Quintero
Berf<eley, CA L.o$ Angeles, CA,

RonH- John Rei!W'
San Fnincisoo, CA Sacramento, CA
NSthalle Patricta Hrlzl Debra Reiger
San Francisco, CA, Sacramento, CA
Hqward-Jotmson JamlerSale
Los Ang<llos, CA $8Cr&m6nto, CA

• DOUglas Kaufman
lorig Beach, CA

Eman ~..""'
Long ,Beach,_ CA
Tere$8 Sale
Sticraniento, CA
Erik Saucedo
~acrameiuo, cA
1014/2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 34 of 78

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF TilE MEMORANDUM OJI tAWFOR
PLAINTIFF'$ COMBINED ltESP(JNSE TO D~D~' MOnON TO DISMisS
, THE PEin'IONWITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit B-2

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 35 of 78

. £11tntthtt iltjlartmtut ·
!llt!t utQ!alifllntia

CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT

For

ELECTORS OF PRJ!$!J)EI)ITud
VICE PRESiDENT ofthe
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2016

• To the President Of the Senate of the United states of America:

I, EDMUND G. BROWN JR.; GovenmoftheState of California; herby eertify,
~ pursuant to the laws ofthe United States and fhl!state~f~alifo~a,·ibaf ~ <k~efal:
Eterition ,W!iS held- lti accor<ianCe Wiih:iaw ID the.State OfCaliforni~_on ~~ t.1le gm-·
day of November, 20(6, fur Eedo~ oftb~ Plesid'!ll aM Vice President oftbe united ..
States.

, I futtl,let c~~i~: ~~ ,~; ~~ ,c:ast for El~ fP tije;CJ~~~.$}~~?'1 ~
canvassed and' certified by the Secretary of State,tif the Stare of California,' and, 1he
~~~ ofs1at6 'haS C~Qfio' lfic the' ~~;~d: Q~fu\ O~~rtS receiving y~tes ~
Electors.

I further. =tify that tbe fullowing~ receiVed !hl' higljest m)lnber of ~tes
fur l!te<<ors of tbe President'arid. Vice Presid<illt Or IIi¢ U~ Stittcs tOfthe State of . ·
Ca!ifumia;
·······
amriui.. ~rta~ ·.. •·inied .SEieclrlrs
......
tbi,·filial
~ri;.t:d .~.
1dliii ,.,··· ,
u •· uited
bylaw:

• ...,.,. : ,
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 36 of 78

~M.Adupa,
, ~Gli(oi'nla;t>emoerfttk Party EreetorB ~~~ t~,
Hiltarj-_Cfint0Jlt6t: P~nt 9ftbe U-*'~ &~$and·,
TIM j¢aia~ fo~;y~ P~citt o!tlte UOik•l' states.::
Mark w. .,.,..,.., l>"'!ri ll.~ . .

_.,.. .Q. ·""""""' Ana A. HUerta: Qlivl!l A. Re~eceria ·
Janine-V •. Bem l)onna M. lreland ~~~(j.Ric~:,
J&neC.J;llock ' Christine T. K~ John M.- Ryan
, Edward Buck Vinzw: J. Koller Kathleen R., SCott
FraneineP.-Busby Andrew R. Krnkoff SteVe J. Spifuier
L"""""" R.
Benjamin Cardenas
a- Kad!erinC A'o Lyon
John P. MacMwTay
siuiWn E. Terris
Gail R. Thttirt-Landis
Jacki M. Cisneros SbcidOO MalchiCoff Ro~rt S., T()fl'f;S
Rit:ymr.nd LcOrdova Nury Mar:tlnez MarieS. Tortts
Stevea D. Diebort GwenMooi~ DorotbyN. Vann,,
James- A. Donahue Cathy A.- Monis: Davi4 ~- Wfttllluth
Plltrick F. Drinari. Stepben t. Naroli ~aren Q.Waters'
Susati Eggman Mark A: Olbert Shirley N. Weber
Timptby J, Farley AnirleaJ. Patter:son Denise B. Wefb
El1een Feinstein Mariano Cbristine P. Pelosi Gregory H. Willenborg.
Natatle P, Fortman' ~O.Perez lAurence s~ zaksOn; '
FoithA,~ ~line q. Purcell
Javier Gonzalez: Andres Ram'os

NUMBER OF VOTES -8,753,7ll3

•••

!hose
, I further certify that the foOo~g persons received votes for, Bieeto,S Qf tbe
President and Vic~ President ofthe United States
east for the Callfonu.Oemooratiei'l!l1y lllect!'rs:
for
the. State of california other than

• CaUfomla Repobltcau l'artr Ek<to<'S Pl~j:ec! to
Doolalil J. T""!'p ro~ Pr<8ideid of the u~ ~t<s~
. .. •
. eui of fllel)olf<id. Slatiis:
Mich>el R•. p._ n,r Vi<e l'tosid. ,q "'

Jod- J)ijn< H!ul>y J)OnDit !Jort«'
Mori!Yn"- MAtthew Han.non, Dennis R.eveJf
' ,' Jeflriifiir ~~ Noelltwll\ !H:tliSchel scott R~itson
,IiobM'~y' c.,.~~,
MarkHenick
~:}Jh~ltnl; T{)ntHiitf' Tni' 'Si
' '' $OR
.. ~s.iiiucaiD
Jim BFult;o
l>(.,J,i,au., Chand!
CIW Chl.ni ·
~ """'"'
KeVin'Krick
JeffiAillOWaY
Mike~'
smi.WD 'Sieei
p

TintCluk L~~~lvam. ~,~_~(~,'
""'
, , 0' -conlOri
' Mlubcw..Del ..CarlO ;
'
, , 'Robin LOwe- ,
Papa Do~ Mancbt'ster'
S!liitey Made • .
,, M~~l{UitViudet ,
l!troiv.O.r....., . · •,
l!iUnii<i Diiiuim ' c;;;.n v.!I•i!wis! •·
MCgan Ymcent
. Elw.lii$ ~ Cf,Uek ~riougald
' Jean Fuller- :, John Mustlla Bfi.sa Wmildgh
Ted Gain'• Ito# N~brins­ 'De~ Wilder
ROO ()old Mikio.bom ~~: ~iuimon:
J .. . .
.....
: - ilia cinlce:.gellOgg , , , ~ug!M_~; ~:Young
~OrlmmM,...ll John Peck
H~Hakes Pew'p~~ich
' ' "' '
>" ,; ''
', "'
'"'**
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 37 of 78

• Americaa IndependeDt Party Electors Pledged to
Donald J, Tnimp Cor President of the Ualted States and
,Mfcbael R. Pence for Vice President of the Ualted States:

Unda L<a At.bwy Charles Edward Harrison, Jt. Rob<rtOmelu
Merwyn Abbwy Thomas Now!en Hudson Marilyn Plumb
the Honorable Steve Bald The Honorable Joh:a LeBoutillicr Jamie Rangel
Gary Brown The Honorable Robert Marc Levy Jeffrey Rangel
RDih Brown Mary Parker Lewis John Daniel Robertson
Mark Brownlee Gaudencio Gene Lopez Markham Robinson
William c. Cardoza JwlyLopez Mary Robinson
lQSCPh J. Cocchi Raul Lopez Stephanie Roundy
Jolie Colglazier Sheila Schultz Lopez Terrance Arthur Rust
Kayla Colglazier Leanard Luna Dustin Paul Salsl
Patrick ColgiWer Kim McDermott Richard Scott Andrew Schalo
Dr. J. Steven Davis Eric McDermott David James SchoU
Sallie Hansen Doman Arthur Loyal Morgan Mark J. Seidenberg
TM Honorable Robert K. Matthew Justin Mmgan Chris Smentech
wn.y """"' Richard Matthew Nettleton. Sr. Glenn Smentech
Sally s. Easter Julie Marie Nettleton Michael Warnken
Ron Gold Man: Nettleton Jack Warm1
The Honorable V"trgil Goode Jaycob Andrew Ornelas
Meii$Sa Ornelas


Jeff Grage

NUMBER OF VOTES- 4,483,810

...
Libertarian Party Electon Pledged to
Gary Ohnsoo lor Presidellt of tbe United States aod
Bill eld for Vice Presideat oftbe United States:

Alexander Appleby JQftllihan. Jaech Shashi Ramchandani
Baron Bruno Sondm Ka!IMOO Joe Reynoso
Annan Chahal John Kendall Honor Robson
Alicia Garcia Clark David Ketnrlng Brian W. Ryman
Bdward Clark Manuel S. Klausner BrionSdw
T""Y""""' Janine Kloss David Schrader
JOSeph w. Dehn. m Tyler Kuskle KwtS<hultz
Barbara Eusetbardr Piwt Lazaga JOM. Stagliano
Keith Ericson Rob<rto Loibmon Amon Starr
1\idlard Fields 1bomas Lippman Brian lbiemer
Aubrey Freedman Benjamin T. Maes Emily Tilford
Nicholas Gerber Michael. Martin Jamtt Tilford
JOshua GJawson Alex Mattis Sulan Marie Weber
Noel R Gregorio Denise Mehulic Robert G. Weber
Harland Harrison Catherine Mellor Randall Weissbuc:h
Jane Heider Gale Morgan William c. White
Nathan Hoffman Samuel w. Oglesby Martbadel'or<st
John Hoop K~ Bn:nt ()!sen
Unden Hsu Gardner Osborne

• ...
NUMBER OF VOTES- 47ll,m


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 38 of 78

Greea Party Eledon Pledged to
JW Stem for President of the Ualted States and
Ajamli Baintka ro,. Vice President otthe U~ited States;:

Daniel Alvarado Richard Gomez. Ajay Rai
Sayareh Amirebrabimi Lindsey Hanns John Edward Reid
William Arld'eld TianHarter Roo Stacy Rodarte
JanotAmold OregJan Luis Rodriguez
Michael Rubin
""""""""'
Meredith Bates
Marla Bernstein
"""""""
Tarik""""""'
Janet Kobren
David Shantz
Nancy Shaw
Megan Buckingham Margaret Koteen Dana Silvemale
Timothy Casebolt Susan C. Lamont Susan Sonne
Jose Trinidad Castaneda Hassina Leelarathna Angelika Sonne
Linda Chimenti Jessy M. Lemieux Pamela Spevack
SuunChunoo Wanda Jean Lord Lisa Taylor
Mmgot:Cox Beman! C. Macdonald Jolin Torok
Frisco Del Rosario Genevieve Marcus Jesse Townley
R!lchatl A. Denny Patricia Marsh iackWagner
Sanda Evcrcttc -Manb Plud Weiss
Michael Feinstein PeggyOki Laura Wells
John Foran Samuel Payes
Michael Goldbeck Linda Piera Avila

NUMBER OF VOTES- 278,657

•••
Peace and Freedom Party Electon Pledged to
Gloria Eatela La Riva for President oftbe United States and
Dettais J. Bu.ks for Viee President of the Uaited States!-

.................
K~Akin
Howard Johnson
Douglas Kaufinan ,
Victor Quintero
John Reiger ,
M..-gicAkin EmanKhaleq Del»1a Reiger
Richard Becker Ruben La Riva JamierSale
Jon LowcU Britton Gloria La Riva Teresa Sale
Sarah carlson TmaLandls Erik SIIUCedo
Tanya a- Frank Lara LchmaA.m:ena ~wez
John Comly Shelby Lippencotl' Michelle Schw:let: ''
Y9hanaDe Loon Esm<r>ldaLoreto Fred Short
a...Jd Allen Frink Abel Macias MougoretM.Smith
Aline M. Gambooi Evelyn C, Martinez Neal Sweeney
NYrooHall IS8i1C Munoz iabnec Sweeney
Mallo Hampton Susan M. Muysenberg DeruUs Terrill ,-,
NOrma HarriSon Toni Novak Cristina Villatoro ,
Estewm Hernandez Keith A. Pavlik Mlldtenzie Elizabeth Wilson
John Hershey Samuel Petker -..wood
~Hicks Adan Plascensia Sheila Xiao
Ron Holladay Kent Power
t<iadwtc Patricia Hrlzi Emily Power

.
NUMBEROFVOTES-66.101

•••
"

.

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 39 of 78

Elee~Ol"ff ~l~ged t~ \Xri~'a C.ndidate ,-
Bernar;d "Bernie" ~!'(l~f!! :rot ~r~•t:f!Jf~,l/i'liied, s~-'AA ~tm~
Tulsi Gabbard for'Vl« Presid~t Of:tlie United States:,

Lydia M Arbizo Jensen H~tings M.aiy 1o Poole
ROO.,.- D<mald llugbe$ Barbara MaXsOO Proud
SbM t. Barnes Alan Davis Hysinger David Robbins
Mary Kay Benson Ramona Irwin Christina Robinson
' Deirdre Brinlee Benjamin Jenshus 'Cheiyl L. Rogness
Alfred {1. Bidf Lynn Kessler Kira Rogness ,
RenceJ.Bu!f Margaret Kincaid Lynn,lloot,
Mary Beth Cameron Karissa Knurowski Rebe=l Ross:
Brian CarolU$ Donald Arthur Krenos Lisa S. Soouteit:
Caroline Coward Thomas KrouSe Jason ChriStOpher Small
Clayton Lee Daves Brenda Lee ColleetiF. SJ)arics
i~eR. Davis Tori' Phebe Lin Robyn Sumners
Jonathan Fields Jerry Malamod Carol Thlesing'
Catberijte Fish Julie Mari1l' Marsh PatriCk Thre.sing
Linda Beth Fox Ronald Massey Sheri~:
Patricia Otaci&n Jefli'ey Scott McCampbell Denece R. Vjncent
Trlsb A, Guajardo Jeneva Miller Kathy Yurlsta
catbUine AnM OUoderson PatrlciaL. Moorea
Patricia A Hami!kln Deanna Lynn Polk


NUMBER OF VOT£$ -12,108

•••
,E~ton Pled~ to Write:In Candidate
Evan McMullin f'or Presidenf oftlie'Uni~, ~tes and
Na~n Jotm$oa for Viee P~ent Oithe_-tJftited Stata:

Kiltuletb ReedAUen- Cynthia Lea Ouinio · J19lty Qwyndlyd NQU ·
Pau.l CM!and Ament Ari 'Haliyar Connie ~~-Pale
-~ Micl)elie _Motiahim APPlegate Jtu?A.~ Andr~?W Patrb ·
Gehige lloicy A<t... . Sarah P, Hancock Jemriy Clidstopber Powell
T&una ~ .

===
Daniel Frazier Bo«h EmcstR.obefl Iieiqz« ..
. Benjamin ChriStensen Roy D.·Hensley NidhaR LeSlie Sandlund
Kathleen L. Co~ .Ceeile.L.Hoclge.: ·AI~~·.. ·
George Gui:terlous: ·~ CopC
Erifl.¥icheite HUsSer K~!ier. Sbutm~Ut
Susan Elaine Cottam (,)nthhi ~J.e~·
Aaron Oarli~ KeVIn Kimball.. Janis siDilll·
.J..aw8 'Christine Dillender CQ!ln Maci>Om!IO ieftrej.li, Sulit~t
·~ l'oli~ Dlrisdaic RiChard l{eVfu Manslidd. ll: ; ' . . . Cfu.JatiPa .~· Snjt~ M0tgan ·
ken{ Ann Downs 'Betty Ann:M:ittql.iardf.. · Ai'lgela.Ye,iean· ·
Mmty Boyd llyo Patrick McBrearty R~ t.i~l yey,luf!ek
Diane Parker Eldredge Julieta Mefid0ia DaVid Joseph Watkins:
Leotwd F:areUo ~ ~ _MorriS()n: . cirlStin~''\VU;t; ·
Jan Elizabeth Fry -~~Craig_ Mpultott ~jhm E. Zacbresou
Jocelyn NieJsell. 09)dberg Laurel Staten Nguyen:
Jiunes droChke . Jonattmii ·NguYen· '
NU~$R OF. V£Yl1l:S .- 7,J.?4

•••
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 40 of 78

.. . . ~lef:to~Piedged_to~ri~~.~d.~ ,
~ MatUrea tot Presiifent. 0(~ .VD~ s:t&te$ aJW·
.J~ Muiloz forViCe:PresidentOfthe Uftited States;.

S...!\h!nod USa t, Hammill 'Sa$ba ~ Oa,fes'
George: ~lg "Maiy H3lnmood John Piilset,ki,
Craig llemtM! Lee~· Hammond Sharon Pi!ISei:ki
Joseph Bidwell Tami \1/.atanabe Heclonann· JusrinR~
·iSmes M. Boubonis 'R(Iss SteVen Hec~ann Theresa Marie RU$S eoVich ·
victoria SnVeStri Carroll Briari David Hec~atm Benjartlitt Seidl '
Briln ThOmas cirrnn · Bradley Heidenbng , Sata:A. Silveira
Liam Joii CiteRey. Jon'athan Hoiowaty Desmond· A. Silveira
~Collins Lindsay f<atherine Howie Gamine> DeniiJs JiaUJ Slav~,'
Nicholas.cOIIins Gaiy A. Huber Jesse David Slavens
Noitk! Combs Edword L" Hull F~Y Sutjan~ .
AdarB N. CtaWford Olukemi A. Ingram Ch~Wal~, ·
Melissa M. Crawford. Le:;lie Shaw Klinger. Ke~th, Richat!-1 Waf!:eri, Jr;
Kenneth E. C:rawfo-ilf JobAHenrytamming . Ttish A. Warfield
JoffCul~ oam· Richard Lovelace C¥stoPW" It Wejnl~opf'
LeXuan Culbreath Mate Gregory Mason Justin Wetter · ,
Benjamin Michael Ebbink Laurel Muff Teri L. Wilkie
Pbfilp B.R. Gallandel:s Stephen Geoffrey Muff
Ryat~ Hammill Kar_ Oonnan Nicbpfns
NUMBER OF VOTES -1.96
.... _

EleCtOrs Pledged to.W~Io_ 9indWate·
Laurenoo Kotiikofl tQi' President Of the t.iiiifect Statts and
FA~wa~ ~in~r~ VICe ~iot:t~te .Vnitea S~~J. ·
•<•
Diana Bailey ' ' ' Dale Frank
KatbiCOn M~Ckiq ~aptist ~btinili Ann Giassman
.~ni()(rlo·~ar~ Lany<lrobel
.SkUbiii'Lewis Brown> JoriathlinLouis.GU .
L" . TeViS Bun.!s6n>
.,)'IlL" "<""•""
· ·-~- ~randUtt_ Hl!)eS.
•• Patri.Ciit.MWkFSUS~>. PattiekKevinHines
i<.i.m catlm " DenlciJ. HOuk
-~~~: .'NMcyTo Huynh .

. :::~
'"''~'' •'
~~~nK~
""" """"'
~~:~
"' """'"I>es;ril),
~:0..!0 " "
Joseph Kahn·
MlclJetlne Kal$wi ;
Bassaril- KaJdawj _
JeffDallingtr' Krishna a: KUmar :
Ad.,ulWnti<P\nl>llet ~~,J.ev ine
v.c.;. .
'DaWn Elf&e~b.' :· Peter ~Pe l,.l'berti - .
. ~<;oliE<!-""" . S.,etlj> ~We
l'oWM!clmOIF<li>boig . &iher M~lies:
·ptiricia:Nrlrttum Feinl:!ers. . AnUenak Marl«;syan "• ..


<"

NUMBER()fi'VQTU_..,.:~-
.' " .' ',
., .
.,,,, .
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 41 of 78

• . Sheen Adame
El~tors ?Jedged, to_Wriie:.Id ;Candid&te
Jeri')' White fol- PresideJit of the' ~D~ted States and
Nile& N~ath Cor Vice Presidtiihft~ Uaittid_Stateii:

Alan Gelfimd Alexa N!lvmro
Michael L. Becker Evan Hudson Ge~Nt~;bbia
' lose: Mateo Bema! Nancy Ingram Donald G. Norris:,
G!Cnn Brigbtwell Staness Jonekos Christina Pederson
Jobrl Brightwell Diana Jones Latrel Powell
John C. Burton Jeffi:'y Alan Jones T(lby Remmers
Nelly J. Carlisle Genevieve Joiles Kale Roseeii-
frederickS. Choate Kirandeep Kaur Juan Santaoa
Geraldine Ann Clifford Nora Kimie Kuzay Jonathan Seibel
Matthew J. Crooke Liana LeQaron HeinzJakQb Strurik
Celia Cruz·Elmassian Sandy Leonardis Luana R. Turner
Roseanna Carolyn D'Amico Robert Bruce Livingston William VanAuken
Anthony Delgado MarcO; Marinangeli Daniel Viruleg
Carole D. Dentoo Robert Marston Bnmdan Weinhold
John Albert Dragstedt Mic:hael McClain Jeremy C.R. Wells
Patricia Evans Kevin Mitchell Morris White
Christopher Franklin David Moore Carolyn L. Zaremba
Robert Douglas Gafford Dwight V. Moore
Norissa Gastelum Maria Munoz-Nebbia

NUMBER OF VOTES -7

• • ••

IN WITNESS Wl!EID;oF I !,ave hereut)!O
set my ham! 1\11~ C31!sed the"<ln>at Seal of
thO State of caufumia io he affixed
this 1:1th day of IJ~cember 20 !6. ·

AtteSt:

• . ""

....Set:r¢_Wy_ 9f' Sfatt\!-
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 42 of 78


PLAINTifF~S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF TilE ~ORANDJIM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENllANTS' MOTION TO DISMlSS
.. . . . TilE PETITION wiTII COMPLAINT . .

ExhibitB-3

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 43 of 78

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION \VJ.Tii COMPl.AINT

Exhibit C-1

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 44 of 78

Am~~ lndepen~nt. P•rty Of California


·Affill..ted \'lith the American ~det:it Party
Of . .. . .
Th~ United S{ates

State Ceiltnlt Committe;e Chalrpersan; ~rk~detjberg
~tive COJTim!~~ ~irperson:~ ~ham RobinsOn

State ~eadquarte"
476 Deodar~~ st. Vacavi!~CA 95688·2637·
AlP HQ Pt\c)ile; 707c35'1-4884
markyavelll@gmall.com

State Filer 10: 742371 August 5, 2016

To: James Bn..tlte, Chatrman of the California_ RepubU(an Party,
and ,
Cynthia Bryant. EXecutive Director of the California Repubttcan Party
From: Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent Party o! California Chaii'P'!""'1
And
Markham G. _Robinson, Executive Commlttee'Chainnan (State Party), ,Qtairman (National Party)
Re: American Independent Party 20lo Presidentlal11dcet Intentions ·
Dear James and Cynth1a:

The American Independent Party of Califotnia is very pleased to offer .cooperation to the Catffomia Repilblldln
Party in the eleCtion, of Donaki,J. Trlnn~ and Michael Rtchaid Pence as the-ne~ Ptesfdent ~ncf Vice President of
the United States, respectively. ElectionS~ 13105 (c) prOvides statutory support for such an. offer by alloWing •
us to nominate your Presidential ticket.

The demographic to which the American lndepel)(lent Party appeals Is precisely that ofthe •new votors• which
I>Qnatd T~p btooght out to vote for him In the recent Primary ~oos,. A n:um~ of Repu_bli~ Officeholders
attrtbute their el~l suctess t9 the edge prl:wtded by our eildcirserrient. 0\if nomfl')ltfon. is; we i)etrey~. ,
much stronger evidence of our supp(lrt and ~than Just an endorsement and reaches beyond our own·
registration base ~o many m9re vot~ Who are aCquainted With oUr brand.

Here Is oui pllJI)OSO!,

Ol,Jr St~1te and Nattona~ !;onventlons. (Auaust: 13, ~16, tn S8crainento, CaUfomfa) wtll noni~nate Donald ~. Tiump-·
and Michael Richard . Pence f<ir President
. ..
ana Vice President,. respectively. · .

We wfU in:unedlatety no~fy the SeGret;ary of _state of our d~siC?O fottOwtng, o,ur tWO- dateveri~ ~-en~ ~t -~~
the deadtine·for the submisSion of an Electoi'Bt Cot\ef:e slate,-~ Will,: j0intl1 Witb ~Party; wrtte-a. flOtifiql~lon
to the Seqetary of State speqfying Pres!~t!a! ~.t<!Ctor.; pr!m;!rity set~ed. b)')'Otlr Pal!\' and a ~aft nuin.... ~
our:s. Vslrig .. tat~t
. .. the - . .
. rftfst:ra~fofl:ttS.tir~ f6~ Our P~;rt;IE!s o.ur ~Ir
. portion of:55 E~9fa;t
. College-.
. . Is:
((4571nl(~1+457173)}'55 =4.7034751954

ROunding to the nearest whole number. that is 5 for us and ~0Jor)'04. We wil! PfOvj~ ~ promp,\(y vnth a list Of
5 potentia! electors and their relevant infoimation w~lch Y.u should {lnd easy to~.

~forth~ Republican Party Coopeiatini With ar'lother'party: fn Presldef)t~l: elfk:ttmls, ~.,ie r~l_ldJn 1928
anc;f 1~40 electioOs where your Party norilinated the same P'restdeOtfiil candi'd{lt@ {lS ~e Pn?f\1bit!on Party pf;' •
California and tbe Townsend Party, res~y. ln j~ZS if1e California Prohibition Party brokewilli its nationol
party and nominated Herbert Hoover. but did nominate fot Vice Piestc!ent someOne dlf!efent frolit ttfe . · .•
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 45 of 78

R~ublti:ah nominee tor th!lt position. OUr proposal dpes better than that~ syndlromzt_ng our national and stat~
piny nomtria~'tons fOr President and Vtte ptesiderit eOtireLY with your Part(s•

• Fo< your <;<>nveolence.you will find billow t~enabllng E!ectlons C«<e Section and a Unk to matertarpn tile
Nstortc election o_f 1928.

mos.
(c) If for a genera[ election any candidate for President ol the United States or VIce President
of the United States has reteived the n(!minatfoo of any_ additional' party qr parties, the name{s)
shall be piinted to the right of the name of the candidate'$ own party. Party names of a
candfdate shall be separated by commas •..•

https: //en. wikipedia.o<glwikl/Umted_States_pres!dentlalelectlon.Jn_Catlfomia._192B

https: 11en. wiklpedia.oral wikll Prohibition_Party

It Is our hope that our Party constituendes joining together in this way will have several salutary effects,
namely:

> Induce the national Trump Campaign to devote more resources to California seeing a
potential win here;
). Garner more exposure to your and our Parties' principles, positions and aaendas by the
publidty that our cooperation will engender;
> Provide an opportllliity to _cOnduct registration campaigns to attract new vOters- to both our
pa;rties;
>- Point out political value$ shared by two patriotic American political parties.

• > Divert Democratk Party and Hillary Campaign rescwrces from other uses;
We hope to have an affirmative response from you very shortly. For our part,. we will proceed on the assumption'
of sue(:~. intending to nominate the same ticket a_nd trusting th~ details will be worked out fil good fatth w1th
ample time to spare.

Sincerely,

JJ!w.i.J~
Mark Seiden~. Chairman oy the S~te Central tommittee of the American: lfl(Sependent Party of CalifOrnia

Faithfully Yours,

Markham Robinson; Chairman of the EkecutiVe Committee of the American Independent Party of Californfa
(AIPCA) and Chairman of tile American Independent Party of These United States (AIPOTI!S)


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 46 of 78

ExhibitC-2

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 47 of 78

·ALEx PAD1I1AISECR,ETARY OF STATE fSTATE OF CALIFORNIA

• ELECTIONS DIVIS OJ-!
. i~OO 11 1h Street, 5111 Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814! Tel9l(),~57.2166j Fn9,16.6533214 twwW.sQS.ca.gov

August 26, 2016

County Clerk/Registrar of Voters {CCIROV) Memorandum #16270

TO: All County Clerks!Registrars of Voters

FROM: Is/ Steven J. Reyes
Chief Counsel

RE: General Election: Ballot Layout Issues

We have reoeiv~ several inquiries regarding the ballot layout for the upcoming
November 8, 2016, Gener<tl Election due to the unusuallY large number of stele
propasillons and as a re.sult of the nomination of Trump/Pence by both the Repubflcan
and American Independent parties as their candidates for President and Vice Pmsident.

• As you am aware, the Elections Code contains very specific instructions for ballot layout
(Division 13 of the Elections Code, commencing w~h Section 13000).

While we unde!'l<tand that many counties will need to utilize Elections Code section
13265 and have more than one ballot card, we want to remind you of some essential
Elections Code sections that. must be follow~. The informaflon below Is a summary of
questions mceived and our office's mSPonses.

Can we modify the baiiQt Qrder for the alate end loi:al measures In 1lny way to
savespaee?
No. Elections Code section 13109 provides lhe specific order of offices and measures
on the ballot.

Since the November It, 2016, General. El.ctlon ballot will be so lengthy, cen the
ballot label provided by the Attorney General for the state ballot measures and/or .
the ballot warding describing party lab81s.b8 shortened of removed ail together?

No. Election& Code section 13247 requires that the statement of all measures.
submitted to the voters be abbfeviated on the ballot in a ballot label as proVided In
Elections Code section 9051.

Elections Code section 13206.5 provides the exact language {in quotallons) that must


be included on the ballot for the description of party labels•
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 48 of 78

CCROV 1#16270
A'!9usl26, 2016
· Pag&2
Slnc:a l!olh the Republican Party and the An).arlcan Independent Party have
nornmated Donald 1'ruinJi8.nd MlchafiiPene& for Plftl~ and VIce PreSident,
how 11hould the partieS ballsled on the. ballot?

Bectklns .Cod~ sectjon 13105(c) proVides that if any candidate for President of tha
Unitoo States or Vice President Of the Unitad States has receivad the nomination Of any
addlilqnal party, the name Of !lie partY shall bilprinte9 to the righf Of llie name Qf the
candidate's own party, The party ldelrtificatiim after Donald Trump's n~me shall raad as
folloWs: Republican, American Independent.

In the event your voting system does nQ! have the capablll1:y to print "Republican.
American lndapendenf' due to hick of space, the parties may b8 abbrevlatad. On
February 10, 2012, this olllce issUed CCAOV #12059, which providad ~;~uldarice for tfje
imple(llentatjon Of the Top Two Candidates Open Pli(l18ry ACt Of 2010, In 2012, sonia.
counties hoo expressad Concerns aboUt placing all Of !he reCIIJired languaga regarding a
candidate's party preference as required oy Elections Code section 13105(a)(1 ),
CCROV #12059 prollidad !hat. ~ ballot layout capacity necessitates aoorevialing
qualifll!d political party na(I19S, the following: approved aDbreviations could be used:

OEM - Damocratlc
REP - Republican


AI - Americanlndapendent
GRN -Green
LIB -Libertarian
PF -Peace and Freedom
REP, AI - RapUbUcan, A(l18rican lnd8Pendant (for Trump/Pence nominatjon
only)
.P..IIS& !fole: If your county Will be abbrev!ating tfje nominating party of preSidential
candidates, or the party preference of '!ny other candidate on the ballot, the . .. .
abbreviations .!!!.!!!l be used for AU. Pndldat.s In avery contes~ em your ballot:.
Further, if aool'!lvlations are used, you must Include a list which detlneS the
abb(livi~lions in Ycuf sample ballot.

•· EleCII0na. Code sec.llon 1321 O(b) requires t11a .ballot to state,"Vote tor ona PIIJtY!'
fot candidates for President and Vlca Preslclent. Since two parties have
noinlnalold Donald Trump fOr Prestdflnt, Is lf!ls InstrUction stfll hlquliitd?

Yes: l'he: "Vote fo( One Party" langu;;g& IS pR>vi(lad in quotatjons .in EJ~s. ~
sectjon 1321 O(b) and must be printad on the baiiQt,

Are tha names of tha presidential ellil!>ti>rs priQled on tha ballot?

No, llie Electio~ Code doss not requil'!l the na(I19S of the pl'8$idantialeleotors' to ba
placed. on the ballot. The bello! must lnduda the na(I19S of the candldatastor Ptesldent


and \lice President. . . .
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 49 of 78

CCROV #16270
Augusl26, 2016

• Page3
How Will Presidential and VIce Presidential electors be ..lected when more than
one political party nomlnalas the same candidate?

The Elections Code does nol address the manner in which electors for President and
Vice President of the UnHed !States are selected in situations where more than one
party nominates the same candidate. We will address this Issue If/When appropriate.
'
How should we list the voter instruction and voting question for Proposition 59?

Elections Code sections 13207(d) and 13247 require "Yes" and "No" boxes to be placed
to the right of the title and s~mmary and ballot label. Th& sample provided below, for
illustrative purposes, demon~trates how Proposition 59 might be set in a ballot layout.
Actual ballot layouts may di!fer.

59 CORPORATIONS. f OLITICAL SPENDING. FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PROT CTIONS. LEGISLATIVE ADVISORY
QUESTION. Asks whether California's elected officials should usc their
authority to propose and ratif)i an amendment to the federal Constitution YES
overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commissi1 Citizens United ruled that laws placing
certain limits on political s ending by corporations and unions are


unconstitutional. Fiscal Imp : No direct fiscal effect on state or local
governments.
Shall California's elected offi:t,'s use all of their constitutional authority,
including, but not limited , proposing and ratifYing one or mure
amendments to the United Staib Constitution, to overturn Citizens United NO
v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable
judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign
contributions and spending, to rnsure that all citizens, regardless of wealth;
may express their views to one another~ and to make clear that_ corporations
should not have the same cons tutional rights as human beings?

To help ensure voters and ~ndidates are aware of this updated information, we
recommend that: ,
'
• Your sample ballot, vote-lby-maD ballots, and poiHng place materials include
infonnation regarding the large number of ballot measures and. Wapplicable, that
your voters wiQ receive two (or more) ballot cards;
• Your county's website inc1ude lnfonnation a!>out the large number of !>allot
measures, and, if applic!!ble, that your voters will receiVe two (or more) ballot cards;
and ·
• Poll workers be appropri~tely trained on the large number of ballot measures and, if
applicable, that voters will receive two (or more) baUol cards.


Additionally, our office will include similar infonnation on our website .

Should you have additional questions regarding ballot layout issues, please contact
Jana Lean, Chief of Eltiotlons, at 916-&3-5144 or jana.lean@sos.ce.gov.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 50 of 78

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF TilE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETII101'! WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit C~3

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 51 of 78

American Independent Party of
. catlfo.-nia


Affiliated with the ~n Independent party
0{
These United stat..

State Central Coromlttee Chalrpe""": Mark Seidenberg •
"'""'utive
. Coinmittee
. . .
O>afrpemlr.: Mort<ham Robinson
. .

State fleadquarten:
476.Deoditra·st. vaCaville CA 95688
AlP HQ; 707-359-4884
FAXi707·222~040
marityilvelli®gmatl.com

State Flier ID: 742371 August 26, 2016

To: County Registrar of Voters
From: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent Party of California Chairperson
Re: Urgent Questions about the form, .content and handling of the November 8, 2016,
General Election Ballot and the September 9, 2016, Military Ballot Mailing

Dear County Registrar of Voters:
As the secretary of State told you, the American Independent Party of california nominated the


Trump/Pence ticket fOr President and Vice President subsequent to the california Republican Party
nomination of the same. Moreover, we were Informed that all the County Registrars of Voters were
advised to follow Elections COde 13105 (c) Which ~Ires that our party name follow the california
Republican Party name (defined in Elections Code SectiQn 7250) on the Ttunip/Pence ballot line,
separated by a comma, for the california General Election ballot of November 8, 2016.
The American Independent Party of california has eight questions, found beidw, about how the
aforesaid election Will be handled, whose !liO$t recent
precedents were in 19.28 and 19<!0. In those
years the two qualified pQI.itical parties who nominated the same Presidential ticket, S!lttJed on the
same slate of electors for President and VIce President as the other party, These elector slates
submitted by the aforesaid two parties had a tota/overiap, because they were kiehtical
In 2016 our two ~· projected elector slates have a small.overlap of two electors, but might end
up with none, because the Ollifomia RePUblican Party might Object to such an ovenap. The
American Independent Party of california has no objection to any such overlap and in fact is seeking
a total "overlap." ·
We understand that qualified pQiitiqsl party names appear on california election ballots In several
oontexts. Below we reproduCe tor Your cOnvenience a· Code sei;tion that contains the State
Legislature's dictum on the designation by which we are known.
CODE TEXT
ELECTIONS CODE
DIVISION 7. POUTICAL PARTY ORGANIZI'TIOI'I AND CEI'ITRAL COMMmEE ELECTIOI'IS [7000
-7928) . .

• Iof2
l Division 7 it1acted by StaJs. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec.. 1.)
8/2612016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 52 of 78

PAfiT 4. AMERICAN INDEPIONDENT PARTY (7500 • 7696}
(Pari/ ef!<ii:tiul by Stqis.lp94, Ch 920. Set. 2.)
. CIJAPii:R 1, Gen«aa t>rovlslons [75(J(J;, 'l$00.]
(Choptet)eliaqfeabyStats. 1994, Ch. 920. Se~. 2.)
7500•.
This part shaJJ apply ta th!l organization, operatjon 1 and functions. of ti'l;lt
political party known ~s the Al!le~lc:iin In<leper11;lent Party; Of CalifOrnia,

(EnactedbyStJts. 1994. Ch.920. Sec.1J
Moreover, we nCltla that the style by Which we are refllrred to throughout the bOdy of Callfomla law
Is "American Independent Pa(ty," That Is the name that our pa(ty wishes to appear in al( official.
references to us fOr the sake of consistency, However, When the conteXt demands the additlon of
the phrase "of CalifOrnia, • so that our name appears as "American Inde~dent Pa(ty of California,•
our pa(ty finds that an agreeilllfe Vjlr!atlon. ·
When considering the followillg questions, please keep In mind the three cases of 110 elector slate
overiap, paJtial.slate o~riap, and total slate overlap.
1. We have been told that Counties. have asked the Secretary of state whether they can
abbreviate political pa(ty mimes and were told that If they did, then. they would have to
abbreviate all of ~. Whilt is the statutory' basis for ll~atloil of party names?
2. What will the abbrevi;ltlons be?
3. Will the$e abbreviations be uniform across all counties?
4. Given the fact that ~lections Code Section 13210 states that "the .words 'Vote for One Party'
shall af'P!\ar just below the heading 'President and Vice PRislder\t'," how wlll.thevotas •
who.vol:r*for 'l'nUnP/~ ~ which. qualified politk;al p;trty ~ pntl'w, the
Cl!lilbmill! Republican Party or the American :tnck!pen~ "'rty of caJifomla?
5. If~ are - thll!il 55. PI esi~tial and Vice Presiclential eiJII c..,., for the
Trump/Pence ticket, hOW will the maximum 55 sueh be chOAII? WhO wiD do It?
6. Since tWo slates of Presidential electors.wlll have lleen submitted by the tWo partllls il\ the
ordinary course of events, Itvoters ask who the elac:tors are
ticket, what will theY be told?
t'Or""''J'nUnpJPence
··
7. If voters ask how many electors there are fJlr the Trump/Pence ticket, what Wjll ,they be told'i'
8. Wi1etl must the ballot print master for thit military 1IOt<! mailing.~ 9,
20:1.6, ~ c:Omplel:ecl~ .. .
Thank youJn adVance for your Immediate attentiQn to this Important mat~:er.

Sincerely,

Mark 5eidenberg, Chairper5an of the American Independent Party of California

2of2 •
--------------- ------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 53 of 78


PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMPRANDUM PF LAW FPR
PLAlNTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION T() DISMISS
THE PETITION WITII COMPLAINT

Exhibit C-4


- ,-~-, -----------------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 54 of 78

h!!ll·· Gmail

Ch:ristopher stlunk.<su~nomore@gmalt.com~

~--,-~~-,---,---~. -----~-· -:---------
FW: DEFECTIVE CAUFORNIA PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST
2 me-ssageS'

Mark <mark@lniiOIOii>lanner.com> Thu, ~ 20; 2016 a{ 10:59 PM
To: surelyn()m~all.com
Cc: hakohen3@yal1o<>qom, rbttomelas@aol.com, mar1<ya11elll@gmail.com, mark@masterplanner.com

Dear Aide to Robert K. Doman (Known as 81 Bob,

First, my profuse apologies about not knowing your name. Dr. Seidenberg Is io the throes of moving and could not recall
H. We have a clue though. Starts with an ·s:

Second, my apoJogies for not getting th1s to yOIJ sooner. !learned of Congressman Doman's receptivity to this
infonnaHon and plans to use it when I was on the way to a doctor's appointment, fell asleep on the way back, -and took a
short nap that turOea olll to be 2 hours. Fortified now with my srd mug or Espresso. 1am now ~ckagi!lg tM- current
state of Information for your perusal.

The communications to Senator Moor1$Ch below contains the links to the articles mentioned to you by Or. Seidenberg.
The International_ CQmplaint cover letter contains a fair summSfY of the- situation we face and the dire cons~uences If


the rules are foil~ and lf no remedy'ls imtnedlately forthcoming. -

First California State leg;slator addressed email:

Dear State Senator Moorlach;

l include below the 5 artides/postlngs addressing the si!ui!tiO'! ttl at o~<;u_rr~ after th.;" Amefican
kidependent Party added its nomination of the Trump ~lcket to the RepubliCan Party's..

The SOlution to this problem Is, we believe; a Con_cuo-ent ResOJtition by the California t_eatslat'ute
in.strUcttnB EteCtions OfflcJa_ls to pro_vide a s"uppt¢m_ent'al baUot fOr the use_ of Trump, tt~ke~ vot~~- to
choose Wilich Trump sia~e they !llsh to be tlleir electors for President and Vice Presld<mt of tfle
United States (Electoral CoUese). "

Below flnd the titles of the Articles in ql.lotes immediately folloW<!d by the link to them.

"California Secretary Of State Approves letting Election proc;eed Before Parties Have Chosen


Presidential EleCtOr Candidates" by Richard Winger
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 55 of 78

http://ballot~accass.orgl2016/08/27/califOmia-secretary-of-state~.approVes-tettlng-election­
proceed-befora-partieS.:have-chosen-presidentiaHI~r-candidatesl

• ..What Happens When Two Political Parties Nominate the Same Candidate for President?.. by
Markham Roj;)in~on

hftp:llivn.us/2016/0~07/happen&-two-pol.it~artles-ryomlnatEK:Siidld,~te-piesldentl

"Wilt Ca~ifomtans Get to Vote for Trump's Electoral Cotlege State(s)?" by Markham Robinson

http://ivn .us/2016109107Jwilk:aiKornians-get-to-vote-for-trumps-electorak:ollege-slatesl

"If Donald Trump Carries Califomia, He Won't Get Catlfornia's Electoral Votes" by Richard Winger

http: //baUot -access.org/2016/10/04/lf.-donatd-trump·carries -callfomia-he-wont -get~
califomias~lectoral-votes/

"California Secretary of State Accepts 108 DJfferent Presidential Elector Candidates Pledged
to Donatd Trump"' by Richard Winger


http;l/baflot-access.org/2016/1 0/04/californla-secretary-Qf-state--a~pta-1 08-presldentlal-eled:or-
candidatrurpledged:to-donat(i..trumpl

The potential consequences of a failure to address this problem is-whether the Trump ticket wins or not-loss
of the entire Callfomfa Electoral College and their voteS, whether Hillary or Trump wins and, moteover, loss of
the entire Ca!ifomia Congressional delegation according to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Markham Robinson, AlP Secretary

Second legislator addressed email:

Dear State Senator Mool'f~h,

We since learned that the _legislature ie adjqumed currently. Wa are it1 the process of alerting all congressmen
from all parties of the danger they face of losing their offices ~ they !Tlight join us io an appeal to Governor Brown
to calf aspecial session,

Failing this ,~ _m~ shqrtly !ile8k -~' remed!es while v199fOUSly'_ pu~ng ~itlc::B!l ones. VVe do not dt$pute the


eontet'ltlon of the Seatttary of State: tn CC/ROV #16270 that they,laok statutory lnstructidn!i aboUt hoW to ~fy
whi~ EleCtors for President and Vicie Pi'esldent of the United States Or SfateS thetecif the voter$ ri'lf:an when they
mark their choice on tne Trump/Pence lin-e. Voting- tor bOth slates would be an overvote, cei.Uslng the voter's Choice
to be discarded 118 correctly observed by RiOhafd VVin9er of BaJk;rt: ACcess News..
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 56 of 78


Marld\am Robinson, Am~n lndep'!""ent Party Seaetaly

International• Compla,int·
Dear lvan Gobarsky_ and Radivoje Grujic;

I apologiz~ for Oot usirig yo_ur p_r:oper Uttes1 but l-am currently only fn receipt of your names and ematts and
function of ihtematio~ar vote m~mitoring especially of the United States. ·

.I was asked to send you the necessary information forthwith that defines our problem brought on by a dual
11omination ofTrump/Pence by the Caltfomta Republican Party and the American Independent Party of
California,_ no agreement betwe~ them on ~ common slate of Electoral CoUege. electors, and no provision by
the Cal1fomia Stat~ Legislature for deciding on which such electors get a vote when the Trump/Pence ballot
line is voted. , -
Below find copies of emaits sent to a CalifomialeR,islatorwhich contain a brief outline of the' problem and
potential consequences of failure to deal with the problem caused by the Republican Party's failure to
cooperate in foUowing the precedents of 1928 af1;d 1940 in submitting a single slate of Electors for President
and Vice PreSident of the United States to the Caljfomia ~~cretary of State.


Attached herewith are the followfni ttles

1. Questions the AJP posed to 58 Counties about the Dual Nomination for Trump/P~nce.
2. SOS,answers to the questions posed by the Counties to the SOS based we believe on the questjon~ We
posed to them. ,
3. The letter we sent to theCA GOP before the AlP Convention 011 Aug. 13, 2016, proposing a sing:te slate of
such El~ctors fatrty dtvide<l10 to 1 according to our respectiVe registrations. '(50 to 5) for a single slate of 55
~u~h Elector$ to Which Callfo.mfa Is entitled in the "Electoral College: · , ·,
4. Another set of questions for Counties fonnulated as a Pubtfc ~ecords Request

Here is the link to the qualified' parties• tists of nominees of 55 Electors for President and ViCe: Prestdeht of
the United States eacli.submftted to the CA SOS (2 of which ~ pledged to Trump/P~nce) fqund on the SOS ·
)"ebsite h!tll:Qelact!oDJ&dn.sot.ca.IIOYilllatl!Widli11lel:tlonsaofhlenpraJIJ!JU1!1$uill~f.

Title 3 US CODE Chapter 1 proVides fot ~ppolntment by the_ Callfonli~ State Legjslature Of Ete<::tors fOr
President-and Vice President of the United States should the November 8, 2016f·Presidehtiat Contest fail tQ
pfuperl)' seJ~ said ElieCtQrl on the next !1ay; NoYe~;nber-9~ 2016. This reQUires- th~ Gove~or to_ can t~
Legislature back into session slnce-tt is _currently qn ~~$. lf there is a failure tn have a legitimate decision
on these EleCtOrs for President and Vice President iJf the Unite~ States;_ tt)e ·Fourteentfl Amendment- to the
COnstitution in Its. section 2 p~nallzi!\S t~e St.at~ by reducing Its; Congressional cepresentatlon In the Unit'"!
States'HQiJse of Repre;~tatives proportionate to th~denial in any of severattypes of election~ including m •
the firstin:ttM~:e sUcti.Etedors. -
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 57 of 78

Since the deniAl of a fafr vote in the P_re,idential contest would be of au voters, California woqld lose
acco-rdii'lg to Section 2 Of the Fourtee,ntll.Amendment' ~~~ !lf itS. House representatiOn: The intention of t~IS


provision ofiHis post-CMI War Amendment was not only to make sure freed m;t(e sll!ves of tM age o(
majorjty-Vf9~(d riotbe denied the VQtel but that the practice of the South Carotlna legis(a(ure: of appointing
such Electors for President and Vice -president by its legis~ture rather than its citizen votel'f,_ would not
continue.

If ther:e is no supplemental baUot to allow a true cholce In the November&, 2016 of aU th~ Presidential
tickets and th~ B~tor slates pledged to them, then the legislature may insure that there is an "Beetoral
College" vot¢ for California, but ifth~re is no true choice on November 8,_ 2016, nothing the California State
legislature can do (an do to retain House (ohgressional representation, if the dictates of the Fourteenth
Amendment are followed. If the Legislature fails either to proVide by Concurrent Resolution for a
supplemental ballot to let Trump/Pence ballot line- voters choose ~tween the two party Elector slates (55
in each slate) or by appointing them the day after the November 8, 2016, election, California loses its voice
in the 4 Etectoral College" in the selection of President and Vice Prestdent of the United States.

Markham Robinson

American Independent Party (AJP) of California SEK:retary

Chairman of the American Independent Party (AlP) of Califomla Executive Committee

Chairman of the American Independent Party Of These United States (AIPOTUS)

On behalf of Or. Robert Ornelas, Chairman of ihe American tndependent Party of California and Or. Mark Jerome


Seidenberg, Vice Chairman of the American hidependent party of california

4attKh-
1:1 ~6 GENERAL ELECTION QUESTIONS FOR COUNTY ROVa.pdf

1:116270or.pdf
130K
I!) Proposol of American Independent Party of Cautomla "' CA GOP-docx
169K
!;l 2016 NEW QUESTIONS FOR CouNTY ROVs Oct.pdf
52K

Christopher strunk c:euretynomore@Qmall.com> Frt, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM
To; "Dr. Jonathan Levy'' <jonlevy@hargray.com>
Ce: donegalhiU@earlhlinl<.net, michael <michaol@mshrimpton.co.uk>
Or. Seidenburg had his office _send thia tO me.

Note thai I haVe Michael Shrimpton helping us to establish contact with the SUltan of Zanzibar as a flanking action that
I will discuss separately
{Quoted texf hkklenJ

http:l/associatlonforsovemignhomerutewithln.orgtindex.html

• CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
315 FiatbuOh Avenue -#102 Brooklyn NY 11217
Suretynomore@gmail.com 718-414-3760
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 58 of 78


PLA!N111ii''S DEC~TION.IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAlN"I'IFJ"S CO)\mlNEI) m;:SI'ONSJ; TO DEFii;NDAm'$' .MOTiON TO DISMiss
THE PIITlTIONWITH COMPLAJNT

Exhibit C-5


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 59 of 78

*"* * ~ Jmlepelldeut.t>arty ***
Aftlliate:d wlth Ameri~ tmtependent Party OfTf!ese United States
State Cha-: Dr. Robert Ornelas
Mfate VI<;<> "IJaflman: or..Mark J .. Seidenberg
~veCo~~ Chairman: Markham RobiMon
Stata Heac;Jquartars
476 Deodata,Sb'oot : VacaVIlle CA 956&8-2637
Phone: 707-359-4884 F;oc: 707-222.-6040
mark.ValleUI@grr!aU,CQ!T! www.aloca.org Party/Committee 1.0. # 74237

October 30,2016

A Petition to the County Registrar of Voters

The American Independent Party hereby petitions the Co~nty Registrar of Voters tl! do the
following:
1. lrnplore the Governor of the State of california to call a special session of the State
l.egislatufl! to resolve the urgent problem of dual party nomination as set out in the August
26, 2016, Advisory Memorandum CC/ROV #16270 by Joint Resolution.
2. Implore all members of the State l.egls~tUfl! Whose districts are in part or whole within
your County to join you in urging upon the Governor such a special session of the
Legislature.
3. Urge the Secretary of State to ask the Governor for such a special Legislative session.
4. After reviewing the material submitted below on the Republican Elector Nominee slate, ask

• the Secretary of State to reject their slata submission, (This .Solves the problem of multiple
distinct slates, avoiding the necessity of a special session of the legislature.)
5. Provide a voter information sheet at the polls to all.voters containing the information
contained in Elections Code, Section 13205 (b) Which you were required to put in the
masthead of the Presidential contest on the November 8, 2016, General Election Ballot and
making it abundantly ~lear that "Vote for one party• in· the masthead means "Vote for one
party slate of electors."
We note that the Secretary of State has failed to provide County Registrars of VOters with any
advisory counseling them that they are reqUired to post the language of Elections Code, Section
13205 (b) in tlie masthead of the Presidential contest portion of the General Election ballot for
2016. This omission in no way abSolves you of the necessity of obeying the requirements of this
section. Your excuse for not following Elections Code, Section 13205 (b) is that the selection
method is obSolete. If you can print the false command "Vote for one party" When that is not
what the voter Is doing, Why can't you tolerate an easily explained imperfection in the
explanatory language of Elections Code, Section 13205 (b)? We find no conceival:lle excuse for
this derellction of the duty to inform the voter of the true natufl! of their choices in the
Presidential contest. The attitl,lde of the Secretary of State. is that the office of "elector for
President and Vlce President of the United States" is not an office, bUt is merely "ceremonial."
The Amerit:an Independent Party finds this position exceedingly offensive and contrary to the
Secretary of State's oath to support and Defend the Constitution of the United States.
Aproper handling of a(l the~ measures and problems are-the American Independent Party


assertscilecessary to the COI)duct of a fair Pri!$1dential electidn. The Secretary of State nas alSo
refused to <omp1ywlth our Public Records Request for an untedatted copy of the Republican
Page 1 of 1~ American lndependentP!UtrTtump!Pence Elector Nominee Sl""'" October 30, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 60 of 78
Party's supmissfon of .Electoral College nominees, suppressing thl!ir residential addresses,

.I
!M!c!eSsitatlng.the .llrduous process of researching. them.
Th~ problems wt; eitcountei'ed fn fi(llns In Information 'MUch the :;.K:retary of State refuSed t,Qc
RW~ide us eXJXlsed .niJml!tQUS defects in the Rellublii=an S4f;>m!Sslorl wtllch we list beli!VIi

1.. It haS one ConstitUtionally unqualified member reducl~g the. qUalified 5ubmiisiiln$ ~54, .
one short of the required number.
2. The submitted list attempts to deny ten J!ersdns theit rights as ex officip nominees by not
submitting their names. · ·
3. The qualified names .submitted plus the ten ex officio members not submitted makes the
total 64 members, nlnl! more than are J!ermitted. ·
4. Many addresses appear to be old, suggesting inadequate vetting of the nominees for a
wlllmgness to fulfill their duties.
5. The presence of unwitting nominees increases the chance of "faithless eleCtors" who
don't vote for the Presidential nominees of the party Which nominated them should they
be called uJ!OO to do so as is required in ~lectfon~ Code, Section 6906. ·
6. The Republicans missed the OCtober I, 2016, deadline (effectiVely 5:00 P.M. September
30, 2016, since tc1te deadline fell on a Saturday). The Secretary of State extended Wis
statutory (Electioris Code, section 7300) and Republiean Bylaws deadline Without
statutory aUthority. Ironically the reason <~dvanced for providing no solution to two
distinct states Rledged to me Saine Presidential Tic~, was that they lacked statutory
authority. ·

As a result of aU of these problems, we contend that the entire Republk:an slate of elector
nominees should be. disqualified, Whk:h would solve all of the problems of a dual nomination •
With twQ diStinct slates. (A common slate was submitted by two nominating parties' In 1940 and
19Z8. The Republltahs and the To.wnsend Party both npminated Wendell Willkie in 1940, The
Republican Party and the Prohibition Party of California nominated Herbert Hoover In 1928; J·
You, the County Registrar of Voters-we conclude-are essentially on your own, abandoned, by
the ~retary of Stata whom .we understand truly has. only an advisory capacity. TI\e Secretary
of State has proven himself unable and It appear$ unw!ltlng tO either com!lla:nd or advi5e'an
ert~tive and prop!!!; <:Ourse of action. Your fridependentcpo.wer to conduct el~ns are
catnmenwrate w!th Y!lur duty to do so fairlY and effettl\iely. A$ fello.w cltiz<ins of tchts State, we
fully expect Y!!U to diligently perl()rtn your duti..S to .con~uct a fair election ar to appeal to ·
tchose Whose assistance Is necl!ssarv to do so; such as the GOVernor to call a. SPecial~ of
the Lej!Siaturl!, yourleglslatl!rs to UJ'Be the GovernOr tl! .do so, and the Secretary of State to
Ur'8f! asimllar course of action upon we Governor. · ·

!'age 2 of U American Indel?"'ldent Party Tnnnp/Pento llleotor NOl!line<: Sillies •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 61 of 78

TA.BLE OF REPUBLICAN ELECTOR NOMINEES
L.egenCI:
• o- Occupied.
V,. Vacant.
'

C ; Ch"ill'!!an appointed.
P = Party Rules EX Officio.
X = StatutOry Ex Officio.
N = Not reported.
R = Reported.

Q = Qualified Constitutionally.
U =Unqualified Constitutionally.

Categories:
We have. no Indication that the potentiall;lectoral College members reported by the Republican
Chairman to the California Secretary of State were placed in any distinct categories based on
either California Statute or Republican Bylaws. Thus, we found it necessary to the proper
understanding of this submission to understand the categories into which they fit according to
the California Elections Code, Section 7300, and applicable provisions of the Republican Bylaws
(Sections: 1.04(A); 1.04(B); 4.01 ).

• The main reason that the matter is so complex Is that both Statute and Bylaws concerning
Republican elector nominees specify ex officio positions. By the Elections. Code, the Republican
Chairman is only required to report the nominees Which he appoints, but is instructed by his
Bylaws to report all of them, including ex officio ones, but he has neglected to indi.cate which is
which or bY What office the ex officio n.ominee enjoys the status of nominee. Thus he has left
this task to others tO be performed Vilthout his assiStance.
The An)erican Independent Party asserts that this duty bel!!ngs properly to the California
Secretary of State. This duty the Secretary of State does not recognize, You know tha~ in his
CC/ROV #16270 he explicitly provided'no resolution to the crucial requirement to provide a
means of choosing between two states of eleetors.when two parties nominate the same
~andtdatE'. The secretary of State al$0 cpntends that the notice to nominee electors required in
Elections Code, Section 6901, is accomplished by simple posting of an adumbrated version of
the Republican submission on their website, rather than by the obViOusly effective means of
sending by U~ mail some adequate fof!ll of notice of nomination· to the residential and business
addresses of the nominee electors.

General
The first table immediately below contains aU the members who are "Ex Officio'' In any seri~.­
who have their positfori by reason of an off(<;e they hold. The. next table found below contains
those !llembers Who W!1te appOinted pursuant tll the aUthoritY ofthe l{!!pUbljcan Chairman
granted by Calirornia ~e~tjons cadi., seCtiOn 7300, as constrained by the ReP\lblican Bylaws.

• After that is a table of th9se Who are "Eld>fficlo'' and unreported by the Repuolica.n Chairman .

Page 3 of 13 A~ can Independent Patty Tromp/Pence !llector )'lorn in«; Slates October 30, 2Qt6
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 62 of 78
The last two tab!~ :;!low va~ant positiQns in the mero~~lp of ~bllcan nominees for ·
el~toJ:s for Presldenf and VIce President of the United States.

category Tables
(23) •
The "OXRQ." categ<>ry above with .18 11\E!robers Is comprised of those who owe their membership
to their offli:e according to O!l!forrli~ E!~tiOos Code, section 7300. ·
Since members of the above category were rtot.distinguished from appointees by.the Repilblican
Chairman, we must regard them as redUndantly "IIJlpointed," If they shOUld lose their Ex Officio
status, such as Robert Musella did when he resigned from the log Cabin .Republicans as their
Chairman. He thereby also yacated his ex Off"io position as head of a Chartered Republican
g,roup, leaving it permanently unoccupied with no remedy by statute l)r part)t rule, since the
ttme-September 30, 2016-is past for the Republican Chairman to have appointed, within hiS
statutorily granted and bylaws constrained authority, an alternate lor him as a statutory ex
offldo nominee.
The "OPRQ'" category above with 5 members is comprised of those appointed as constrained by
additional "Party Ex Officio" rules contained ill Republican. Bylaws, such as Insurance
Commissioner and senior Republican member ()f th!' State Board of EquallzatiOri• This category
also includes those Who possess a "party nominated" eli offido et~r norninee position
according to a definition in the Republican Bylaws of "party nominated, • Whose scope Is
entirely limited to those Bylaws and cannot affect the usage of the same phrase in caurornia
ElectiOns Code, Se.ctioo 7300. My constraints in the ~bllcan Bylaws on th.elr. Chairman's
appointment authorftx are only capable of di~tlng the Republican Chairman to exerdSe. his
elector nominee appointment authority to the extent to which he has such statutorily granted
authority.

The Republican Bylaws assert. {falsely) that their rules supersede any provision of the Catlfomla
Constitution Qr Law concerning the definition of "party nOminated" or for spedfying additio~
ex officio positions, While the American Independent Party Is a strong sUPPQrt!!r of the ri~ts of
free politiCal assoCiations (s~h as political parties) to engage in free speech .and det!!rmine
their own ofgi!Oizatlonal rules ancl stiucture,.ln this case the direction of thlimannet <If
appointment of electors for President. arid ViCe President and-'as is netessary and piJlper to that.
process-the manner of nomination o~ candidates for such offm, is the ConstltlJtiqnally
rnan<fated dUty an.il sole prerOgative of the State Legislature as provided In Arti<;le 1.~ Section 1,
Clause l, ofthe Unltecl States Const!Wtlon as ellh!liited below:
~Each State shalhppoint, In s<i<:h ll)anner as the teglslaWr~t t~ m~ direct; a
number Qf el~ril. equal to theWhole number of Senator$ and Represent.l:lve$ to
which th~ State may ~entitled Ill the Conaress:. !nit no $e.l)8tor or Represeiitat(ve, or
person I)Qidlng an office of trust. or l>l'oflt uridi!r the. United States; shall.~ ~pointed an
electOr.'~ -
Therefore, in all matters touchlng ttlEl manner of appointment of su~h ele~tors and nominees for
C..di, til<! Stat<! Ce!lfslature-without any P;irtl~lpatlon of the State Exei:Utlve-,.exerc;lses •
comjl(ete poweraver ~uch procedures, ndtw!thstandinB: ~ny pi'O'(Islol\s oftlie rules of any·
l;'age .4 of 13 American. lndependent
- Party Trul\l~ence
.
Elector Nominee S!Stes . Ooto&er 30, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 63 of 78

private Qr any other public body. If t~e Republican Party wish~ to pargdpate in this process. it
must do ~o ~in the boUnds of the manner pfl!scribed by the california State Legislature,
which Includes a direction to the Rep,ublican ~rty iii Gatifomia Elections Code, Section 73()(), to

• implement In Its Republican Party BytaYI$ the provisions of that sectlpn, which inelllde a list of
ex offfcfo Electoral College nomlr\!!E! positions, some of which are characterized as derived from
"party nominated" candidacieS; An actual lawful implementation of California Electlqns Code,
Section 7300; by said BylaWs may not add t() or delete fi"Qm the list of ex offfdo elector
nominees, nor by changing the do1finition of a phrase In its own Bylaws, change the meaning and
effect ofState law. ·

The breakdown of this category is 4 members d.ue to getting the highest number of votes in the
Top 2 Primacy (or a State·wide offlce in the Republican Party Bylaws and one due to an addition
to the list of Ex Officio generating candidaCies t<> include the Insurance Commissioner. As will
be explained later, the Republican Chairman failed to appoint all the "Party Ex Officio"
members which his own Bylaws Instruct him to do.

tnted. Re rted. Qualified. 31
nted. Reported. Unqualified. 1
32
The "'OCRQ" category above with 31 members is comprised of those persons who were
appointed purely on the authority of the Republican ChWman to appoint additional nominee
electors-only constrained by Constltutionally·spedfied limitations-to bring the number up to
the 55 target nurnber to replace vacant statutory ex officio positions with alternates.
The sole member of the "VCRU" category, Arun Bhumitra, Is Constitutionally unqualified to be a

• member, since he enjoys an office of Trust (but not indeed Profit) under the .Government of the
Unite.d States, as confirmed to the American Independent Party by the U.nlted States
Department of Commerce. Although both the Secretary of State and the Republlcan Party
refuse to acknowledge this fact, no Constitutionally oath·bound offldal should include him on
any list of potential or actual Electoral College members. See the foliowing Ballot Access News
article on this: bttp:/lballot-access.org/2016/1 0109/califomia-republican·party·appears-to-have-appointed-
an~ineligible.-Candidate-:f'or..presidentiaf:.elector/.

The proper remedy for the aforesaid problem is Mr•. Bhumitra's replacement at. the meeting on
December 19, 2016, according to the provisions of Elections Code Section 6')05. This of course
can take place only if the Trump ticket prevails an<l onlY one ticket (in this case the
Republican's) is ruled bY a court ta have received the v0tes placed next to. the Trump ticket line.
on the ballot: If Mr. Bhoimtra is al(owed to vote, his vote may well be Sllccessfully challenged at
the joint session of the United States Congress which counts the Electoral College votes.
Moll!over, there is a legal precedent indicating that the election of an unqualified person to an
office is no election at all and that~ no election to.an office, there is.nP office to be vacant.
ffehce the California Elections Code, section 690!;, may well be without aUthority to prescribe a
replacement for Mr. Bhumitra, because hfs office is non·existent, ·

Two of these <Jn(eporte<l norni.nees in category •oxNQ'' are tht heads of chartered Repllblican

• Associations_ Another is an Officer of the ailifornia Republican Party. Another is. a Republican
Caucus leader In one of the houses of the t.eglslatl!re; The rest are "party nominated"
Page 5 of 13 American Indep~ndent Party Tnnnp/Pence Elector Nominee Slates Octo!>et 30, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 64 of 78
can.didates for state-Wide office In 201p, the last year In which such offices were "Pl!rty
rnlmlnal!!d".ln the sense Of the pi'OVISiolls of Callfornla Elections code, Section 7300.

Unreported
.
Vacant Positions (9).
!?arty EX Offlclo !61 .
.
.
VPNQ ~-=;Jarty ex Offlcfo. Not reported.

VPHU Vllcant:. Party. ex officio, Not reported.
s'

1
UllCiuellfled,
6

The two categories above, "VPNQ." and "VPNU'' refer to RepubUean Bylaws mandated ex
offlcios, whO were appointable by the Republican Chairman. He failed to appoillt ttiese
llll!mbers, improperly for five of th~ who are ConstitutionallY eUglllle, and properly for the
one who is Constftiltionally unqualified. These potential nominee positions are only "vacant• in
the estimatiOn of the Republican Bylaws, which entitled ~ potential nominees to
appointment by the tuleS of the Repllblican Party and not by State lilw. While having no legal
grounds to assert a right to such a position as a nominee, they have clear grounds internal to
the Republican Party to complilin of their mistreat111ent. ·

The two categories above, "VXNQ'' and "VXNU" refer to "party nominated" candidates for •
state:wide offf~;e In 2010, the lilst year Inwhich such offices were •party nominated~ in the
sense of the provisions Of California Elections code, Section 1300. Two of theSe positions are
vacant due tC) I'I!Slgt~atlon from office, one from a Republican Party ()ftlce and one as the flead ·
of a Republican Party chartered assoclatlon. The one "VXNU" office Is vacant by reason: of the
qtherwtse elfgll;lle potential nominee holding Congressional office; an· office .of Trust arid Profit
under the United. States.

Page 6 ofl:J American tn<IOpOndent Party Trump/Pence Electot Nominee Slates OctQbel: 30, 2Ql5 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 65 of 78

Tbe Republican Nominees to the Electoral College
, First Last
CAT ~~}:
OCRQ Nonlt

I"''"Y" 8811!8 IJGI«l NOne

OCRQ None

~ r (Singh) OCRQ None

Chi,.',(Anne) OCRQ NOne
; #4338

, CAl address?) or Shopping Cen!er. I 91301
Walsenburg. CO 5737 Kanan Rd,
.., 520 81089 Postal Annex+
mail
..ron.
not

'95677.

····~

Paie 1 of 13 American Independent Party T!Junp/Pen® !llector Nominee Slates Q¢tober 30, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 66 of 78

I BLVD

"7

CA"476or
REDWOOD CITY,
STESOl CA94065
~~~<Omayw()Odc

1 Av•. i Fresno,

1 Ron I Gold I OI'RQ

Paey Trump/Pence ElectorNomillee Slates. OCtobef 30i20I6
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 67 of 78

Ron! I UPRQ ::.,_ VJeWRd it"!~~!. .
11120Zl

.vy!
. Ul<NU
;-
RepUblican
-,
s(CCR)

n
steve cooley VA""
. '"'"' ,,. STE 91002.: ~~~ CA
:::inee '~~·19 .Hills, CA 90274

Demon (Jerel»
·oxNQ
of State ~ or long Beach, CA

1
Dunn
Carly Fiorino OXNQ
1ii."..
Nominee
r ~~- Blvd Unk
I 915 L_ST ~TE C·378
or 112,01 Gunston
90802

958140r lono~.CA
2010 Rdot28545 VA 22079 or los

~c:
Matadero Creek ln

• <;uerra .oxRQ
CAGOP ;882or
(;":'i;.i4£
-A Ann OXNQ ~PacySt ,CA 91321
IKelly
j

congress
of

I OXNQ
Governor
Nominee
2010
Chad. I OXNQ ••••••
or Sacramento. CA
leader 95814

I OXRQ •.

1carlo 1 oxRQ I ~pun~.. I Ct 94109

----~L-~~~~~--_L_ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _L __ _ _ _~
Pase !I o£13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee SlateS Oct<lbe!: 30, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 68 of 78

I Dlillklll
[oxRQ~ . 1;;,09
. r,CA 1117 L#700
1~108'
~CA

I OXRQ
I 'J'l""""'" 1128~ :~~~,. CA
.

IUXKQ ~ ~CA • 19704 ~·

:.~•: I OXRQ
!!.
::mbly
I
J9911 ~
11 ' CA95626- 19971

aDr lOSS
1::~
I OXRQ ·~
1106

I:~~-
.. I OXRq ~ir, I IrVIne.
Avo.
I Irvine

I OXRQ IFederation Lake Dr 9344&
,,CA

of

I~ I OXRQ
Cha~an's ~··
... J-1924 I ... ·u~

IR>~elr
"steel
IUXKQ

I OXRQ ~ .;A
committe&
o270
~~~=-
"'
I~llfn~~~00274
210

ParllloaJ.Sulbi 260
..,,
..
man

I UXRQ
~ I.,.,._,....,..
9121.4
o;CA.
1 s~-561!
' ..... .

. IO~RQ ~-
;p I:;;::~;;.·~. ··~.
I 167$
lv••.t..· Central, . · . 9~

1 Elissa IOXRQ. o;CA
......y

' ..... ~ -~ . ..
~- ~f,CA
~
,~ .. IUXKQ . . '• c~.Illor
1~::. ~~~- . i"D.t
~~~! lates
~"!

Page to oft3 · Part)! ···Octo~ 30, 2Ql6
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 69 of 78

SUite 300

95818-3954 or PMB 25
lancaster, CA
93536

Peterson

IH

95667

Nominee DRI150
2010


Page 11 of 13 American Independent Parly Trump/Pence Electnr Nominee Slates Ootober30,2016
-- .. ----~- -- ----------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 70 of 78

2016 TABLE OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENT ELECTORNOMNEES
This list Is generated by the Alnerltan Independent Party't Convention according to Elections •
Code, Section 7578. It does nQt. fncllll!e the business a9cf~ qf the elector,noml~s as they
are not required by the Elections Code, for our party. There are no ex officio nominees, so it Is
possible to get a promise of being' a faithful elector befonfnomfnating them. AU of nominees on
this list have promised to vote for tile Trump/Pence Ticket either verbally or In writing.

Page 1l of 13 AIJIQij""" Independent PartyTrumpiPeru:e Elector N9tllinee Slatos ()c(ober 30, 2016 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 71 of 78

Alternates
Elector Name Street Address Ctty State Zip PNP Elector
Robert Drobot 190 Sylvia Avenue, Milpitas, CA 95035 DrobotRobert
Reuben LaBarga 471 Deodara SL Vacavtlle, CA 95688 Reuben
B)""il Price 20702 El Toro Rd., Apt 222 Lake Forest, CA Price, Byri1
92630
AlaneQuien 134 South Parsons Ave., Apt Mert:ed CA 95341 Quien, Alane
A.
Catherine Stachowiak 341 0 Regatta Place Oxnard, CA 93035 Stachowiak, Catherine


Thomas A. Stachowiak 3410 Regatta Place Oxnard, CA 93035 Stachowiak, Thomas
1 A.
TreesWowor 23495 Via San Miguel Aliso Viejo, CA Wowor, Trees
92656

Or. Robert Clme!as
Chairman of the American Independent i!artv of callfoma

Dr. Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of california


Page 13 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates Oetober 30, 2016
~-~--~~~~~~-~--~

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 72 of 78


PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF TilE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit D-1

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 73 of 78

AmeriQln Independent Pi!rtv of
CalifOrnia


AmHate<! wltll tlie Amertca~ Independent Party
Of .
These United' States

State Central Committee CHairman: Robert Omelas.
Vice thairm~n: , Mark Seidenbef1
ExecutiVe Committee Chairman: Milrkham Robinson

State Headquarters:
476 Deodara St. VacaVille CA 95688
AlP HQ: 707·159-4884 State Aler ID! 742371
FAX: 707·222-6040
markyavelU®g.maU.com

To: County Registrar of Voters October 7, 2016

From: Dr. RObert Ornelas, American Independent Party of california Chairman

Re: A PubrJC Records Request about the Nov~ber 8, 2Q19, General Election Electors f!ll'
President and Vice President of the United States, especially as regards voter rights to see
the list(s) of said Electors and about the ballot masthead contents for the Presidential
contest
• Dear County Registrar of Voters:
It has been the experience of the American Independent Party that very few Counties ever even
acknowledge the receipt of questions by our party concerning elections matters, or respond to them
111 any manner. Therefore, our party has determined in this Important instance that we will put
these queslioris in the form of l! public reCords BlQUest.
First, some obServations.
All the qualified parties' nominees of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States
have been accept&! by the talifor'nia Secretary of State as of October 3, 2016, before 5:00 P.M. and
they have been posted on the Secre;tary of State's ElectiOns Division website. ·
In CC/ROV #16270 General Election: Ballot layout ISsues, the following question was raised and
"ansWered:"
How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selec:ted when more than one
political p;trty nominates the~me candidate?
The Elections Code does not address the mamer In WhiCh electors for President and Vice
President of the United states are selected In sitUations where more than one paity nominates
the same candidate. We will ;~d,dress this~~ lfjwhfin ;~ppr11pr111te. [Emphasis Added]
NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE llME TO ADDRE$5 THI5 QUESllON, This publk; I'!K:Qrds request
ls part of our many-jm,nged effort tO get this disaster In the making appropriately resolved.
' ' ' '

It seems rather obvious that you can't select "electors for PreSident and VIce President~ the united

• Sta~," if you can't figure out now ("the manner ln"Whieh1 to let the voters dO it: And why 1s this

Page 1 of3 County Regislrars ofYoleni ;October2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 74 of 78

imjlOl'lant? Well, ~U$ ,cpnsequei1Ce; will ensue If tlle 11)ptter is not properly resolved by ek:ctions
oflldall;, tl\eS!i!te ~ arn:J the~ legi$1atu':1'· · · , , · ,· , ·
If voters al'il de!li!!(i ;ll1 effllctlve dlolc;e In any .ballot line for the. Presldimtlal oonteSt, Silch as tlle
Ti1J111p~ bl!lipf l[ne, l!lls. w!ll !;<it$ tl\e illl/Oti!tion ofsection 2 of Attlcle14, An!enilrrients to the •
United StateS COhStltlltiOtt; which dll!llnlsheS State' CO l'l!Sslonat . , · · . ·tat1orr in ,. rtion to
sudi adenlitl. !f !he Stllte t:!i9¥!1itu~ JS ~ tO makl!itJch a sel;wl\iaf llle:C..n
Independent PartY contends WJII ~.me case whlChe\let ticket gets the most votes; tllen the entire
California t;on!J/'fJ?SIOJia/ deletJatlOII WIU lose their oftlef!S. ,·
Moreover, an Invalid Presidential cOntest, absent appoinfln!!'lt of the aforesaid Elettors by the State
Legislature lit accord Wltll.Title 3, US CODE, Chapter 1, Will Jose Callfortlill ,liS YOte In tlle Electoral
COllege for tlie 2016 ek:ction. · ,
Questi~s AbOut the Handling of the Presidential. Contest by the
County Registnir of Vo~rs, the Content$ of the Ballot, and Voter
Rights
If~ ask how many electors thllre a~ for tile Trump/Penc;e tld<et, wflat will
:1..
they be told?
2. lfvoters ask to see the list of, electors for the Trump/Pence ticket, will they be
shoWn anyt:hll\g and If so what?
3. lf voters ask t:ti see the Jist of eledors for any other ticket than Trump/Pence, will
they be slrqwn anythl!l9 and. If so what?
4. If vob!is wiH be shown an Eledoral Col•
list (01' lists) fOr a tldlet. what will they
be sflown-.:.a list of names only or perhaps a list of names with reaidence

s.
addresses assubmitl:e!l by the party (01' parties) to the Sea etary of State?
For the"''rump/Pence Ticket. will the Eledoral College list be a sl119le list or two
el
lists, one for eaCh p;lrty whldl'. Rominated it?
&, For theTrufnp/Puce ~will any overlaps ~~etw,ee.n party Slates be I~
on the Ust or listS of Electoral Coll1!!18 nominees $h0wn the voters UJIQII request? ·
' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' " '

? • For the Trump/Pence Ticket. hOw Will the edstence of ovel'laps be ~nCibtell?
8. By what authority- yo~o~r County disregard the pi'Ol!ililin$ of the. Election$ Code •
section lle(cjw c:onCemi119\Vbat is to be placed i.n the IOIIsth8ad Of tile ~al
In
oont:eSt th'e Genioral elec:Uon of Novembe~ a, 2016? ··
EtOctiono Code sectlon 13205. Addlllonallns)~WIIons to v..Wrs s!\1111 appoll!" on lhe ballot p-lo
those J>rovkled for ill sGclion 13204 under the foiiOWIIIIJ conilltlona' . . . . . . . ..
(b) In e l - wb..,.otectors ofPresklent and V~ P~dentof the Unitl!d-s are to be
c!IO$en, Iller. shari be piacali 'u~n tile bal.loi. In llfjdjtk>ll to lhe lnsjrUCtions .14 V018111 u provkfed In
this chaptsr, an tns~9uon •• 191~:

"l'o vote for all ofthe elaclDra of a party, stamp_ BCf'08S (+) .Tn,llle oqu.are oppoofte lhe momea of the
prestdendalarid vice Pf'$sklenllal candidates oflhatpa~. A'ci'OU (•) stamll'id '" Ill• square.
oppoolia Ilia _n...,eof a ~Oil¥ 111\d Its pl-esideriilai.nd vice Pr88k~entiatC8!1-; Is • v..W fOr all of
Ill~ 'lectors o!Utat party, bo,ltfor no other oandldatl!!o.•
!J, .What Is theiilst:l1'i!:ati0 usat by vc>~o~r Coutlty, to fOllow the .,rovlsi9RS of the
Eiectlons code section d' layed' beiQW tO: place the ralt81nStruc:tiDn "Vote fOr
llile pa~rty" Wilen" that)ifdearty i'alt8 a!ld misteadl!l9, .-naii in filet It Is a slate of
eledll!is of II pa1rty that the VOter IS vot1119 for?
COunty RegiStrars ofVoten
.
7.October~!~ •
,..,..-----------~- I

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 75 of 78
Elecllons Cod• Section 13210.

(b) In the cas.e of cen<IJd-IQr !'resident ancl VIce P!""iclenl, 111'! Worcls "V'!'e for One Party"
1/lc•


shall appear just balow !lie ~Oiidlng "President and President" anC~ shall be printed socle li!
appear aboVe !lie voting aguaresfor- olllce, The hOI!dlng ·~e~~tend VIC• P..,.ldent• shan
be printed In boldface't~-polnl gothic typ<i, and shall be ceniA>i-od - · the.nemeti of the
. C~tndkfates. _ ' '
10. one lluriilrecl ancl elgllt (108) Elector nominees pledged tcHhe TI'UIIIp ticket !lave
becln licxepr;ed by the Secretary of State, 55 from the Republicans ancl55 from
tile American Inclepelldent Party. with an o;werlap of :z, giving a total of 108
unique indiViduals. Ho.w will your County count votes for each such Elector?
11. If there are more thllll 55 Presidential and Vice Presidential electors for the
Trump/Pence ticket, !low will the milldmum 55 such be Chosen? W1lo will do It:
the voter, the Secretary of State, the County RegiStrar Qf Voters, the california
Legislature, the C8Ufornia Courts, the fclderal Courts, or the Joint Session of
Congress which counts Electoral College votes or someone else?
This Public RecOrds request should include all polity statements applicable to or generated by or
communicated to your County or from it regarding the matters raised in the above questions, all
exchanges between your Cotlnty concerning them with other Counties or State officials or any other
matelials relevant to these questiOns.
Please notify our Headquarters when the response to this public records request is available or
contact our Heqdquarters if you have any questions regarding this request. When your response Is
available, we will make arrangements with you to receive them and to pay applicable fees.

Sincerely,


Robert Ornelas, Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

• · Omnty Regist111rs ofVotero-
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 76 of 78

ExhibitD-2

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 77 of 78

• * ** American IJpeadenl Puty
Affiliated witb American
***
lnde;~ent Party Of These United States
State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas
state VIce Chairman: I Dr. Mark J. 5eidenberg
Executive Committee Cllalrmani Markham Robinson
. '
S - Headqu-rs
476 Deodara S-t Vacavlllel CA 95688-2637 Party/Committee 1.0.174237
Phone: 707--359-4884 Fax: 707-222-6040
markyavelll@lgmail.com www.aipca.org

October 27, 2016

To: Govemor Jerry Brown
Attn: Constituent Affairs
Subject: Request for Special Ses~ion of California State legislature

Sent to Fax.#: 916-558-3160

Dear Governor Brown:
1
We called your office recently to request that the Governor of california call a special session of the


State legislature to address the ~uestion raised in the Secretary of State's August 26, 2016, COunty
Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROY) Memorandum #16270 "How will Presidential and Vice Presidential
electors be selected when tnore !t"•n one political party nominates the sama candldate?"
'
The Secretary of State's answer ~nd advice to all 58 California Counties' Registrars of Voters to the
foregoing question is as quoted ~low:

"The Elections Code_, not addtess the manner In which electors for President and Vice
President of the United $tates are selected In situations where more tllan one party
nominates the same canifidate. We will address this Issue if/when appropriate.'
Please consider the Constitution~!' mandate In Article II Section 1, Clause 2 in the United States
Constitution,

"Each State shall appotntr In such manner as the legislature thereof may direct [Emphasis
added], a number of eleci:ors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be eptitled In the Congre$$: but no Senator or Representative, or person
holding an office of trust ~r profit under the United States, shall be appointed an electort

Given this clear mandate, the Amfrican Independent Party of california believes that the california State
Legislature is the body mandated 'o "address the Issue" and that the appropriate time Is now, by a Joint
ResolutiOn of the Califo(nia State legislature in a special session called by the Governor of CaPfornia •

• Page 1 of2 Governor Jerry Brown October 27, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-3 Filed 04/20/17 Page 78 of 78

we were Informed by your office tb~ last Monday (October 24, 2016) that the Governor will not call
such a special Joint Session oftbelqlslature to pass a Joint Resolution dliecting a manner of dealing
Wltb the .issUe raised by CC/ROV lll.6270.

We respectfultv _request that your office oonfirm our understanding of thls.lnfonn~Jon by return fax to

707-222-6040, or by email to the American Independent Party Keadquarters email,
markvavelll@gmait.wm.

Faithfully you,.,

Robert Ornelas, Chainnan of the American Independent Party of C.llfomla

Mali< Seidenberg, Vice Olatrman of the American lndeperxlent Party of california

Governor Jerry Brown October 27, 2016 •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 104


PLAINTIFFS DECLARaTION IN S.UPPOR'l' OF TilE )lfJ<MQIUNDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S CO~~t:~~E~:.~~MOTIONTODISMISS

Exhibit D-3
,.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 104

** * Allilrkla~Party ***
Affiliated wfthAtnetiam lndepen,dentParty Of These United States
l!tiot& .Cheirmlln: Oi. Robe~ Om. .
State~ C!)~lltnan: . Or.f\l;lrK J. 5eidenberg
lll\eCUliVe. CQIJlmitlee Chalr!n"';. Ma!1d!8ril Rol>inoon
Stata Ji~dqiJ!II'IeiS
476 .Oeodata Str1!1tt VacaVille . CA'
Phono;707~84
maOOi~lli@gmaitcom
~1;6!!8-<637
F~707~Nl040
www.aijjca.om

November 7, 2016

DEMAND LmER TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY O.F STATE
Demand 1
The American Independent Party herebx demands that you, the California Secretary of State,
tell. us and the vott~rs .at large, how you will apply votes for the Trump/Pence ticket selection to
the Alllerican lndePt~nden~ .and R~~publican party slates of electors for President andVice
President of the United States for the General Election of NoVember 8, 2016.
In particular, when a voter sftects the Trump/Pence ticket Une, to V(hich slate-the R~~pubUcan
or AllleriCan Independent-wilt that selection be tallied-to neither slate, to both, just to the
Republican F'arty's slate, or just to the American Independent Party's slate71f to neither, will
you .count that as a zero vote or just leave the Trump/PenCE! tally btank as not C<lUntecf! Or take
some other action?
Let us remind you of your own words in your August 26, 2Q16, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters· •
(CC/ROV) Memorandum #16270 "How wilt Presldentitl ilnd Vk:e Presidentfalell!i:tors be selected
when more than· one political f)arty nominates the same candidate?"
Your answer and advice to ~~~58 California Counties' Registrars of Voters to the fur~going question is
as quoted below: · ·

"The Elections Code <toes not address the manner In which e~ for: Pres.ident and VIce
Preslden~ of theUnited States are seliicted In situations where more than one ~
nomll'lates the same Cilricltdate. We wtll address. this Issue If/when appJ:OPrlate," .
The Alllerlcan'lndependent P8rt}tfnitally Interested in how this selection of !llectors fo~
President and vtc:i. Presid!!rit of the United States will occur or can even pO,sslbly occur; By
fQeuslng, on the nature, method, alid reporting of thHount, we llope to Ullderstand' this. ·
A-. to the appropriate time to addrE!$5 this Issue, It was when the question was rals.ed to the
secretary. of State by the Counties; promptl!d, we believe). by our interrQgatory to them just
p~;~Qr to the AUgust 26, 2016, is$1Janci;! of CclROY #16270, when yolt clefined and admltu!ci the
problem, but dfdncit resqlve it. All we can do now, just before Hovember 8, 2016; i~ to ask liow
your "selel:tion method". V(orks, what tt will count, lind hoW you will apply said coQn.ts tovour
fePQrtS of itje. VOte in.;\Udlng the ascertainment of the VOtes Of!llhlates; OOt.just the Wlnnjog .
ooo:' yOu o'iie. .to. the Governor gf the Sta~ for cert!fi~tion to the United S~~ ArchiVIst.
acc:Ording: to titlli 3 us CODE Cl!apter 1 Section 6. But If there Is 1lO effedlve selection metlio<!
for electOI'$ fdr President and Vlce President of the United States, we as~ yoo and the AtmiTiey •
General, isn't this an "tll~ry choice" for the voters? . .. . · . .
Page 1Qf6 AmeriClllllh~dentParty Demand~· . .. 2016
November?, .
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 104

Demand l
The unresolv~ problem posed py two distinct slates could have been resolved in advance by

• the submission of a comlllOn slate by the two qualified political parties nominating the same
Presidential!VIce Presidential ticket. Another way to have avoided the problems posed by a
dual party nomination tor President Is for only one party to have submitted submit such a slate,
but, lri fact, tWo parties submip:ed such a slate. The American Independent Party, under color .
of statutory authority, has appf>inted nominees for "electors for President and Vice President of
the United States." :
!
We submitted the proper numt\er, fifty-five (55), nominees qualified to be "electors for
President and Vice President Of the United States." The California Republican Party submitted a
list of "electors for President . d Vice President of the United States" which should have been
done In accordance with Electi s Code, Section 7300. (The corresponding section for the
California Democratic Party is lections Code, Section 7100.) About half of the Republican
electors are ex officio and the ther half are appointed by their Chairman, plus any appointed
by him to fill vacancies in the x officio positions.

The American Independent Pa of California demands that the California Republican Party's
submission of "electors for P ident and Vice President of the United States" be rejected for
the following four reasons and at our slate of nominees for "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States be the only slate of such nominees accepted for the November
8, 2016, General Election Pres entiat Contest:

1. Elections Code, Sect 7300, governing their submission has the California Republican
Party entitled to "el tors for President and Vice President of the United States" by


ex officio provisions d by their Chairman's appointment. Since they are not
nominees, they cann .t participate as candidates in an election. A similar assertion
applies to the Califo Ia Democratic Party submission of its "designees" for "electors
for President and Vice President of the United States." They too already have office
as "electors for Pres1 nt and Vice President of the United States"by the language of
Section 7100, so the too are not nominees. Since the minor qUalified parties, ours
included, have mere minees, they are qualified to compete for the office of
"electors for Preside t and Vice President of the United States" in the General
Election of 2016 in C lifornia.
2. Whatever office, el tors or nominee electors, the submission of the California
Republican Party ish ld to be, it was submitted after the statutory deadline (October
1, 2016, falling on a turday) and hence must be rejected by your office. Since
saturday fs neither a Sunday nor a holiday, the rule for submission deadlines is the
first working day bef re the deadline, September 30, 2016, at 5:00P.M. Moreover,
the California Repub an Party's Bylaws also specify October 1 of the Presidential
Election Year as the ~eadltne for submission of "electors for President and Vice
President of the Uni States," which In fact they must do, because California
Elections Code, Sect 7300, mandates the California Republican Party implement its
provisions in their p y Bylaws and In this regard at !east so they have done.
You, Secretary Pallil! , for your part exceeded your statutory authority by the act of
arbitrarily (or as a faVor), extending the deadline beyond October 1, 2016, for the


California Republfcar.· Party's submission of their "electors for President and Vice
President of the Unit State<."

Pagelof6 American dependent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 104
Despite the calftornfa Republican Party's defiant assertions. in their Bylaws of said
Bylaws superiority to the california Constitution and all State statutes, In this case
the California Legislature has a United States Constitution mandated duty (and power)
to appoint •electors. for President and VIce President of the united States" and to •
diri/Ct the m0111ner of doing $0. Therefore at least in this instance, the RepuDiican
Party has no choice despite their undisputed status as a "free politbl assoclatlon, •
but to comply with the State Legislature's dlctat In thiS regard, that Is; If theY wiSh to
participate )n the electoral process that results In the appointment of •electors for
President al1d VIce President of the united States. •
3. The submission of fifty· five (55) putative "electors fOr President and Vice President of
the United States" included one Arun Bhumitra, who, In addition to his many other
accomplishments, Is a member of a Commerce department organization to which he
was appointed by the United States Senate al'ld which the Commerce Department
assures us is an office of trust but not profit under the United States and hence falls
under the ConStitutional exclusion of all who enjoy an office of trust or profit under
the United States at the time of their appointment, election, or exercise of the office
of "elector for President and Vice President of the United States." He is a member of
the Industry Trade Advisory Committee, whiCh Is part of the International Trade
Administration within the U.S. Department of Commerce.
~- The California Republican Party's submission of fifty,four (54) Constitutionally
qualified "electors for President and Vice President of .the United States" is missing
ten (10) ex offfdo "electors fOr President and VIce President of the United States. •
These ten (10) lndfviduals have all been deprived of their right to be a Califomia
Republican Party "elector for President and VIce President of the United States." The
Republican Chairman has appointed ten (10) more "electors for President and Vice •
President of the United States" than he was entitled to because of an illegitimate
provision In the CalifQrnia Republican Party's Bylaws that attempts to modify the
meaning and effect of a provision for ex officio "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States• in California Elections Code, Section 7300, which the
californian Republican Party was mandated by this very section to Implement, not
subvert, contradict, modify or add to its prbvlsiohsl The attempted modification Is by
means of a 0ew definition 'If •party nominated" (State) offices in the first section of
the California Republican Patty Bylaws. The sensible definition "highest vote getter In
the TopTwo Primary" was properly incorporated In a statutory modification of
California Elections Code, Section 7100, for the Democratic Party. That's how It's
done legally.
Since there are really ten additional ex officio "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States" In the California Republican Party's stable of •electors
for President and Vice President of the United States," that brings their total to sixty·
four (64), ten (10) more than .the fifty-four (54) Constitutionally qualified "electors
for Pri!$ideni: and Vice President of the United States" that theY subrnitted.
If you, Secretary Padilla, or yaur subordinates had carefully read California Elections
Code, section 7300, you would have 110t1ced that thEt Chairman of the califOrnia .
Republican Party was only obllged to submit to yoll those "eti/Ctors for President and
Vice President of the United States" which he had appointed. The rest, the ell officio
"el~ors f9r President and Vk:e President of the United States, • are your . •
responsibility to ascertain. The help of the Calffomia Republican Party to fdl!ntlfy
Page3of6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 5 of 104

their ex officio "electors for President and V!ce Presiderit of the United States" is al1d
would be in the future a great help to your office, but I& bY no means obligatory .

• At, a consequence of this overage of "electors for President and Vice Presldeht.of the
United States" for the (:aliforn!a l!epublfcan Party for the 2016 General Election, any
vote for the Ca(ifornla Republican Party's slate or "electarsfor President and Vice
President of the United States" (assuming contrary' to fact, that they are entitled to
participation In the Presidential contest In the 2016 General Election) would be an
overvote and would of necessity be discarded since there are only 55 "etectors for
President ahd Vice President of the United States" to which California Is entitled In Its
Electoral College representation and their "electors for President and Vice President
of the United States" number sixty-four (64).
The Republicans failed to report six (6) statutory ex officio Electoral College party
nominees, two (2) heads of Republican•Chertered groups, one (1) California
Republfcan Party official, and one (1) party legislative leader, all entitled to an
Electoral College nominee positiOn according to <;alifornia Elections Code, Section
7300.
There are seven (7) State wide positions for which nominations or elections in a party-
nominated position correspond to ex officio positions for said electOrs. One of these,
the 2010 State.Treasurer position, was won by Mini! Walters, but was appropriat!!ly
omitted because she is a Congressman and not entitled to be on the Electoral College
for that reason.

The six (6) other party nominated, omitted Electoral College nominees are all from

• toe 2010 election Which was the last election at which there were party nominated
State wide candidates, since after t!lat the Top Two Primary State Constitutional
amendment took effect, making all such State wide offices, voter nominated.
The. Republicans in their Bylaws defiantly assert that they are not su!>ject to
California statutory taw or Constitution in their rules for these ex officio positions for
Electoral College nominees. They alSo add two "ex officio" positions not included in
the Elections Code, Section 7300, which actually governs these matters.

The six (6) persons deprived of their rights to be CaUfornia Republican Party ex offfcio
"electors for President and Vice President of the United States" are the following:
Steve Cooley, Attorney General, 2010 Republican Nominee
DOll) on. Dunn, Secretary of sta~. 2Q1 0 Republican Nominee
Carty Florina, Us Senate, 2010 Republican lolominee
Abel Maldonado, Lieutenant Governor, 2010 Republican Nominee
:rony Strickland, Contrptler, 2010 Republican Nominee
Meg Whitman, Governor, 2010 Republican Nominee
Moreover, there are 4 more omissions, namely the following:
Two heads of Repuptfcan·Chartered groups: Ivy Allen, California Coll!!Qe Republicans
Chairwoman, and Patty Kelly, California Congress of Republicans PreSident•


Page4of6
The Assembly Republfcan Leader, Chad Mayes and

American Independent P!II'IY Demand L<;tter Nqv..,ber 1, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 6 of 104

1'l1l!c ~llfomfa Republican Party rreasurer, Marlo: A.. Guerra.

Oernandl
The .AA~er!c~nlndependent Party of Calffomfa demands that you, Alex Padilla, ¢alffomla
secretary ofState,ln detail ~ll us how )'OU will fulfill your d\ltY .In tt\e california Electioos Code
exp~d iii calffOrofa flectlohs Code, section• 15505 (foilttd below fotyour conviml<mce), til
"certify. the names of .the Pr!lper nUmber of persons having the highest number of votes, • thnsl!

"persOnS" of course being "P~I!Sidi!OJial eteet!lr's?" ·
tlote that you must notify with a •cel"tlflcata of election" those l!lected as "presidential
eleet!lrs. "If yqu had performed your dUty to notify nominees for the office of "presiilential
etec.tor• which yoU unaccountably contand are not Offices at all or disgracefully to your
Constitutional oath, contend are "merely ceremonial," then you would know whether the
submittad addresses were accurate. Yet here they are, elected as "presidential electors!" They
have duties to do and wt(l be paid the princely sum of $10 for it. ·

Page5of6. Ame!'icim Independent Parjy Demand Letter

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 7 of 104
It contains the votes l!y slate and a list of all of the.~bers or said slat!!s. So finally yqu may no.
longer evade the question of hOw many votes our American Independent Party and the California
Republican Party slates received if yqu are to properly serve the GQv<!mor of talifomia in this matter;

• ~s yau indeedyqu must. This "Certificate" also contains for each slate the names of candidates for
President and Vice President of the United States to which the electors were pledged.
You maY wond<!r why we migl\t,have to some extent gone over the. ground already covered in
"~and j" fn this demand. As.wellas the greater detail we went into.inthis demand for detailed .
information from yau, it Will probebly have 5unk in by now how much easier this analysis will be 1( yqu
accede to·our "Demand 2" as indeed we believe you should and must. ·

The American Independent Party's Right to Make These Demands
The American Independent Party, under the color of statutory authority, has appointed fifty·
five (55) nominees for "electors for President and Vice President of the United States."

Both the American Independent Party and its nominees for "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States" have a palpable interest in the proper working of the electoral
process for the 2016 talifomia General Election Presidential contest and a particular interest in
avoiding voter suppression due to an increasingly wide-spread realization by would be voters for
the Trump/Pence ticket that their vote may well be ineffective because of fatal and unresolved
structural difficulties in that election contest.

• lllJ~~
Dr. Robert Ornelas
0\alrman of the American Independent Party of CSIWomla

Dr. Mark Seidenberg
Vice 0\alrman of the Amertcan Independent Party of california


Page6 of6 AmeriCan JndepeudenfParty Demand Letter
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 8 of 104


PLAINTIFFS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDuM OF LAW FOR
ro
pLAlllfUFF's coMBOOfu RE$'0NSE »~'MoTION 'fO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITIJ.COMPLAINT

Exhibit E-1

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 9 of 104
'"

•u
,,
'~
"
'~

"
'i1
M
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 10 of 104


PLAINTIFFSDllCLARATIONIN SIJPPOll.TOF THE MEMORA!'IDUM OFMWFOR
.l>LAl:JIITIFF's ~OMI!INliD RESpoNSE to DE)\'J!:NDANTS' MQ'i'XQN to DISMISS
THE PETrnONWITJl COMPLAINT . .

ExhibitE~2


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 11 of 104
SN VBM_..., __

------
• --
----
--··

• "'
"'
...
...

...

• - -~
Cf..t-1-tC
CH
1/5
-
-...
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 12 of 104

-
.

..
-~·
. ..
.
..::~:: .
..
.
.. ..
..
.. •
.
. ..
.
.. .

•• v•=r.;._..m
B'r.1-·eiC·C1
EE"" ... •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document
ST1 VBM
36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 13 of 104

-OFFICIAL BALLOT
• -• eon.itkl.-:1 ~edl£\ocdcm
Ill! , . CltyMdCoimtyofS.nfrin$eo

• ..---,.
• , • November8..2016-
•-
- - 1Q

51


53

...
...

• 2/5
-
....
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 14 of 104

-

....

...
,
....

--.......... ¥-._._.. . . ,
Ern 1 ;.EIC~C2

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document
BT1-
36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 15 of 104

YfS/·JR,· . .
NO/iltl . . . .

• 65
YESIU .. ..
NO/&If . . ..

..
VESJ.wlil.. ..

..

• ........
CH 3/5
-
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 16 of 104

-

~~ ......
NOflilt• •

8

c

D
...
E
YES:IItlt . .

...
YEBllilt . .

F ..
NOtU . .

~~··· .. <

G ...
H ....

EE ....
' •
I
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document
BT1 VBM
36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 17 of 104

.----
-
• •
OFFICIAL BALLOT
~tdetacf Geoen~l EJectlgn
iEitU
---------.,
•· •

• -----.
-
• -
C\tYandCoUntyofSanfrancleco
-•::·
NovM!bflr&.2018
INS11lUCTHJIIS TO
'

=-=~
.. .. \:f
""""
3i1mlltl
.....,.,
wi_~11,qaa


---~fi~jl!f)UJ


. . . . ,_.

~..... tliiJ~..:..mtill'lU, •
-------
-- IIi

M
...
N ....
0 VIOI!Jtol . .
NO I .lilt ...
...
p
Slolii\I>$Citv ""PfOiolblied:""" ~kif-.,.,.,....* hauoinfPI'Ojool""~ ~ ""•"'• ~o(•
OIIIMGf~oNII~III'-Oiwtlolllllf~t....._otlrnllt.ral~aoldllllalf1NCIW~InloQhoiiW
..,.,...,~~li><-"'f-lc>lwlot-""""""'~""~P~!'IVl YESIU . .
NO/lilt . .
....
• • ....,..,
Cll 415 -
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 18 of 104

-

YEll IIIIi .. ....
YES/1111 . . ....
s VES/Itll. .
NO I !ill ..
..•
T ,.a!ltll:lll YEIIIU ... ....
u Yl!lltM• ....
v
NO/lil!t . .
....

NO/Jilt . .

w VESIJIII . .
Nil/Jilt ..
...
X YE&/JIIt. . ....
...

•• IB•-·

I.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document
BT1 VBM 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 19 of 104

------------· .,
• ·- -
•••

........
....-~

..
• .
.
..
..
.

• • • EJil
......""" CH 515
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 20 of 104


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 21 of 104

ExhibitF-1

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 22 of 104

HEWYOIIItstATEBOARD(II'EI..IldTICM
CANOIOAll List • I!!.Ji¢1:IOH YEAA : :me 'J:YPI!: G1!1iERAL III.I!CTIOit

"""""" PIU/rlellt of fill> U.$.

PlliTI'lCT' 1fA coumes,

DEMOCRATIC

-·-LIIII!RI'-
RIIPUIII.ICAII
COHARYATIVE

WORICINCJ~AIIILIES
INOI!PIINili!NC ~­
..
HllaiY Clllllan
._-·.Tnomp
~ J. Tft.llt'IP

Gary -Jo1non


WOMI!ti'S &QUALITY
Gary-
LilT

Ofl'ICE: ~of fill>
DISlRICT; JlfA COUN11ES:.
u.s.

__
l1nt~

-~~.­
~-
11111-
...
8111¥!"0111
11111-
11111-


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 23 of 104

PAGE2 of 101 PAGES

OEMOCRAliC
oaiOCRATIC
OEMOCRATIC
-
'WIIIbln .J. e::nnteft
ApdiiiW M. QJomo
Klllh1 c. Hoc:lwl
DEMOCRATIC ~ p, DJIIoPoll
OEMOCRATIC ErlcT•.-
OCIIOCIIATIC c.rll!.-
D£MOCRAT1C
--~
DI!IIIOCIIATIC
DEMOCRATIC
DI!IIIOCIIA11C
................
l!llldOIIfoolo

Scottll. $b'b$W
DEMoCRATIC ...... Mark~
OEIIIOCRATIC SytQn w. 8rown

--
DEIIOCRATIC C-hristina c. Quinn
DEMOCRATIC - A. $mllclo. Jr.
DliiiOCIIATIC
DEIIOCRATlC
OCIIOCIIATIC
OCIIOCIIATIC
OEMOCRATIC
D£MOCRATIC
DEMOCRATIC
DEIIOCRATIC
__
-Woi---
MMIOF.CIIIIIIO

Goo!goK.-

G.,y$.~
...
Daniel f~ Donohue

l.oYolyA.-
DI!IIIOCIIATIC 818phanle A. MlrMr

-~~.­
llt!MOCIIATIC
llt!MOCIIATIC Anulioola M. a.m...
DEIIOCRAT!C -Ung
DEIIOCRAT!C Rullon Dlaz, Jr.
DI!IIOCIIATIC -Lingqm

--
-D. Gold
DEMOCRATIC
ll£l'IJIILICM Adl1in K. AuCIM... l
REI'UIII.ICM
REI'IIIH.I<:NI GoyT.-
REPUIIIJCAN 1Ec1Jwm1 F, Cox
IIEPIJ8I.ICAN v.
Tbarpaa oadly• .#r;
R!PIIBLleAII
R!PIIBLleAII
RI!I'IIBLICAN
AI!JIU8l.ICAN
_ . J_
JoluiJ.I'Ianlaan
-li.kolb
""'"' kioi!- .

-J........
._. .
R!J'UIIIJCM ....... K1i1g
IU!I'IliiUCNI lilchota A. l.aqf!IQitby
-JIIjl.o-
REPUIII.1CAN
_.,......
--
REPUBLICNI
R!J'UBLICNI

-·LICNI suOa.ll!. """""
R!J'UBLICNI -II.~
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 24 of 104


-~~~·
NI!WYORkllrAtEIIOARIHII'~ .
CANI!liiATI!I.Isr·· ~YI!M: 201~ <TY.P!I;~.,_~ .

~:NIA~.

REPIJIII.JilM EdwildP,.,_
R~ CIIIP.P-
RI!PiliiiJCAH WIIIIam Rolllch

--
-T--.
REPUIII.JilM TOdd Roalt
RI;!'UIIIJCM Jonnlllor - llldl
RI!PiliiiJCAH
REPUIILICAN
REPUIII.JilM Donald 4. Trump, Jr.
IIEPUIIIJCAN
IIEPUIIIJCAN SbamMedia

-_,.,Dolley-
Lavine
RI!PUIIUCAN Howlrcl Lim, Jr.

--
RI!PUI!UCAii llodiloyJ.Stningo
CON8ERV"TM!
...
-J.-
CON8ERVATM!
~ONSelWATM! EdWald F, CO.
CON$!lt'/1'1'1111!

-- •
C01181!1111ATIVI!
C01181!11111\TNE CIIadoo ,,.,_

--
C01181!11111\TNE
CON$£RVATNE
C01181!1111ATIVII
C01181!1111A1'M! StiOntr.-

_._
C01181!1111ATIYE ~o\.;._a,y
CON$!lt'/i\1MI
'""".... ...,....
_....
cONSeRVA1'1VE c.r J. Lavlno
c~I.'IM' 8hfin ..... lAY~•
C01181!1111ATIVE ~~,.Jt.
_ ..liVE
C-i\1MI
...,..
CON$£RVA1'1VE llusaol!:-
CO!IAR\IATIVII """" ~ ~d.Uo
~1'1111! Edwild.F.I!\>IIIOil
C.,.._1MI e.tP.. .........
_ . . ...TM!
COIIIII!RVATIV!
c~li'IIVII _....,_
0.,1'........
-r~.....,..
Rilllcll
~«rrVE
_,..,.
........
--
<:OIIHIWATM! ~
~ATlYE ~J.­
.,._J.Tnlmp. ""·
G-
CON8ERVATIVI!
GREEit .
.....
~wao.n
.,._

--
..;...;!1M

·-
.GIII!EII'


ORI;I!1! "'""""'! !Jall'l"t
. ' .
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 25 of 104

PAGE4 of 101 p~-

t!EWYOIU(~A'I'I!
C1t\NN>ATE 1.1$1' • ELI!CTI<!N YEAR ; :i01a TYPE': GEN!!Rioi.lli..I!C'OOH

OFI'!Cli: ~~~~ i!hJGfor
l:ll$liUCT: II/A COUIITIES:

GREEN MJdlaiiD."-
GRI!I!N CnolgA.-

........
CIRI!EN
-~~.­
--
Jam!ta C, lllne
GRI!I!N ._._me 8cltlwa
llootwWe DoffmM
........ R. Brown. 01

-- --
CluloflnoS.Sch-
GaiiB.-

_,.._
--
C R&N Junnel.wndy

-- -pllor-
--
--
--
Gil Olllor

CIRI!EN
--
--
--·-....
_..,_
lla!y-

...... l.avenla

WOIUcJHGPAMU1U

WORiilitGF-1£11
__ ............
~~Clinton

lCIIIIJ c. nocliul
-.FI\IIIfJI!S - p, Dlllopoll
WORIQNGF- l!oloT.-
WORtaliGFMIIJEII CIIt E. Heooilto
WQRKING F.;Mt.IES
-~-a

-- -··-.....
WORKINGF~a
__
............
'WOR.tONG FII'MP 1M

WORiilitGF-IF8
AndNa ~ CDulllniJ
IIIII ·-
t.:dllaA..iamea

_,_... ---
-l!l\IIILlliS c-.;.c.-
WOflillHGIWIIIJES BooiiA.-Jt.

---
-PMIIUEII
WOIIKIIIQF-
WOIIKIIIQ NMIIES
.......,,__
WOIIKIIIG •MIIUEII
-F.CIIonto
-.u.........

===
~FMIUU
.... tt.~,um
ca., a. ' ...,.,..
"'"""A.~
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 26 of 104

bfliJCe ~ls.ctll!
""
~~~~~Ill'~
t.vfDIIIAl'litJS:i'• ~YI!M:
'
mt ~~~~
,, ' ' '' '

DISTRiCT: .11/A. <;oulffli!ll<

WORKJNGFAMIIJEII
WORl<INGFAIIII.IU
W()RIQft FAMILIES
WORKING FAMILIES
-A.-
............-...
At.... , .... SOmoa
Sondrit ·unq
--.Jr.
Wll!iKJNGPAIIII.IU _L.......,
INII-
WORK!!«~ ~lUES
VIQIIKING FAIIlUI!ll

11-E
liiD£PI!NIIf!li
..-e
""'' '"'·Gold
FRnkll.lllo:KoJ
- .... lllo:KoJ
-llaglldl
Rol>oltO.I'IInlck
INili!FI!IIDf!Ne -$;.Connolly, Jr.

-
IND- Paa! ~
..-& -(loputo.
S!oP11tM!I'. c...,..
"-" ~..,-. sr.


INP-ce LQ A. Hcllllnlli:Off
INPENNDENCE
-~~.~

-L.-
INDI!I'I!IIDENCiE T-llaglldl
lN-Ji - A .Connolly

=
IIDI!I'I!IIDENCiE l)armi• R. t.eck

fUchlrcl B11nrldo,
!lllli!Pi!HiiENc:E M~,~lll'ld0
~
..-e """"'-
MfCiuool ,._
-DENCE
~
liiD£PI!NIIf!li
·~ -_........,
Nlld lAo

::::=..-
ROwe

..........
==
liiD£PI!NIIf!li AM&c.llaglldl

=
~

. ~
WOWI!fll~.
~~
=~.z:-
WOIIJ!I!'S~ ~lt­

.........•........._......
WOIIJ!I!'S EQIJALirY -,c. -..I·
WOIIIIIrSEilUAUT't. 'lliomiirfi:-

-
WQllil!lfe i!auALrrf.
WOIIIII!'II~ """'""'. .

...........
WOOIEN'SEQtWJT'I
~ ..........,.._
-~
"""""
==~ Scott II.~


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 27 of 104

· PAi3etJ llf 101 PAGES

OFFJCE: PrNidllt!ll«f I:Jecf:or
Dtsl'RiCr:- NIA COUNTteS:

-'&
-EQUN.JTY
-EQUN.JTY
EIOliJALITY
Mo!--·-
llyt'OIIW.Bmwtl
Ch!follneC.Qqlnn
woMeN'& EIOliJALITY
- ..... IIQUAUTY
-EQUN.JTY
woMEIN'&EQUN.JTY
WOllEN'S I!QIIN.JTY
-l!QIJAIJTY
woMeN'& EQUN.JTY
_... _
Mo!-·-
Bull A. Smlldct. Jr.

MarloF.C-
Rllondo--.,

-H.....,.._,
Oonlolf.-

-IIQI.Liiuyy o.yaLa-.
WOllEN'S EQUALITY
WOMI!I\fSEQUAI.ITY
--A.III-
J..ovolyA.-

WOMMEQUN.JTY
-I!N'IIEQUN.JTY
WOIIEN'III!QIIo\L!TY
WOIIEN'SEQUAI.ITY
WDMEN'&I!QIIo\L!T'f
WllMI!It'& EQUN.JTY
LBT-IJIIERTAilfAM
_ _
-~~.-
Anastasia M. Somoza

-Q.-
-lint
-

-H.-
...Qlaz,J<.

t.BT-IJIII!IIT- Jelfrw)rT.-
t.BT-IJIII!IITMW! -A.Coojler

--
LBT-IJIII!IITAilfAM -J.Coojler
LST.ullill'rAilfAM - Comtolly1'angnllll
LST-IJIII!IIT-
UIT...-TAAIAN
LBT...-T- _........,
StWtnG.T.~
Shawllai..Cole

---
LBT...-T-
t.BT.ullill'r- -1!.~
lBT..u&ERTARIAN

--
UIT-I.lllliRT- WiJUam P~ Mc.MdiiU
LIIT-IJIII!IIT- GalyS.-
UIT-I..IBifRTARIAN
LBT~ or

LBT--
RQiwt N. Pwtet,
UIT.uBI!IITAIUAN I\JIOII Yeo
~~~~Jt~
UIT~....
UIT.f..IIIIIIT-
UIT-I.IIIIIRT-
co-...._
Briiil Waddill

Kevin-
UIT-IJI!m-
--
Erik Bell

--·
UIT-I.IIIIIRT- lllt\>kl w. .......,. Jr.

--
LBT..USI!RTARIAN
Ult.ullill'r-

--
UIT,IJIII!RTARWI
LBT.f.JIIIIITARWI
UIT.ullill'rARIAI\I
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 28 of 104

P~7 of 1()t P~

Ofl'!CE:
·NEWvORit.r"ts~•QI'~
~r&Lifl'• ~YI!M: 201a •. TYPt;;~li!.llCI"ION

PtaSidantlal Elclor

otSTRtcr: "MIA COUNTres~

Ofl'lCE: u.s. Semdor
OISTRICT: NIA c6uNrtES:


DIMOCRAT1C

-
IW>UIIUCAH
CONSI!RYATM!

woRKING Flllolll.IU
~
c-e.--·

SE-
_.,._
Cha.iese.-
Cha.ies&,~

--
-EQI/Alm' c;tllrleiiE.-
REFORM
l8T.t.IIMTAIUAII


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 29 of 104

PLAINTIFF'S Dll(;l.AMTlON IN SIJPPORTOF THE ME!IfORANJJ~ OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESI!ONSI!; tO DERNDAN'l'S' MOTION TO DISMISS
TilE PETITION WlTII COMPLAINT
' ' ' '

Exhibit F-2

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 30 of 104

William J. CliniOn-
Andtew M. CltotM-,
Kathy c:;_. ~hul'
ThomU' P. DiNapoli
_.__
Mario,F. Cilento
~wemg.,.m.

DanlolF.~
"


'

&ie1'- ~idermao' Stuart H.. Appelbaum
cirtE.~e .aa.ys._~
,Andrft. steVnut-Cousins lAveiy A. Wilin:D,
Bm ..to masro ~A;~
-~-A. James ~ne~,~·
s®tt'M. Stringer·,; ~M, Soiboza"
McliM ~YWmto· Sattdmtrnt
, ByranW~~;- RubeftPiat.k:
C,Iuistine C~ QulnD ~ L.'inpin;:
':B.'aiiA.'smtkte,.k. ~~D.-Qold
M~i --~:·.
',,,.,:tiD '

,,,,


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 31 of 104

. Of
STATE . NEW YORK . ss:.

William J. Cl!n~on Mario F•. Cilento
Andrew M. Cuomo . Rhon!la weingarten
Kathy C. Hochul George K. Gresham.
Thomas P. DiNapoli Daniel F: Donohue ·
Eric T. Schneiderman Stuart H. Appell)aum
Carl E. Heastie Gary S, taBarbera
Andrea Stewa.rt-Couslns lovely A. Wa.rren
Bill de Blasio Stephanie A. Miner.
letitia A, James Kather!l'le M. Sheehan ·
Scott M. Stnnger Anastasia: M. SonlozS ·
Melissa Marlc-Viverlto Sandra Ung
Byron w, Brown Ruben Diaz, Jr.
Christine .c. Quinn. Hazell. Ingram
Basil A. Smikle, Jr. Rachelo: Gold
Melissa Skiarz


was, by the greatest number. of votes given at said election, duly elected ELECTORS of
PRESIDeNT and. VICE-PRESIDENT of the United States.
GIVEN tJnder our hands in the city of Albany, New York, ~_ls Sth day of December In the
year two thO.tlSand sixteen.

Douglas A•. KeUner Commlssl<l~!'f
l'eter s. Kqsln~l Cornrnlsslo~er
Andrew J. Spano . Cori1!i\IS$1()1Je~
Gregory P. Peterson Commissioner
STA;TE OF 1'1~ VORl< . )
STATE !lP;AIID OF ELECllONS ) ss:

We certify that we have ciompareq. the. fOregoing wlth th!l 0r1g1nat certl~~" filed In this
office, and ih~t the. saml!ls acioiTect ttans<:rJptt:h~frllmand. oftiiiiwh\l!e Clf ~ l!figlnal•.
Gi\1!;!\i un>J.ir our hands and seal of office. of fue State B(JariJ· Of Electl\)ris, at the ~lty ¢
Albany, this 8'1! day of December, 2016. . .

~·· Pete~··.
~····~
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 32 of 104

, riil'ri>~ ....... YO"-" ....,, i. , , , . , , , ', , ::• , , , . , , ,;,·, ,: .. ,., , .. , , i',, •••
'
'""~''"!IJf&;,.,..IV'•1J50Q """f:-• '' "' "'"' ' ' '

,, ,,,, St~ement ~f tile '<Vfi!!!e' nljll)Per Of VOtes r.'lst fgr; ~~~ ~~ glO!l~.~.flil! thli<Qffll:e ~~ c ..
,~~,~~~~~ili;zh~i~,.~~~T ~~t~tii7hlll'ill~~~ lrj ~Q.~'i!i!•,: •
' ' ,, '''"' ,, "' '

TOTAL.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 33 of 104

.' ' ."' ..' .. 'A...... ,. .......
··c:r· .. ..•
sa•
$T, ! .,.. Ql' lf:IW, y, ~!<.


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 34 of 104

'
'

••
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 35 of 104

""'
ST~UOI!~YORK, 8'

• ~c._··--t---7~;:;c;-AL~~--r
!!!ill!!. I

!~ ~ -Hlli
1 l, BilrW\, Sr.
.ee A. iiiiSiilkoff
'R•.
.
!1] r ii·
H!1.U
,..,-
.118
.118
ii

lrec• .

11
11111A
.·~

. I


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 36 of 104

"." '
;":;
", '>

received


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 37 of 104

. ;:; : >~1111" \!~ o~r h~Ms In the city of Albany, f:!ew Yori<; !!>Is 8"' day of pecem~ln the
year two thousand slxte<!n.


· ·

Douglas A. Kellner Commissioner
Peter 5. Kosinski corM-t~oner
:Andrew li Sp~no COrM:I!Ssloner
Gregory P. Peterson Colllinlssloner

STATE Of NEW YORK )
) ss:
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIO 5 )

We certify that we hav compared the fOregoing with the original certificate filed In this
office, and that the same Is a rrect transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original.

GIVEN under our hands. and seal of office of the State Board of Elections, at the city of
Albany, this 8"' day of Decem ' r, 2016 •


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 38 of 104


PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBJNEI)RFSl'ONSE TO DEFENI>ANTS' MoTION TO DISMISS
TilE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitG

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 39 of 104

Search

• PewResearehCenter

UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANT TOTALS RISE IN 7 STATES, FALLIN 14

Immigrant Populations
BY JEFFREY 5. PASSEL (HTTP:/IWWWPEWRESF.ARCRORG,STAFFiJEffREY·S.PASSEL' JAND D'VERA COHN
(f!TfP:!/WWW.PEWRESEARCil.ORG-'STA F/DVJ::RA..COHN'J

• 1NO
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 40 of 104
1111M!tl6

TASU:l!

states with 1.aJt1ast unautllorlzed
lmmigraat Populations, 2M2


In tltausands

Cellfomls
.._
2,450
.. (+•-)
45
T.... 1,660 40
Florid& 925 25

..... ,....,
NftYotk 750
525
20
25
Illinois 475 25

GeorJia 400 15
North Cetollna 350 15
Atlzona 300 15
Virgmia 275 15
Maeyland 250 15
Washington

--
230 15

""""• 210
1SO
10
10
Pennsylvania 170 15
\C;C2' Ail ~!.i'llt:H~ "''"' '(<Vt')e;f ;!H$;:f~o;~.:;~ ti'>J Q>CflO': !t:lj JSCJ
:: S.3n :;; :!"1e ";J!i.i l s fg...1~ c1 :.:1"-tl •Q:.:.Js C,llftltrlO:S t"'!:,·..::.~n
::::r~:;e:v~i~e r1r1<::s tr'-a:, a.n t>~~,Stut, ;;,yofcsnt S;:e

\!~:'':<J;I~~ f?t roo'\tlil'gn.-11'!:. ~~ngeru:sro trr~t :onlld'!~<r.e
·xr.er.o~J ·
S.:.o.H>t. Tetie Ai. d!-u~:: t-or:F~A Qese!f:tr :kn:-:r~>n~tes
tldseJ or. !hlg!n~flte420L: ~0\H/..J>nCcrrw.vM.J Sur;-.:, 4St! ~>em

l!ltf:gF~te:j p,JOi<C t·s: M;:m::a~ Seres;;pt. \IS·

(http://www.pewhispan ic.org/2014/1l/18funautborized-inunigrant-totals-rise-in-7-stntes-fall-in-14/Ph_2014-11-
t8_unauthorlied-immigratfun-o6 /) Twenty-one states bad siat:isti:cally sigilificant changeS fu their poPu].atfuns of
unaulhotizedimmigrants from 2009 to 2012. They comprise seven s1a10S wbere the numberofunaUtllotized
immigrants increased and 14 where the numllerdecreased.

These stste-levcl chang~ are masked by the smbility at the nationallevcl, aeoording 1Q the Pew Roslllll:Ch
estimates. The overall number ofnnauthoti2ed immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012-stmding at 11.2 million-
was nnchanged from 2009. the final year of the Great Recession. The population had fallen since i1s peak of 12.2
million in 2007, when the recession began.

States that Grew or Declined
The seven stafos where Ulllllllhoti2ed immigrant populations grew from 2009 to 2012 were Florida, Idaho,
Macyland, Nebnlska, New Jemey, Penns)iwniaand Virginia.
2110

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 41 of 104
1111&'201& S.Undofzadknmlpt~IPewReafiiRhCfl&

In two of these states, Maryland and Vugiula, the stale-I<Veilrends also broko with the nalional-level trend fur
20071<> 2012: l)Uring those~, the nUDtherofunaalborizedimmlgn!nts fell in theU.& overall, but continued

• to grow in bo1h Maryland and Virginia. In Maryland, 1heeslimated nUDther of unanthorized lmmlgraots grew to
250,000 in 2012, compared wilh22o,ooo in 2007.In Virgjl$ia, the et~;tiJ'tUlt:fll;l n\Ullber grew to 215.000 in 2012
from 2501000 in 2007. (In ~-!idJacent District ofColuml}ia, the 2012. pOpulation of 20,000 was not
s1atistically different from the totlls in 2009 or 2007J

The 14 states where populalions ofunanthorized immigrsnts decreas<dfrom 2009 to 2012 were Alabama,
Arlzona1 California. Coloradot ' ~ Dlinoist Indiana, ~sas, K.entucltY1 Massachusetts, Nevada, New
Mexico, NewYorlt and Oregon.

in unauthorized immigrants from Mexico 'WaS responsible for the decreases
in 13 ofthe I4 states; in Massac etts, the decline wa.s due to decreases in unauthorized immigrants from other
countries. In six ofthe seven sta: with increases in unauthorized immigrants, the changes were driven by
increases in mumthorized i ts from countries other than Mexico. In Nebraska. the increase was driven
by a small but statistically signifiqantgain in tmauthorized immigrants from Mexico.

Although state trends varied from 2009 to 2012, there was no change in which six states had the largest
unauthorized immigrant populati ns. Tbesix-califol'Di8, Texas, Florida, New Yolk, NewJersey andnlinois-
accounted fot 6o96 ofunautho • immigrants in 2012. California alone had an estimated 24 million
unauthorized immigrants in 201 about one-in-five (22%). Texas ranked second, with 1.7millioa unauthorized
immigrants, 15% of the total. No ther state bad more than a million.

• Long-Term Trend Comies to a Halt


---------------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 42 of 104
11/1812018

F!Gt?£ 1 i.

Growlllln Unautll!lriDd IIIIIIIIIJation Mae Leveled Olf
In mil&m$
14.0

12.0 11.1 11.5 11.2

10.0 11.3

8.0
6.7
eo
3.5
4.0

2.0

0.0----
1990 2000 2010 2012
t.c:e SI'.Sj>f\$_5\.r':LlP:,;'<if;,,~ ·/YjG!~S. L:>.t :t"d ~'!W• C-~rts •~f:'le ~~"!1,\~1 ;:.}'
::tntfi!le4ce J11te.'~o. D?~ ~:a-Js&•efot H;;Q 1995. z:oo :'.:05. :::xr: ,::::.._19 ::v! 1 ns
2012 The 2\"¥i':72Cf1;; thtt~ c~ rt::H $fti1?ttl:e1t/ ~$~,fC£V'trrt90"¥ t:11"1d.;l'te' lf\P!f'idl
5-:·IF:'t' iJtJ:Y'f 1\2, ~!!'•-t'1 f>;r: ~ ,<.·Re$~S!.""l ~'*~ r5tl'": <iC!St.'if ::.;:0&::0!.2 U3sej :.\1!
IHitr"!~:! ~;-:eJi:-Y, ~ ...A't'iD!'~ :::w• ,<!') ~-:at:o«,l~'<~~£!6:~ Pu{h! V>t<Ho~~':b S+<~!:
:-PL •::.'" 0r 1.."'?5- ::<:<>4 .:::01 -l'>-:ll-~ tlSce:.l ;:~ "1;l:;h £;.;:c'er:e:rs ~T:"l~ ~mr..m
;;:p.;:i;~•N" :,,i'H!) ES~i'"~5 f:: 1.3\"") ~:'7'1 t\enend:<JI\5:tet. 1l'Cil?l

(http://www.pe'"Uispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorized~immigranHotaJs...rise-in-?'-states-faU-in-14/ph_20J.4·ll-
18_unauthorized-immigration-o7/) Until the recent slowdown in growth, the unauthorized immigrant population
bad risen rapidly owrneatlytwo decades-and the sbarpestgrow1h tate bad been in stdes wi1houtllll!ior

conoentndions of unautborized immlgranlS. As a result there bad been a marked shift in the distribution of
uuautborize4 immigrants across the nation.
From 1990 to 2007, the unauthorized immigrant population increased froma.s million to 12.2 million, growth
of about25096 or an average of more than 500,000 people a year.

The population of unauthorized immigraiJ.ts increased in every-state, but growth was slower in the six states with
the largest numbers ofsuch immlgranlS 1ban in the rest of the nation as a whole.•

Califomia, the state with the largest number of unauthorized immigran1S 4t both 1990 and 2007, exporienced the
largest nwiterieal growth, butilS 88%iru:rease from 1990 to 2007laggedfilr behind oiher luge~ .;.d
nearly allsmallerstdes.As a group, the other five la.geststdes (Florida, Dlinois, New JC~Sey, New York and
Texas) experienced grow1h in their unauthorized immigrant population at the nationalavemge of 2501'6.
Meanwhile, though, the unauthorized immigrant population in the rest of the ooun.Uy increased almost
sevenfold, from ?Oo.ooo iii 1990 to 4-7 million in 2007.

These growth different:ial.e led to a Dl8l'ked shift: in the distnPution of un8uthorized immigrants acroSS the
coun1ry. The share in Califunda dropped to 23% in ooo7from 42% in 1990. The sbare.in the other large~
""" unchanged at 38%, bl!l the • • in the rest of the coun1ry essentially doubled, to 39% in 2007 from oo% in
--.-411111-·-mml,_...., 4110

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 43 of 104
1111612>16 StateU~ lmmi{p'a'ltPoptAailcns 1Pew R~~

1990, With the overall decreases in the unauthorized population since2007~ these shifts came to a halt.

• Unauthorized i~t populatiOn·s can grow at th,e state teyel for the same reasons they do nationallY, when
immigrants eros~ the U :S. ·ooroer:.without authorization, or wben they overstay a legal visa after it~ Some
states also 1111\Y have experienced groWth in t!reir populations because unauthorized imnlignmts moved there
from ot:her_states;A ~or factor ~ntributing to losses in California, Illinois and NewYQr}t (rom 2009 to 2012,
according io ;pew Research Center analysis, was movement of unauthorized. immigrants to o~states.

u.s. ~ Populatloa, 2012

• .,...,_
'-"
J..9 rni!!icA
{4.!fV, IJt
fortngtl'!XU1!
tfr&ldent!i:t

'*
":1T'R: ).0 t\'fnf!!fl-- 1' ":' J\10 £-0 ~"' &:U~~;'ilt1:1 ;:;t'e'};>J ij~$11:'1.1
ittS'-.H' t;, ltv± <:P'th L,5;: fi;,t;(! Uf ;:;.'i;et tstsf$
$n>F:2'Pisr ;:e$¢",at::.f, O::t>Jm!ie;:M'}l~ fi.r ZD1Z rur.&J:n
1S~)'""!AJ' Rm•"'*',·:_"'Wti\Vf.t';- ~'1'\.$11-<¢1
'""J! fhutdeu SA tie:~ fi!'}}\fii

JI~Jt!8EAJIICK~

(http;/fv.ww.tiewlll!ipo,nir,.tnt/2014/tt/1 S/unauthorized-immi$fant-totals~rise.-.in"7«!\tes--fall-in-t4/ ph_2ot4 -n~
t8_unauthorlzed-immigration-oS/) UnauthoriZed im.migtant 1)9pulatiop.s can decline when fewer new immigran:ts
arrive, when ag...,arer number decide to!"""" 1he oounllyortbroogh deaths (althoogh there..,relativelyfeW
deaths because 1mauthorized i~!4 tend to beyoungerthaD 1he population overaJI). Gaverninentaetion

·-·
alsoplllys a role: Numbers can declinetbroogh depoiiations o:rwhen mumthorizedim.migtan1S oblain !Ogal

• 5110
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 44 of 104
1111&'2016 stale Ura.Gxrized lmm~ PGpLU~onat PeW Resewdl CeUr
The natlon•o threign-bom population ro.laled 42-5 mjlljon in.I!Ol2, or 13-5\16 of U.S. residents. fu a.!ditlon 10. the .
nap.O~~;'s-u.2 millU)n ~rlzedil'llll1ighmtaJ it~ made up of ti.7m,ill.ion legal permanentnisidents (~7-4~:-
ofimmlgtonts in 2012),.!7.8 million naiUtallzedcitizens (41.8!16 ofiolinigianls) and 1.9 million legal residilnts •
withtcillpormys!alus (4-s!Jiiof~). . . .

Among all inunigran1S, tbesbarewbo Wele.lmanthorizedin 2010crsnged widely by smte, from 696 (Maine) to
4-5% (~as). The otale$ with the largest shares were~!! theSQnthond Molllltain West, some ofwhlchare
relalively new destlnsti<ins for unauthorized immigrsnts.

UnauthoriZed Immigrant Population Share

States with Largest Sllaral! ot
Unautllorlzed Immigrants In the
Population. 20:12
L"mlutlwrim!immigrants% r!f total stlite popukltitm

_..,. 7.6
caJitmla

T""'&

-
New Jersey

..."""""'
..,.... •
-
N,ewYork
m..,..

-
NoM carolina

Colo<Mo

""'...-..,
VlrJinia

!13~£: P;rtJt<\t5~t:'!lk'~4~teti J'tZffi \J"JOlJrr.h411o!111~-: !)[~~
bet~n ::::~.::e tSinh;;,tnaytW1 l>e~!ft;;a't$stl£f$~
~tit!\ tb: wmt-- ~-es er~ Sb04t'l ~tptl!'lhe%ce~

T!tTeAJ_ dt.:r~frCf"'~w ReS& at:!• ::t:0WI f'Stitn~te;t.
!-•••" lt0pl.ll')t!d
1
lr;ie€1~ P\tCrt: 1..~ 1ft!;r,ootii~ 6t'Ov~~l
::ctr:r\

PEW~cenER

(http:f/www.pewhispailic.orgj2Qi4/ll/18/unauthorized~immigrant~~MUi-r..statU-:fall-~14/PlUW~-11M­
""""'""_............,.... ~~~"'<n!

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 45 of 104
11118ll016 Sl8le Onat.G'lol'ized lmmi$Jart Pqllj~ 1PeW ReMarc:tl center
rS:_urtanth•med.inunigratlon·O<Jil Uruiuthor!zed immlgmnll! accounll1dfur 3<;% ofthe U.S.l>OJlUlalion ot•eady
316".itdllloA iii ao12, down from. a pe8k of 4.0% in 2Q07· TbeS~VJliied fi:om l~s tban 19tUn 1Q ~~to 7496:
• inN. . . Cal~mia ("a~ andT.,... (6-3%) also are a~ru>ng lheloP"ranlll1<istatea iii this regard.

Mostoftlle • - with tile largest numbers of unau1hor!zed inunigran18 also bavo relatively high,o'- of
llhajrlllb~inllnignmb!. The six states with lhelargestunaulhodzed inllnignmt li"PJIIations..:c.nromia,,
Flotida,'IDinois, New Jersey,_New: York and Tex:as.;-ahlo am among the states witl:i the to laighestsWu-es a(
un~tbo_~ hnmigran~ in the Qverall population. Similarly, states with :relatively lo¥rer numbets of
uruiuthonZed imm!gtanb! tend to have lower sbaies in tbeoverallpopulalion.

NatioiiaU)r, unauthorized immigrants made up about a quarter of the foreign-hom population (26%) in 2012.
'111atshare JiC"ked in 2007, at 30%, when the siZe of tile unauthorized immigrant population also peak.d.

On~in•Twenty People in the Labor Force

• Tt\0
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 46 of 104
11/1M!018

-
New Vorl<

COonecti:ut


Uto•
Virginia 5.1.

W...h'fll<>n - AJi

S¢.~; rsl):6AJ J~ittOMi!iAe:A i=teMat:h ::.W'::ttmmrs
iuse.ti 1'?1 a:;.groen:N 2)12 Arw~t«:Sn ~mmW1ty &in~' a.wtttft:t"'l
lrJeta!!'~ Put:!!: L:$¢ !hctc\i$\lf Ce--~- ;:?JM$

P£WIIESEARCHCENTER

(ht!p:l/www.pewh~pani~org/2014/ll/18{upauthorlzed,ffimrigrant-!otals-rise-in"7-sta-falHn-14fPh~oot.~-n-
18-"""utQorized·im~.atio..,o/l.ln the VB. averatl, unauthor!Ze<j. immigrants -tfi.u;one-in-~l;f peilplo ·
ill the tab<>~ fi>ri:e, or 8.1 oiituon pe<iple in 2012, but the sbareu II!IIJ.ioldly higherinsome sillies, e$p!icial\ylhbs~
With high shares of'unauiborizod immigrants in the population. . ..

The share of unauthorized immigranl!! 811Ulng ndults ages 1~ and older wlw 01'!' ,..,rldng or looking fur oork is
higbestinNovada(l0.2%ill.ot2} 0 Newda$ohasthehigbostsbareof~imQ!igrantsinthe~l
population (7.6%i. The share in the labor furee alSo is relatiwly high ill 0\llfumla (9496) ~d "('oxas (8.¢"),


whicllmksecondandthlrdintheunanthorizodimmigrsntsbareofthetmalpopula1ion.

,.,.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 47 of 104
1111812016' $8feU~ImmfWw~Por:U:a!IQ'ISI~~Cerler

Un~rizi,d il)l!Digr.w,lll are D)Ote lilroly thon \he overall U,8. poJ11¥adon to be ofworking age and less likely to
' De~ _or older (Pass'et 'and eoim; 2009 {http;//"Www.p~ispntiic.brg/2Q09/04/(4/ti-porffaitw(l{~uri!I:Uthori7.ed- '

• imrtti&ranrs.:m-the-united-statesn )~That is one reason that the unauthorizedimmigrant share oftbe lal>or fOr¢ is
. higher tbait ill! s~ ¢the populi.!iQil overall.

Students
. with
. Unauthorized Immigrant Parents
Chlldmi with at least one unauthorized ~t parent made up {).g% of stUdents_ enrolled in 'kin~arten
\heough 12th grsde in 2012. Most (S.s% of all student.) are U.S.-bom children who are U.S. citizens at birth. Tbe
:rest (14%) ~unauthorized immigrants themselves.

Among elementacy andsecondsly scbool students witllimautborized immigtant parent., \he U.S,-boni share
has grown since 2007while the share who are themselves unauthorized immi~ts has declined. In 2007, for
example, whea the nnau!horized hmnlgrant population was at it. peak, 7.2% of elementacy and secondsly scbool
students had unauthorized inuriigrant parents: 4.5% were hom in the U.S. and 2.6% were themselves
unauthorized_

This trend is pru:ollel ro a general rise in the numberofU.S.•bom children ofunalllborized immigtanll< and a
decline in)a..nile unauthorized immigtanll< (Passel, Cohn, Krogstad and Gonzalez-Ban'era, 2014
{http://www,pewl:rispanic.org/2014/ 09/03/as...grov..th·stalls-unauthoriud-inim.igrant-population--fx.oomeNimre~ttledJ)
).As long-termresidents make qp &growing share of unauthorized immigrants, they are more h"kelyto have
U.S.-born cbildren. Among unauthorized immigrant adults in 2012, 4 million (or 38%) lived with U.S.-bom
children.- either minors or adults. In 2000,2.1 million,orao%.did

• l.d

statea wltlll.atjJest SllaM of 1(.12
students wltlllhlautlmlmd lmml#ant
Panmt(s). 202!2

17,7

• (bttp:I/WWW.pewhispanic.org:(2014/li/!8/tlnanthori:ted-hmnigrant.totals~rlse-~"7"States-fall·in-t4/Ph_2014tl1--
~~411111~-1~~m~Cnll 9110
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 48 of 104
1111i?t.zo1& ~ UIUL.dhorized fmJPigrA Pqdajoos f Paw Reaearch ~
iff_l!nantliorized-fum>;l"'it!"';n/) Tbe. n~ of)lnautbot!Zed~t ildiilts with US.-pql!j.cl!ildreil. meYbe.
hlg~>,erlllan:Wimt is showil!rete because 1hes.•nlllllbers ,JonoHni!lude lbOsewlio liwo~:rlomtbiolr
cbil&en. •

Y~uilautborized~tsh""'!declinO<Iitlnlllnbe<mpart~>e<a:~··~.rurie.!Umi:dt&andbeeome
adults with uilautborized statps,

The share of slndenis with 1lllaulhorizedlmmigrant parents varies wi!le!Y by state. The aoi. sllare .,;._in double·
digils ill f<)urs~-l'fevads
. (lt.'-7'!6J. Callfonlla
. b:J-2%:1,. 'r-
. (13.•%l..,d,,\rizona
. . seYe!lstsles,
(lt.o%).1h
. . tb8 ·
share in 2012 was leSs thati t%.


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 49 of 104
lmm~ in Califorria. (PPIC Pltiicetitt'l)

, i · " FACTS

• Immigrant$ in California
)o California has more immigrants than any other state.
California is home to more than 10 million Immigrants-one In four of the foreign-born population
nat!onw!de. tn 2011. 27 of California's population wasfore!gn~born. about twice the U.S.
percentage. Forelgrt-b rn residents represented more than 30% of the population of seYen
California counties: sa ta Clara. San Francisco, Los Angeles. san Mateo. Imperial, Alamede~, and
Orange. And half of th children in California had at least one Immigrant parent.

,. Most Immigrants I California are documented residents.
Almost half (47%) of C l!fornla's Immigrants are naturalized U.S. citizens, and another 26% have
some other legal stat (Including green cards and yisas). According to tile Department of
Homeland Security, a ut 27% of immigrants in California are undocumented.

,. Immigration to Ca,lfornia has slowed.
The state's Immigrant opulatlon increased by only 15% (1.3 million} in the 200()s., compared to
37% (2.4 million) !n the 1990s. This dedlne In international !mrnigratlon has been a contributing
factor In the slowdown of California's overall population growth.

• Most Immigrants I California come from Latin America, but recent arrivals
are primarily from Asia.
The vast majority of C Hfornla's immigrants were botn in latin America (53%) and Asia (37%),


California has sizeable populations of Immigrants from dozens of countries: Mexico (4.3 million)•
the Philippines (812,00b), and China (760.700) are the leading countries of origin. However,
or
more than half (53%) those arriving in the state between 2007 and 2011were born in Asia: only
31% came from Latin A erlca.

California are working-age adults ••.
About eight of every Immigrants (81%) in CaHfomia are working-age adults (age 18 to 64),
compared to four of ry seven {57'J6) U.S.-born California residents. This means that more than
a third (34%) of workin -age adults in the state are immigrants.

,._ ... and are likely be on either end of the education spectrum.
In 2011, 37% of Cal!fo Ia's Immigrants age 25 and older had not completed high school,
compared to 9% of U.~.-born California residents. A quarter of California's foreign--born residents
had attained at least a pachelor's degree, compared to a third of U.S.-born residents. Foreign-
born resklents accoun d for 72% of all high school dropouts In tile state and 31% of cotlege-
educl!ted residents. a t recent Immigrants and Immigrants from A~ia tend to have yery high
levels of educational a alnment. Almost half (47%) of foreign-born residents who came to the
state between 2007 a d 2011-and 60% of those who came from Asia-had bachelor's degrees
or more.

,.. Immigrants are m re likely than U.S.~born residents _to be employed but
make less money. 1

Calrfornla's foreign-born residents are more likely to be In the cMUan labor force than U.S.·born
residents: In 2011, 66%iof Immigrants were In the labor force, compared to 62% of the U.S..born.
They are also more Hk fy to be employed (59% tompared to 54%), However, the median lncoma
for households with to tgn-bOrl'l hOuselloldeT$10 2011 Was 20.9% lower than that for


households with u.s-b rn householders ($48,851 compared to $61,752). And foreign-born
residents are more lik y than the U.S.·born to live In poverty (18.9% compared to 15.7%),

112
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 50 of 104
11ntmlf8 C811fctria's Ukely Vdln (PPIC Niicalloo)

: FACTS

California's Likely Voters
.., Seven In ten are registered to vote: independent registration continues to

increase.
As' of May 2016. 17:9 million of California's 24.8 million eligible adults were registered to vote,
which equi!tes to a registration fate of 72.3%. This rate rs identical to May 2012 and slightly
higher than the fate before the presidential primary In February 2008 (68.5%). However, lhe
share of eligible adults who are registered to vote ts likely to increase as we have seen In the
lead·up to elections in 2012 (76.7% In October) and 2008 (74.6% In Octobet), the last
presldenUal contest without an Incumbent. The share of registered voters who are Democra~
(44.8%) Is up from 2012 (43.7%), Whlle the share. of Republicans (27.3%) ts down (from 29.4%}. At
the same time, the share of votels who say they are Independent (also known as ~decline to
state~ or "no party preference~) has been Increasing: It Is now 23.3%, up from 20.9% in 2012.

,.. Likely voters and unregistered adults lean Democratic and are ideologically
mixed.
Among likely voters ln our surveys over the past year, 45% are Oemocrats, 31'16 are Republicans,
20% are Independents, and 4% are registered With other parties_ Of those we consider
infrequent voters, 41% are Democrats, 34% are Independents, 21% are Repubracans, and 5% are
registered with other parties. Among independent likely voters, 42% lean toward the Democratic
Party, compared to 32% who lean toward the Repub!lcan Party and 26% who. volunteer that they


lean toward neither major party or are unsure. Among unregistered adults, 51% lean toward the
Democratic Party and 22% toward the Republican Party; 27% lean toward neither party or are
ur'ISure. ldeologlcalty, 35% of likely voters are politically llberat, 29% are moderate, and 36% are
conservative. Among infrequent Voters 35% consider themselves liberal. 32% consider
themselves moderate, and 32% consider themselves conservative. Unregistered adults are also'
Ideologically mixed: 36% are conservative. 33% are liberal, and 31% are moderate.

)to Likely voters are disproportionately white.
Whites make up only 43% of California's adult population but 60% of the state's Jlkely voters. In
contrast, LatinoS' comprise 34% of the adult population but JUst 18% ()f Ilk ely voters. Asian
Americans make up 15% of the popu!auon and 12% of llkely voters, while 6% of both the
populatlon and likely voters are African American. "Other rae:e.. and multiracial adults make up
3% of the population and 4% of likely voters. Four in ten (40%) Infrequent voters are white, and
30% are Latino. Nearly six in ten unregistered adufts are Latino {57%): fewer are w~Jte (22%),
Asian American (17%), or African American (2%)..

,.. likely voters are older, more educated, more affluent; they are homeowners.
and were born in the US.
Califomlans age 55 and older make up 31% of the state's adult population but constitute 47% of
likely voters. Young adults (18 to 34) make up 3~% of the popul8tion but only 18% of Ukely voters.
While adults ages 35 to 54 are proportionally represented, Eight In ten likely voters either have
some college education (41%) or are college graduates (41%); 17% have no e:ollege education.
FortY-four percent of Ukely voters have annual househokllncornes of $80,000 or more, while
27% earn between $40,000 to under $80,000 and 29% earn $40.000 or less. The vast majority
of likely voters (69'6) are homeowners, while three in 10 (31%) are renters. ln. contrast, 68% of
unregistered adults and 63% of Infrequent voters are renters. Ei9hty~four percent of llkety vote'rs


were bOrn In the US (16% are Immigrants). Women (52%1 and men (48%) make up similar share$
of the likely voters !n Callfornla.

• The regional distribution of likely voters matches the state~s adult
populotion.

-~-"""'-""" .........
-------------...,....-------------------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 51 of 104
11M812016 Callforria'a Llkdyvaters {PPIC f'l.tilcallu'l)
The share of likefy voters In each region mirrors the region's share of the stat~·s overall adult
population: los Angeles County (27% of adults, 27% of likely voters), the San Francisco Bay Area

• {20% of adults. 21% of likely voters), Orange/San Diego Counties (17'16 of adults, 18% of likely
voters), the Central Valley (17% of adults, 17% of likely voters), and the Inland Empire (11% of
adults, 9% of likely voters). The largest shares of Infrequent voters (29%) and unregistered adults
(25%) live In los Angeles County.

Party~Tion
20 .
21

4

"'
s
41 ,..
,_.
Major party leanl1'95
among ll)de.pendents.
and those n<1t l'(ogi$I:Offed
~httiDool ,,
32 25 22
knoW
" 27

,." " "
:1: "
Polltltal IdealOgy 31

Co
Al•k<t Amerit.:an
""
'' ",. ''2
'
RnOOIEtholdty
Asian~~
".. "
" 17
51

'"":t
' 1Ntdtt!

' ottlffl ulllr.s<:ial '"'
4 "4 "1


'
leis~ County 29
27
"
,_.
San FrendS<:o: 8.1y Ate.a
o.. ,o._
21
18 ..
18 20
17
c""'
,,. .
IVnlley l1


18 18
u

..
'Inland
"
"''-
..
9 9 8

-~
..
49

'"'"""' 52 52 51
18
"41
Aga
SSall(loldel "
47
31

" 16

.. ~-

,u
17
41

,.
41
"
33

"
63
20
11

....
54

·~~ to under $80,000 "'19
27
"
24 14

_
""""'rn ••" "
--
; ~ent 31 68
... 'US.~

-~-~·~-""''"***~-~"
84
16 ,, ___" 78

* **~-~*~~*---···
l5
65

SOUIICES: S.Wn P>'tc Sta!ewlckl Surveys from Septamb~r :1:015 ro July 20t6.1ndudlng 7.306 likely vohml. 2.lliS iflfrequent \IQter$.

"-·· -·· -~..... ·-·-
and 2.1:18 unr"!JI•torod mlu~s. Cf11foml4 S.C ..!Iar)l of StaN>, Roport of ~iob'tltloP. Mar 20t6.1JS C~nlll$. :I:OJ0-14 Aml!rk:MI
Community Surwly.

'''" "'"'" ~·"· ·~ ~·'"~' ~~ _,.., ""'"'" ,_,, '"""'"~-'".


to vote; "lrlfri'QIMint vote<s· ar• r btated vote!'ll who do not ma&l these crm-rra. For fua de$crlpt101'1 of this <:Iller!& alld ~
defit>lllon5, ~;Sit www.ppJc.(l<gfc For '"""
IGI>tlol"OriS!INeyNethodoJogy.pdt and Rll>nlclly, rHUIIS mre prasentltd lot non..HispeniC
wh~. n"""Hi~panl<:- A-$. no IS!)ftnk bloool<o. •nd f<lr no<>-Hillpanll: Gt"-'r rs~ i!nd m<Jitir&dal aduft:o.

213
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 52 of 104

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION .IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUl\1 OF LA'\1V FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' M0110N TO DISMISS
TilE PETI'riONWITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitH

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 53 of 104
111171Zl16 Jerry Brown Signs Bill AI~ IRegallmmlgrarts to VWt

•- ~~
~-
' ','"I I I I I i' It Jl>,',l II '. ' ·, 1 , II I 1 ~
=

JERRY BROWN THAT COULD LET
ILLEGAL ALIENS

I I I · lH£
I II fl -
BREilBARl
SlORE
I I t
SHOP NUll'

• IJEl
CONNECT

SIGN UP Fill lUI NEWSLETml
emnil address SUBMIT ,
'.

On Saturday, California
Governor Jerry Brown signed
Assembly Bi1114611 the New cestrunclw'<'yahoo.crnn SUBMIT
Motor Voter Act, which
will automatically register
people to vote through the D , and could result in illegal aliens
voting.
Any person who renewed or secured a dri\'er's Ucense through the DMV may now register
to vote, or choose to opt out of doing~ Bqcause illegal immigrants are nowcligih!.o for
obtaining driver's licenses, they could be owed to wtc in clections if the Secretary of
Sto.te's office fWls to verify their eligibility pcrly.
BREITBART VIIIO PICKS

• Brown and the Califomia Democratic
Policy lnstitute survey sho\\t'<i, among
Democmtlc Party and 22% l:o\\md. the
immigrants to vote would oument the De
know exaetlywhut they are doing; as a Public
• tered adults, 4996lean tov.'8l'd the
bllcan Party. Any bill perml\llng illegal
tic Party's hold on California.
YOU MIGHT LIKE

1no
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 54 of 104
1111712016
True the Vote fOunder nttherine Engelbrecht staled, "This bill Is terrible.
. It makes an.
already bad situation much, much~~ adding that California's registration datab&.ses
"lack the riecessaly safeguards to keeP noncitizens off the Voter rolls."

Election Integrity Project of California President Linda Paine echoed that AB 1461 "'Mll
effectiw!y charme the form of g~nce in Calil'omia from a Republic whose elected
officials are ~ned by United states citizens and will guarantee that noncitizens will
JErtici~ iii. all California elections going forv.md. • The FJ:Iiction Integrity Project of
caiuorni8 W.tomed True the Vote to demand that brown veto the bill, coiling it a to Path
'"state sanct!.oned' voter fraud."

Altho\J!b noncitbens' driver's licenses ln California ~tire the phrases "Federalllmits
Apply" and "llot valid for officlal federal purposes,"True the Vote SPQkesman Logan
Churchwell pointed out that &ate ofrlcials "specifically chose not lO make noncitizen
license holders searehable in their DMV database."

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla countered that the increase in voters will benefit
the state, urtuin& ''The New Motor Voter Act will make our democracy stronger by
removing a key barrier to voting for millions of California citizens. Citizens should not be
required to opt in to their fundamental right to vote:. We do not haw to opt in to other
rights, such as free speech or due process."

Ollifornia follows Oregon, v.'here Democratic Gov. Kate Brown sir:>~t'.l u hll! ln Mareh
allowing the automatic registration of all eligible Oregonians to vote when th!y obtain or
renew a driver's Ucense or state identification card

But stephen Frank o( Califoruia Political Review bluntly 8B9erled that. the bill will reduce
voterturnout because votcr:s v.ill Mliff fraud in the po]ls: "AB 1461 OI!SUreS cotrUptian of
our elections-our elections will look like those of Mex:ko and other COITlJPI.: nations-and
honest pooP,e will stop voting since illegal alien.s will out vote them."

HEAD Mli!ESJIIIIS AIIDUT:
Hrcltl1.'.lrt Ca,!ifoml*,lmmigr-Jt:nn, t\~'?mb::- Gill 1401, CJI:(nmLt, Jrc;;,.t1lrnrni},'1'Jhts,-fO't)/
fj;mq1, The New Mntor\'otvr Act, \'Qtc

f SIHnt Top tO ~t.;.~\:~ticlpa~Superyaclt~
eom·i~&:fA 'fflcfilot~ MOn'._OO'tiiOJit S~O.w-_·-
F-'~' 11 '•'}<}: '':'

We Recommend
American Giant Just Created The First Real Leggings Designed To Replace Your Jeans

Victoria Principal Was Stunning In The 'lQ&••But What She Looks like Now fsJtrW
Dropping

Hybrid Cloud raises a lot of question5. Do }00 knowthem?

SQL Serwr 2016: Calculate Your Cost Today

Sualn Dey WM ~ in the 70&· But What She .L:Joks l..ilre Today islrwredl~
tap:JJ.Nww .bllitblrtcOmlCalfcrriai201Mtr12/pl•jerry-broM'\-Sigraoblll-llktM~1--vdlli 2110

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 55 of 104


PLAINTIFFS DEC~TION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFFS COMBifOOJ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
!TilE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit 1-1

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 56 of 104

Office of Civic Engagement &
Immigrant Affairs •
Sanctuary City Ordinance

Sanctuary Ordinance

What is the Sanctuary Ordinance?

In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known
as the Sanctuary Ordinance). The Sanctuary Ordinance generally prohibits City
employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs


Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law unless such
assistance is required by federal or state law.

In 2013, San Francisco passed the "Due Process for All" Ordinance. This ordinance
limits when City law enforcement officers may give ICE advance notice of a person's
release from local jail. It also prohibits cooperation with ICE detainer requests,
sometimes referred to as "ICE holds."

These ordinances were last amended in july 2016.

[Sanctuary Ordinance: SF Admin Code Chapter 12H and 121- English]

Frequently Asked Questions
1. What does it mean that San Francisco is a Sanctuary City?

In 1989, san Francisco passed the MCitv and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known
as the Sanctuary Ordinance). The Sanctuary Ordinance generally prohibits City
employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law unless such
assistance is required- by federal or state law.

In 2013, San Francisco passed the "Due Process for All" Ordinance. This ordinance


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 57 of 104

limits when City law enfor~ement officers may give ICE advance notice of a person's

• release from local jail, It al~o prohibits coo'peration with ICE detainer requests,
sometimes referred to as "ICE holds."

These ordinances were las amended in july 2016. Under current law, City employees
may not use City resource to:
a. Assist or cooperate wi h any ICE investigation, detention, or arrest relating to
alleged violations of th civil provisions of federal immigration law.
b. Ask about immigratio~ status on any application for City benefits. services, or
opportunities, except 'f required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court
decision. ~
c. Limit City services or enefits based on immigration status. unless required by
federal or state statute r regulation, public assistance criteria, or court decision.
d. Provide information a~ut the release status or personal Information of any
individual, except in li ' ited circumstances when law enforcement may respond to
ICE requests for notlflc tlon about when an individual will be released from
custody.
e. Detain an individual o the basis of a civil immigration detainer after that
individual becomes eli ible for release from custody.


2. Why did San Francisco dopt the Sanctuary Ordinance?

The sanctuary Ordinance p omotes public trust and cooperation. It helps keep our
communities safe by maki g sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status,
feel comfortable calling the Pollee and Fire Departments during emergencies and
cooperating with City agent=ies during public safety situations. It helps keep our
communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration
status, feel comfortable ac~essing City public health services and benefit programs.
(Please note: Federally funded programs may have different rules, record-keeping,
and reporting requirements.)

I
I
3. Is San Francisco the onlr Sanctuary City in the country?
I
No. In fact, San Francisco is just one of hundreds of cities across the U.S. with
sanctuary policies or relate~ law enforcement orders. California and certain other
states also have related laws or polides .


--~~----------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 58 of 104

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OJ' TilE MEMOJL\NDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMJIINED RESPONSE TO DEFEND~' ftJOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMfLAINT

Exhibit 1-2

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 59 of 104
11f3Q'3l16

• AB-1461 Vote~ reotstri'tlon: callfornli!l New Motor voter Program, (2015-2~15)

Assembly Bill No. 1461

CHAPTER 729

An act to amend Sections 2ioo and 2102 of, and to add 'Chapter 4.5 (commenCing with Sett:ion 2260)
to O!viston 2 of the Elections COde, relating to elections.

[ Approved by qovernor October 10, 2015. Filed with Secretary of State
' October 10, 2015. l

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1461, Gonzalez. Voter registration: GalifOrnia New Motor Voter Program.

Existing. law, the federal Nat~al voter Registration Act of 1993, reqUires a state to, among other things,


establish procedures to regist r a person to vote by applicatlon macte simultaneously with an application for a
new or ret'lewal of a motor v Ide driver's license. The fedEral act requires the motor vehicle driver's license
application to serve as an appl cation for voter registration with respect to an election fOr federal omce,
unless
the applicant fails to sign the application, and requires the application to be considered as updating the
applicant's previous voter regi$triltlon, If any. The federal act defines "motor vet1lde driver's Ucense" to include
any personal identification doc~ent issued by a state motor vehicle authority,

Under existing state law, a ] o n may not be registered to vote except by affidavit of registration. Existing
law requires a properly execut d affidavit of regl~ratlon to be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by
the county elections official If he affidavit Is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles on or before the
15th day before the election. istlng state law reqUires the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Secretary of
State to develop a process and the Infrastructure to allow a person Who ls quaUfted to register to vote In the
state to register to vote online,

Existing Jaw requires the Dep~,ment of Motor Vehrdes to Issue driver's licenses and statf! Identification cards
to applicants who meet spe ed criteria and provfde the department wlth the reQuired Information. Existing
law generally requires an ap Hcant For an or1glni!ll ar1ver's Ucense or state ldentifi~tlon card to submit
satisfactory proof to the depa ment that the appliCant's presence In the United States Is authorized under
federal law,

_This bill would require the Seotetary of State and the Department of Motor VehiCles to establiSh ttle Ca\!forrlla
New Motor Voter Program for~e purpose of Increasing opportunities for voter registration by any person who
is qualified to be a voter. Un r the program, after the Secretary of state certifies that certain enumerated
conditions are satisfied, the D partment of Motor Vehicles would be requlred to electronically provide to the
Secretarr of State the recordS~ f each person who is issued an original or renewal d a driver's license or stat4'
identification card or who prov es the departmeht With a Change or address, as specified. The person's motor
vehicle records: woutd then constitute a completed affidavit of reglstratlon and the person would be registered


to vote, Uf)less the person arrmatlve!y cleclined to be registered. to vote durtng a tltlnsactiOf'l Witt\ the
departml!!nt, the department di not n!pre5ent to the SecretarY of State that the person attested thaf he or she
meets all voter eligibility requi ments, as specified, or the Secretary of State determines that the person is
Ineligible to vote. lhe bill woul. require the Secretary of State to adopt regulations to Implement this program,

11tps:JIIeglnhlegi81ahxaea.govlfaceslbiiiNIWCIIent.xtiml?biiLid=at15201EDA81.t61 117
------~--------------------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 60 of 104
11131>':1l10 Qilt Text- AB-1461 Vder reglltrtlllon; Callbna New Mdor Voler Progran,
as spedfled.


Under 8)(1sting law, the Wfllful, unauthorized disclosure of lnformatiort from a Oepllrtmeot: of Motor Vehicles
record t~' any perSon, Qr the uSe of anv ~alse representation tO obtain rntormatlon frOm a 'd@partment record or:
anv use Qf lnfomlati9n obtained from anv department record ror a purpose other than the one stated in the,
request or the sale or other distribut!Oil of the InformatiOn to a person or OfRaniZation for purposes not
disdoseq In the reQuest IS, a ~erne<\vor, punl,sl)able by a Me .not e:xceedt~ $5,000 or by Imprisonment In
the county jail not exceeding o!'le yeart or both fine and imprisonment,

This bUI would provide that disclosure pf information contained In the records obtalned 1'rom the Department of
Motor VehiCles pursuant to ttle ·califo_mta New Motor Voter PrOgram Is a misdemeanor, punishable by a tine not
exceeding $5,000 or by Imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both fine and JmpnSonment.
By creating a new Clime, this bill would Impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing 18w, the Inl'ormatlon Practices Act or 1977, authori%es avery state agency to maintain In Its records
only personallnfonnatlon that Is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency, or Is required
or authorized by state or federal law, That act specifies the situations In which diSClosure IS permiSSible and
also specifies the manner In whlch agencies must account for disclosures of personal information, Including
those Clue to security breaches, among other provisions.

This bill would require the Secretary -of State to establish procedures to sa~guard the confidentiality of
Information acquired from the Department of Motor Vehides pursuant to the cantomia New Motor Voter
Program and would state that the provisions of the lnfonnatlon Practices Act of 1977 govern disclosures
pursuant to the program.

t:xlstlng jaw makes it a crime for a person to willfUlly cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other
person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person Is not entitled to registration.
Existing law also makes it a clime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote,

This bill woUld provide that if a person who Is Ineligible to vote becomes reglsterec;l to vot~ by opera tiM of the


Q/lfomia New Motor Voter Program rn the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above,
that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected with ofTidal a~tlorjzatlon and llQt the fault
of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered_ to vote
by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote ln an election held atter the effective
date of the person's registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with offlclal authOrization and Is
not guilty of fraudulently voting or att~mptlng to vote, unless that person wiiiNUy votes or attempts to vote
knowing that he or she Is not entitled to vote.

This bill would also make conforming changes.

This bill would Incorporate tu::kfitlonal changes to Section 2102 of the Sections cOde, propos:ect by SS tha't 589,
woukl become operative only If SB 589 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before
January 11 ~16, and this bltl rs chaptered last.
The Callfomra COnstitution requires the' state- to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by tne state. Statutory provisions establish procedure~ for maldng that reimbursement,

This bill Would provide that no relmburse_ment lS ~qUired by tt»s act fQr a speclfied reason.
Vote: majOrity Appropriation: no ASOII committee: yes Local PrOgram: ves
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00 ENACT AS FOLLOW&
SECTION 1. section 2100 of the Elections Code Is amended to read~

2100. A person shall not be registered except ,as provided In this cttapter or Chapter 4.5, except upon the
production and filing or a certified copy of a judgment of the superior O)Urt: directing registration to be made.

&EC. 2. Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Otapter 909 of the $tat Utes- of 2014,
is amended to read:

21C1.2. (8:}, Except as provided In Olapter 4.5, a person shall not be regfst!re_d a$ a voter except by affi~av.l~ of ,

~:I"'Pnb~.caplllrAis.titiN&YCIIerb11ml'1biiUd=2l15201EIIAEI1.tl61

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 61 of 104
11!3l'2016 WI Text· AB-1461 Vr:bl JegletreiiOtt CtllfOrtia New Mttor Voter Program.
registration. The affidavit shall !)e mailed or delivered to the county elections offldal and shall set forth all of
the facts required to be shown by this chapter, A property executed registration shall be deemed effective upon


receipt of the affidavit by the eounty elections official iF received on or before the 15th day priOr to an election
to be held fn the registrant's prednct. A properly executed registration shall also be deemed ef'fecttve upon
receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if any of the folloWing apply:

(1) The ?ffidavlt Is pownark~d on or before the +sth day· pflor to the election and received by mau by the
county elections official. ~
(2) The affidavit Is submitted ~o the Department of Motor Vehicles or accepted by any other publiC agency
designated as a voter reglstra ion agency pursuant to the federal National Voter Reglstratkm Act or 1993 {52.
U.S. C. 20501 et seq.) on or be re the 15th day prior to the election.

{3) ThE! affidavit is ~livered t the county elections official by means other than those described in paragraph
(1) and (2) on or befOre the 1 h day pliorto the election.

(4) The affidavit is submitted e~ctronica!ty on the Internet Web site of the Secretary of State pursuant to
Section 2196 on or before the 5th day prior to the election.

(b) For purposes of verifying, signature on a recau, initiative, or referendum petition or a signat_ure on a
nomination paper or any other, election petttton or election paper, a properly executed affidavit of registration
shall be deemed effective forfrification purposes if both of the following conditi_ons are satisfied:

{1) The affidavit is Signed on e same date or a date prior to the Signing of the petition or paper.

{2) The affidavit iS received b the county elections official on or befol'l! the date on whiCh the petition or paper
IS filed,

(c) Notwithstanding any other Jaw to the contrary, the affidavit of registration required under this chapter shall
not be taken under swam oa~h, but the content of the affidavit shall be certified as to Its truthfulness and
correctness, under penalty of rrjury, by the signature of the affiant.

• (d) A pe(SOO who Is at least 116 years of age and otherwise meets all eligibility requirements to vote may
submit hiS or her affidavit of rfgtstratton as prescribed by tl:lls section. A properly executed registration made
pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed effective as of the date the affiant will be 18 years of age, If the
Information In the affidavit of ~glstratlon Is still current at that time. lf the information provided by the affiant
ill the affidavit of regrstratlon ~not current at the time that thE registration would otherwise pecome effective,
for his or her registration to come effective, the affiant shall provide the current Information to the proper
county elections offldal as pre ribed by this chapter.

SEC. 2.5. Section 1102 of th Sections coae, as amencled oy section 6.5 of cnapter 909 Of the Statutes of
2014, IS amended to read:

2102. (a} Except as provided j~ Chapter 4.5, a person shall not be registered as a voter except by affidavit of
registration. The affidavit of ff'4gistratlon shall be mailed or delivered to the county elections of'l'iclal and shall
set forth all of the facts requlrEjd to be shown by this chapter. A property executed affidavit Of registration Shall
be deemed effective tlPQn rec:fJpt Qf the amdavlt by the county elections otndal If rec:elv~ on or before the
15th day befOre an electiOn toibe helclln the registrant's precinct. A properly executed amdavlt of registration
shall also be deemed effectiJe upon rea!ipt of the affidavit by the -county elections official if any of the
following apply:

(1) The 'affid.ivit iS pOstmark~ on or befOre the l$th day before the election and received by mall by the
county elections offidal.
i
(2) The affidavit Is submittt;~d [to the Departmept of Motor yehldes Or- accepted by any other publiC_ agency
designated as a voter reglStralron agency pursuant to the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52
u.s.c. Sec. 20501 et seq.) on dt oefare the 15tN day before the election.

l,h

(3) The affidavit is delivered tOi the county electk>nS official by means other than ~hose desqibed In pa111graphs
{1) and {2) on or before the d.!ly before the election.

{4) The_ affidavit Is submitted jelectronically on the Internet Web site of the Secretary of State pursuant to
section 2196 on or before the- }5th day befOre the electron-.-
. '
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 62 of 104

(b) For purposes of verifYing a signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition or a signature on b
nomination paper or any other electlori petition or election paper, a properly exe;:uted affidavit of regiStration


,'!$tlall be deemed effective for veriMcatlor'!Jlurposes lf Qoth ortheJolloWirt9, conditions are sat,Jsfled:
(1) The affidavit is signed an the Same date or a date before the signing Qf the petition or paper.

(2} The affidavit i~ received tly the coli1'¢V electiOns officiaJ on or before the date OIJ whlch the petltlOn or paper
lsflled. ; ,, ,

(c) Notwithstanding any other law to tl')e contrary, the affida'o'it Of registration required l!nder this chapter shall
not be taken under sworn oath1 but the content of the affidavit shall be certified as tQ il:s truthfulness ~nd
correctness, under penalty of perjury, byl;he signature ofthe amant.

(d) A person who IS at least 16 years or age and otherwise- meets all eligibility requirements to vote may
submit hiS or her atndavlt of registration as prescr1bed by this section. A properf'f l!!x«utel;l afi'Jdavlt or
n!glstratlon made pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed effective as of the date the affiant will be 18
years of age, If the InformatiOn in the affidavit of registration is still current at that time. If the fnfonnation
provided -by the affiant ln the affidavit of fe9istration ts not current at the time that the affldevlt of registration
would otherwise become effective, for his or her registration to become effective, the 'amant shall provide the
current information to the proper county elections official as prescribed by this chapter,

{e) An individual With a disability who iS otherwise qualified to vote llU$Y complete an ~daVIt of registration
with reasonable accommodations as needed.

(f) An Individual with a disability who is under a conservatorship may be registered to vote If he or She has not
been disqualified from voting.

SEC. 3. Chapter 4.5 { commendng with Section 2260) 1s added to Division 2 or the Elections Code, to read:

CHAPTER 4.5. Callfornle New Motor Vofilr Program

2260. This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the caufomla New Motor Voter Program.

2261. The legislature finds and declares all Of the following:

(a) Voter registration is one of the biggest baniers tt;l participation in oor democracy.
(b) In 1993, congress enacted the federal National Voter Regtstratloh Act of 1993 (52 u.s.c: sec.
20501 et

seq,), commonly known as the "Motor Voter Law," with findings recoQnizlng that the right of Citizens to vote 'fs
a fundamental right; It IS the duty Of federal, state, and local governments to promote the exerciSe_ofthe right
to vote; afld the prtm11ry purpose of the a(:t IS to Increase the numberofeUglble dtizeOs who reglste:rtovote.

(c) It is the Intent Of the Legislature tQ enact the QJ!ifomia New Motor Voter Program tO provide California
citizens t~dditional opportunities to partiCipate In democracy through el<erdse of their fondamentat, right to
vote.
2262. (a) The Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehid~ shall estabnsh the c;auromla New Motor
voter Program for t~e {'UI"J)OSe of Increasing opportunities tor voter registration by any person whO Is qualified
to be a voter unoe:r Section 2 Of Artlde 11 or the Cillltomla COnstitution.

(b) This chapter shall not be construed as requirtng the Oepartment Qf Motor Vehicles to determine eligibility
for voter registration and voting. Tfle s&~tary 9f state Is $0Jely respo(l:;ible for' ctetermlnloO ~ligibUit'{ for voter
registration and voting.

2263. (a) The Department of Motor Vtahlcles, In consultation with the Secretary of S~te, shall e$tablish a
schedule omt:l mettlo4 for tOE! department t~ eH~ct:roolcaUy provide tO:, the secretary Of State the records
specified In this section.


(b) ( 1) The department s~:tall provide to the se~tary of State, In a manner and methoP to be detennined by
t~ department In Cof.swtatJon with the SecretarY of state, th& l'bi10Wing information aSSOCiated wtth each
person who submits an application for a driver's license or identification card purSuant to Section 12800, 12815;
or.13000 of the Vehicle Codj!:, or whQ noti~es the department of a change of address pursuant to Section 14600
of the Vehtd~ Cot:!~;:
......,....nro~lllkn.capll"acea'biiiNWCiid.vl"Vnl~lljd=201S!l1tmB146f
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 63 of 104
111»'2016 lillll Text- AB-1-461 Vd.erregl8lrallon: california New M~~ Program.
(A) Name.


(B) Date of birth•

(C) ether Ot both of the following, as contained ln the department's recOrds:

(I) ReSidence address.

(H) Mailing address. '

(D) DigitiZed sJgnature, as de±bed In Section 12950.5 or the VehiCle COde.

(E) Telephone number, if avail ble.

(F) Emall address, If available.

(G) Languilge preference, I

(H) Political party preference. I

(I) Whether the person choose~ to oecome a pennanent vote bY man voter.
(J) Whether the person affim'/atively declined to become registered to vote during a transaction with the
department. ,

(K) A notation that the appllc1t has attested that he or she meets all voter eligibility requirements, lnctudlng
United States citizenship, spe ed In Section 210L

{L) Other Information specified, n regulations Implementing this chapter,

(2) (A) me department may provide the records descr1bed In paragraph (1) to the secretary of State before
the secretary Of State certtfle that a!l of the conditions set forth in subdivision (e) or this, section have been
satisfied. Records provided pu uant to this paragraph shall only be used for the purposes of outreach and

• education to eligible voters co ucted by the Secretary of State •

(B) The Secretary shall provid materials created fOr purpose$ of outreach and education as desctlbed in this
paragraph (n languages other t. an English, as required by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec.
10503}.

(c) The Secretary of State sha t not sell, transfer or allow any third party aa;ess to the lnfonnation acquired
from the Department of Motor ehlcles pursuant to this chapter without approval of the department, except as
permitted by this chapter and ection 2194.

(d) The department shall not ectronicaUy provide records of a person w{lo applies for or is Issued a driver's
license pursuant to Section 1 1.9 of the Vetllcle Code because he or she rs unable to sut~mlt satisfactory
proof that his or her presence 111 the United States is authorized under federal raw.
'
(e) The Department of Motor~hlcles ~hall commence Implementation of' this section no later than one year
after the secretary of State c ifles all of the following:

(1) The state has a statewide oter registration database that complies With the requirements of the federal
Help America Vote Act of 2002 52 u.s.c.
Section 20901 et seq,).

(2) The L.eglslature has app~rlated the funds necessary for the secretary of state and the, Department of
Motor Vehicles to Jmplement anl:i maintain the CaUfomla New Motor voter Program,,

(3) The regulations required blectlon 2270 have been adopted.

{f) The Department of Motor ehides snau not electronically provide records pu11:uant tO; this se~lon that
contain .:rhome address deSig ted as confidential pursuant to Section 1808.2, 1808.4, or 1808.6 of the Vehicle
Code .

• 2264. (a} The willful, unauthorized dlsdosure of Information obtained frOm the Department of Motor vehicles
pursuant to Section 2263 to a~ person, or the use of any false represeiltatlon to obtain any of that lnfonnatton
or the use of any Of that l!'lfo~ation for a purpose other than as stated In Section 2263, is a misdemeanor
puniShable by a fine- not exce~dlng five ttwusaOO dollars (-$5,000) or Imprisonment In t~ <;ouoty JIS!l not
hllpe:/~.legla!ahre.ca.govnae-'biiiN...CliMtxhtml?blll.Jd=2015201~<161 511
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 64 of 104
1113Q'2016 J5111 Text~ AB-1481 Voter rcgillfnlllon: ~l;lrrla New Motor Vt1e!: Progrwn.
exceeding one year, or both fine and Imprisonment.


(b) The Secretary of state shall e$tablish tile ~dentlaiJty or the iflfoonatlon_ acqu1~
procedt.~res to protect
from the Departme,t; of Motor Vehld~ P'oirs1.1ant to Section 2263.- The_ dtSl:tos~ of thiS infOrmatlon -shilll be--
governed by the lnfQrmatJori Practtces Act of 1977 (Chapter 1 {commencli'lg with Section 1798) of~le 1.8 of
Part 4 of DIVIsion 3 of the Ovil Code}, and tile secretary or
state Wlf account l'or any df&dosure~>, including
those due to sec1.1rtty breaches( In accordant@ with that act.

2265. (a) The records of a person designated In paragraph (1) of SUbdivisiOn {b) of ~etlan 2263 shaU
constlt\Jte a c:omple~d affidavit of regf~~tlon and the secretary ot state shan register- till!: pe~11; to vote,
unless any of the folloWing COnditions Is satlstled:

( 1) The person's records, as described In Section 2263, reflect that he or she affim~atlvely &!dined to tll!:come
registered to vote durtng a transaction With the Department of Motor Vehicles.

(2) The person's records, as desoibed in Section 2263, do !lOt reflect that he or she has attested to meeting an
voter eligibility requirements specified In Section 2101.

(3) The Secretary of State detennines that the person Is Ineligible to vote.

(b) ( 1) If a person who Is registered to vote pursuant to this ctlapter does not provide a party preference, his
or her party preference shall be designated as "Unknown" and he or she shall be treated as a "No Party
Preference" voter,

{2) A person whose party preference is designated as "Unknown" pursuant to this subdivision shall not be
counted for purposes of determining the total number of voters registered on the specified day precMing an
election, as required by subdlvlslon (b) of Section 5100 and subdiVIsion (c) of Section 5151.

2266. A person regtstered to vote under this chapter may cancel his or her voter registratiOn at any tlrM: .bY any
method available to any other registered voter.

ZJJ!fl. This chapter does not affect the c:onfldentiallty of a person's voter registration inFormation, whictl remains
confldenttaf pursuant to section 2194 of thls code and section 6254.4 of the Government Code and fbraU of ttle
folloWJng persons:

(a} A VlC\In'l of domestic \fio\enc!!!, sexual assault, or stalking pursuant to Section 2166,5.

(b) A reproductive health Glre secvlce provider, employee, volunteer, or patient pursuant to Sectlon2t66.5.

(c) A public safety officer purstJant to Section 2166,7,

{d) A person with a life-threatening circumstance upon court order pursuant to Section 2166.

2268.. If a person who is lneiiQI}:)Ie to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter In the absence of
a violation by that person of section 1Bioo, that person's registration shall be presumed f6 (lave been efi'ecteQ
with omclal authorization and not the faUlt Of that person.

vot-e becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and, votes or
2269'. If a person wh:Q Is fl)eliglble to
attempts to: vote In an election neld after the effective date_ or the persQn's registration.- that persori shan be
presumed to have aaed With offidal althortzatlon and shall not be gUilty of fraudulently voting or attempting
to vote purs021nt to Section 18560, urlless that person wlllf\llfy votes Qr attemptS to VQte know!~ that he or
She Is not entitled tO vote.

2270. The Secretary of State shall adopt regulations to Implement this chapter, indudlng regl{latlons addressing
both of the following:
(a) A process for canceling the regiStration ot a person wtto Is rneligibll'l; to vote, bUt became registered under
the Oti!I'Omla New Motor Voter Program In ttle absente of any viOlation by that person of Section lBloq.
(b) An edl.lcation and -Outn!!adl cam~i~n Inform!~ vote~ al;)01..1t the Canfom!a New Motor-Voter Program that
the Secretary of State Will conduct to Implement: ~is chapter. The secretary may IJSe any public and private-
funds available for this and shall provide mater1als created fOr this out~ach and educ:atlon campaign In •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 65 of 104
Bill Tt:Kt· AB-1461 Vd!tt r.gl&lration: callb'Tia NeW MotorVoief program.
languages other than English, as required by the federal Votln!) Rights Act of 1965 (52 u.s.c. Sec, 10503).


SEC. 4. Section 2.5 of this b!U Incorporates amendnients to Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by
Section 6:s of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 20141 proposed by both this b!U and senate Biu 589. It _shall only
become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, (2} each bltl
amends section 2102 of the El tlons Code, as amended by Section 6.5 Of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 2014,
and (3) this bill Is enacted atte Senate Bill 589, In Which case 5ectlon 2 Of this bllr shall not become operative.

SEC. 5. No reimbursement r required by ttlls act pursuant to section 6 of Article XIII B of the CaHfomia
C9nstitut1Pn because the only costs: that may be Incurred by a local agency or school dlatr1ct wJII be Incurred
because this act creates a ne ~;rime or Infraction, eliminates a crime or Infraction, or changes the penalty for
a cnme or Infraction, within thE! meaning of section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of
a clime within the meaning of 'ectlon 6 of Article Xlli B of the Callfomia Constitution.

• 717
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 66 of 104

PLAINTIFFS DECL.AAATIO:N IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMOIW'WUM OF. LAW' FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit I-3

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 67 of 104

cU-£.~,m,
• Bllnforrnsilon
7LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION
Publications Other Resources My SUbscriptlals My
p Quick!
[iiiNw!'k

Favoritas

fQE 1 Add To My Favodtes I Track em I Verston:I_ClV2,(1117. An

SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. (2017-2018)

T- iVotes! HI""'Y Ism tnalyslsl Today's Law As Amended Q : Compare Versions I Status !Comments!
SHARE THIS: ll ~~; ;
1
Date Publbhed: 03/30/2017 04:00!
· AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 29, 2017 I
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 06, 2017 ,I

AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 01, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 24, 2017

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE- 2017-2018 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL
.......... J·-· -.. - . . . . . . . . .. . .
• Introduced by Senator De Le6n
(P ndpal coauthors; Senators Atkins, Beall, Pan, and Wiener)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Chlu, Cooper, Gomez, Levine,~
and Santiago)
,
j
!
December OS, 2016
···-·· •••• < -- - - --- - - ••••• .. -- - -~-j
An act to add Chapter 17.25 (commendng with Section 7284} to Division 7 of Title 1 of thj
Code, to repeal Sectlon11369 of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Sections 3058,1~
to the Penal Code,! relating to law ~~~ aAEI de'elaFIAt tfte l:fFgeAey theFee~ te ,
' tmmedlatety. enforcement. ,

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST I
!
SB 54, as amended, De yron. Law enforcement: sharing data.
Existing law provides thjt when there Is reason to believe that a person arrested for a viola
cont;rolled substance pro lslons may not be a citizen of the United $tates, the arresting agen~
appropriate agency of th United States having charge of deportation matters. 1

This bill would repeal those provisions. I
J

Existing law provides thi!l · whenever an Individual who is a victim of or Witness to a hate crime,
can give evidence In o h tc crime Investigation, IS not charged with or Wnvlcted of commlttln~
state Jaw, a peace offic may not detain the individual exdusively for any actual or susp
-- '"~~~-~- --~-----~---------------·------"' ~-~~--- ---~--------~-
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 68 of 104

vfolation or ~rt or tum the IndiVidual over to federai lmmlgi-ation authOrities. ]
This bill wouid, among other things, things 'and subject to exceptions,, prohibit sb1te and
agenties, lndudlng school pollcii: and security departmentS, from using resOurces to lnvest:fg
detain, detect, or arrest persons for Immigration enforcement_ purposes, as spedfled, The bill wou
3 months after the effective date of th~ bill, th~ AttortteY General, In cOnsultation with 1
staketJo\ders~ to publish model policies' limiting assistance Wlth immigration enforcement to til
possible for use by those entitles for those purposes. The biH Would reqUi're all pubUc schools,!
health facilities operated by the state or a political subdtvlslon of the state, and courthouses i(
locall

model policy, or an equiValent polky. The bill would stcJte that all other organizatfons and _entl~
services: related to physical or mental health and wellness, eduapon, or ac~ess to justice, lndudln
of Callfomfa, are encouraged to 'adopt the modeJ policy. The bill would require a taw enforcerrl
chooses to partldpate in a joint law enforcement task force, as deHned, to submlt_a report ever¥1
Department of Justice, as spedfted. The bill would require the Attorney General, within 14 n;
effective date of the bill, and twice a year tf:lereafter, to report Oo the types and frequency of joint
task forces, and other Information, as specified, and to post those reports on the Attorney Gener.!
site. The bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings or the Department of Corrections and P
applicable, to notify the Feeletel Bttre:att af Il'tveftlgl!ltieft United States Immigration and Customs
the scheduled i'elease on parole or postrelease community supervlston, or rereJease follow!
confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment, of all persons confinec'
serving(!; current term for the conviction of a violent felerrt, eAel wattle! at:~th&Me ttte sheriff te ":
Bttreatl ef IftVestiptiaA ef the sehethtleel Aelease ef a perseR eenfined te eettnt)· jail fef a mlsEieme~
Aas a prief EM!YiEtteA fer a 'lieleM feletvf, as speeifte!lo or sertous felony, or who has a prior conv!C
or serious fefony. I
This bill would state findings and dedaratlons of the Legislature relating to these provisions. ,
By Imposing additional duties on public schools, this brll would Impose a state-mandated local progJ
The california Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school dlsbicts j
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. I
This bill would provide that, If the Commission on State Mandates detennines that the bill contain~


by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions not;
I'
'V'oobte'~'' "··~NfflO~-~"'~Ir"'d'"'ajority
·- ----·~--·-----
Appropriation: no Ascal Committee: yes local Program: yes
----- , ______ ----~---- ------~---------- ---""----------!
I
1Hll PEOPLE OF 1HE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
i

SECTION 1. Chapter 17.25 (commendng with Section 7284) i!:f added to Division 7 of Title 1 of
Code, to read:

CHAPTER 17.25. Cooperation wilh F«teral Immigration Authorities

7IM. This chapter shall be known, and may be c;lted, as the California Values Act.
7314.2.. The Leglslatt.lre nnds and declares the following:

(a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the calttomia community. Almost one In
Is foreign born and one in two children In catlfomla has at least one immigrant parent.
(b) A relatlonship of trust betwetm california's lmmtgrant community and state and local agendes
public safety of the people of california. ' !
(c) This trust is threatened when state and local agendes are entangled with federal immlgratij
wtth the result that immigrant community members fear approaching, pollee When they are I
witriesses to, Qimes, seeking basic health services, Or attending school, to the detriment of publt
well-being of aU Callfomfans. I
(d) Entangling state and local agendes with federal Immigration enforcement programs diverol


resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments. ~'
(e) State and local participation In federal immigration enforcement programs also raises consti
1!1duding~~e~~~ ,tp~LQ!!IPm~ ~,~!:!.~Y~~..~~Jne<t_J!!_yj5JJ!tl_~!'- J?Lthe Fol!rtt~ A_,
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 69 of 104

United States Constitution, targeted on the basis of race or ethniclty In violation of the Equal Prob


denied access to educaUon based on Immigration staU;~s •

(f) This illct seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constltutlot
people of California, and to direct the state's limited resources to matters of greatest concern b:
governments,

7!1«. For purposes of thlsichapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
I
(a) "California law enfortj:ement agency" means a state or local law enforcement agency, Including
security departments. ,

(b) "Civil Immigration warrant"' means any warrant for a violation of federal civil Immigration law, c
immigration warrants entered In the National Crime Information Center database.

(c) "Federalimmlgraticm uthorlty" means any officer, employee, or person otherwise pard by or a<
of United States Immlgr tlon and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border P1
division thereof, or any ther officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an age
States Department of Ho eland Security who Is charged with immigration enforcement.
(d) "Health fadllty" lnd es health facilities as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety
defined in Sections 1200,and 1200.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and substance abusetreatmer
(e) "Hold request," "notl cation request,"' "transfer request," and "local law enforcement agency'
meaning as provided In ectlon 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests Include requests I
States Immigration and ustoms Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection as \
federal immigration auth ritles.
(f) "Immigration enforce ent" includes any and all efforts to Investigate, enforce, or assist in the
enforcement of any fede I dvll immigration law, and also indudes any and all efforts to Invest!~
assist in the lnvestigatl(ln or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that pena
presence In, entry, or rE$ntry to, or employment in, the United Stetk:s, il'ldtuiirtg, But net UmlteB
SeetieA 1253, 1324e, nts, er 1326 ef Title 8 ef !:tie l:1FIH:eB St:ates Cede, States. "Immigratron en


not indude either of the ipflowlng:
(1) Efforts to Investigate,[' enforce, or assist in the lnv~tlgatlon or enforcement of a vlolatfon of SE
Title 8 of the United Sta$ Code that may be subject to the enhancement specJf!ed In Section' 1321
of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity.
(2) Transferring an lndlv ual to federal Immigration authorities for a violation of Section 1326(a)
United States Code that subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of that title
has been previously con cted of a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Pe

(g) "Joint law enforcem nt task force" means a California law enforcement agency collaboratlr
partnering with a federal law enforcement agency In Investigating, Interrogating, detaining, detect
persons for violations of eral OT state crimes.
(h) "Judicial warrant"' ns a warrant based on probable cause and issued by a federal juc
magistrate judge that au otizes federal Immigration authorities to take Into custody the person w
of the warrant.
(I) "Public schools" mea s all public elementary and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of
boards or a charter scho I board, the <:allfornla State University,. and the California Community Col

Ul "School police and s urity departments• Includes pollee and security departments of the
University, the California: Community CoUeges, charter schools. county offices of education, sch
districts.
nau. (a) California law en~rcement agencies shall not do any of the following:
{1) Use agency or deparltment moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to lnvestlg
detain, detect, or arrest fersons for Immigration enforcement purposes1 indudlng, but not limite
following: ,
(A) Inquiring into ef eelk!el:iflg iflfermatlel'l abel:lt an individual's immigration stattis, exeE!J!t as ret
~ Se:etiel'l 92i(d)(S) efi"fil:le 18 ef the UAited Stet~ Cede. status.

• (B) Detaining an lndlvlduij!l on the basis of a hold request.
'
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 70 of 104

(C) Responding to requests for n_otification er ""*' ~~tt~l!s. by provfdlng release dates or o


unless that Information Is available to the public.

(D) Providfng information regarding a peson's release date unless that informatiOn fs available tot

(E) Providing er re51'endin" l!e t'efltte9e fer Ael'lpttbllely e\'allalde personal Information abou
including, but not limfted to, 1Afef'l'tl81!1en aheut ttte l"!fHA's releHt dak,_ heme- aeklre:191 the 11
address or work address Mr IMmi;tatiert enfereemeftt ptt.,ees. unless that InformatiOn Is availabh

(F) Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants.

(G) GiVIng fe.deral Immigration authorities access to interview lftdi·~dttals an indiVidual in agen~
ettst:pdy fer immigr:aijon eftforeeMent pttrpeses, custody, except pursuant: to a judicial warrant; ar
with Section 7283.1.

(H) Assisting federal Immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a}(3) c
United States Code.

(1) Performing the functions of an Immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357{g) of Titb
States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or Informal.

(2) Make agency or department databases, Including databases maintained for the agency or
private vendors, or the Information thereJn other than Information regarding an individual'
Immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for the purpose of immigration enforcement.


in existence on the date that this chapter becomes operative that conflict with the terms of thl
terminated on that date. A person or entity provided access to agency or department database
writing that the database will not be used for the purposes prohibited by this section.

(3) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agendes or employ peace officers dept
federal officers or special federal deputies except to the extent those peace officers remain subject
governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency.

{4) Use federal Immigration authorltles as interpreters for law enfon:ement matters relating I
agency or department custody.
(5) Transfer an Individual to federal immigration authorities unless authOrized by- a judicial v
violation of Section 1326(a} of 71tle 8 of the United states Code th<~t IS subject to the enhancer.
Section 1326(b){2} of T1tle 8 of the United states Code and the individual has been previous~
violent felony liSted In subdlvfslort (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.

(b) Netklng Notwithstanding the Hmltatlons In subdivision (a); nothinQ in this section shall preve.
law enforcement agency from doing any of the followfng:
(1) Responding to a request from federallmmlgratlon authorities for Information about a specJflc 1
history, Including previous crlmlnel arrests, convictions, and sftnllar criminal history' lnfonnatlon a
the California law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted b

(2) Participating In a joint law enforcement task force, so long as the primary purpose of the joint
task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of .Section 7l84,
partidpatlon In the task fora! by the California Jaw enforcement does not violate any local law
jurisdiction In which the agency is operating.

(3) Making Inquiries Into Information n~ry to cert!f'y an individual who has been ldentiffeg_ as<
or trafficking vktlm for a Tor U VIsa pursuant to Sec.tlon 1101(a){15)(T) or 1101(a){15)(U) of Tltl1
states Code or to comply with Section 922(dXSJ of Title 18 of the United States Code.


(4) Responding to a no~ation request from federal immigration authorities for a person who Is Sf
the convlct:Jcn of a misdemeanor or felony offense and has a current or prior conviction for a v/oler
subdMsion (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal COde or a serious felony fisted in subdivision (c) of S
the Penal Code, provided that response would not violate any local Jaw or policy.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 71 of 104


(c) If a California law enforcement agency chooses to partldpate In Iii joint law enforcement tit
subn)it a report every six months to the Department ()f Justice, as specified by the Attorney G_fM!.er
ageney er ~e Attemey Generel may detefMIRe a rq,enot; in whole or In jMII't, l:s net a pttblle rteel'f
ttrte Qllifemla Pt:tblle Reeefds A« Jntl'91:1aAt te Sl:lbdiVislon (f) of Seetion 6~4 to pl"e:\'ent the disefo
' . ' • Then
for 'each task force oper; f:/Qn, the purpose ar the task forte, the federal#_state, and local law enfon
Involved, the number of California law enforcement agency· petsonnef Involved, a description of c
any federal and state ~, and a description of the number of people arrestee/ for lmmigrat
purposes. The reporting gency or the Attorney General may determine a report, In whole or In ;.
subject to disclosure pu uant to subdivision (f) of section 6254, the CafifomiB Public Records A•
that dlsdosure of a far Item of infbtmation would encftJnger the safety of a person
Investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the tnvestfgatfon or a related investig.

(d) The Attorney Genera. within 14 months after the effective date of the act that added this sed
year' thereafter, shall re- ort on the types and frequency of joint 'law enforcement task forces.
Include, for the reportln period, assessments on compliance with paragraph {2) of subdivision
california law enforcem t agendes that participate In joint law enforCement task forces, a
enFofcement task forces operating In the state and their purposes, the number of arrests made
joint Jaw enforcement sk forces for the violation of federal or state crimes, and the number
associated with joint Ia enforcement task forces for the purpose of immigration enforcement I
participants, Including fe' erallaw enforcement agencies. The Attorney General shall post the rep
this subdivision on the mey General's Internet Web site.

(e) Notwithstanding any ther law, in no event shall a California law enforcement agency transfer
federal Immigration auth rlties for purposes of Immigration enforcement or detain an Individual c
federal immigration auth titles for purposes of Immigration enforcement absent a judicial wal'fftl'lt:
as provided In paragraph (4) of subdivision (b). This subdivision does not limit the scope of subdivi:
(f) This section does not' prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, 01
federal Immigration auth rltles, InfOrmation regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawft
an indivldual pursuant to ec.tions 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.


mu. The Attorney Gene I, within three months after the effective date of the act that added
consultation with the ap ropriate stakeholders, shall publish model polldes limiting assistance 'f
enforcement to the full extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools,
health facilities operate by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, D
Standards Enforcement cllities, and shelters, and ensuring that they remain safe and accessible
residents, regardless of l~mlgratton status. All public schools, health facilities operated by the st
subdivision of the state, and courthouses s]1all Implement the model policy, or an equivalent
organizations and entltl that provide servlces related to physical or mental health and welln~
access to justice, lncludi the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy.
1-.10.The provisions of Is act are severable. If any provision of this act or Its application is I"
Invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the tnv
application.

SEC. 2. Section 11369 o~ the Health and Safety Code Is repealed.
SEC. 3. Section 3058.10 s added to the Penal Code, l:o read:
to Inmates sentenced pursuant to subdlvislc
-..tiL (a) The Board of P role Hearings, with respect
1168, or the Departmen ,of Correctlons and Rehabilitation, with respect to Inmates sentenced pur
1170, shall notify · United States Immigration and Custom$ Em
scheduled release on pa le or postrelease community supervision, or rerelease following a perloc
pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commltmentr of an persons confined to state 1
current term for the con~ction-ef of, or who have a prior conviCtion l'br, a violent felony listed In s
Section 667.5. 667.5 or serious felony listed In subdfvfsfon (c) of Section 1192.7.
(b) The notification shall e made at least 60 days prior to the scheduled release date or as soon
notification ~nnot be rovided at least 60 days prior to reJease. The only nonpublldy av
information that the noti cation may Include ts the name of the person who is scheduled to be 1
scheduled date of release~

• ~~~E~s==sE~ I
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 72 of 104

and the setleEtti}ed dBle ef' releue,

8&C. &.SEC~ 4. If the Commlssloo on State Mandates determines that this oct contains costs

state, reimbursement to- local ag_encies and school dlsbicts for those costS shall be made pu
(commencing with Section 17500) or Division 4 of lltle 2 of the Government Code.

eeflstft:tJtiA~ ttte Re~· af'(::

~~~=-=~


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 73 of 104


I

J.
PLAINTIFF'S DEC' • TION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM.QF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S CQ'MitNED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETDlON WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit 1-4

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 74 of 104


Calif. To Consider Enacting Statewide Sanctuary
JanUBI)' 30.2017 11:18PM

l'lad Under: Immigration, S.nGtu.ry, trump

USTENUVE

FOLLOWU~ON

0 SACRAMENTO (CBSLA.com/AP)- California may prohibit local law
enforeen\ent from cooperating with federal immigration authorities,

H aeatlng a boRter..to-border sanctuary In the nation's largest state as

-
legislative Oernocrirta ramp up their efforts to battle President Donald
Trump's migration policies. 11!1 SKm UO for Nfiws!Bttftm

The legislation Is scheduled for its first public hearing Tuesday as the
Senate ruShes to enact measures that Democratic lawmakers say would
ll!!1!!1li!'"lmmlgrants from the cta<:kdown that the Republloan president
has ptomiaed.

POPULAR


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 75 of 104

• LIKE THIS
M AnldoiJe Relative. !Nalt AI
AllpOII$, And T18Velara Ale
Detained; Tn.mp. ..

T~ San Pr<Usl:& Conllnue
AI LAX

'Mllle many of Caltfomla's~' cities- including Los Angeles, San Mayor Gemelti: 'f.A Wit AMay1
Franc:ieco and Sacramento have so-called sanctuary polteies that Btl A Plllce Of Refuge!
prohibit police from coope ,9 with immigration authorities, much of the
state does not FOR YOU

RELATED- Mayor Garcett~·:
.LA Will Always Be A Place Of Refuge'

The Democratic legislation, en by Senate President ProTem Kevin
de Leon of Los Angeles, com up for debate less than a week after
Trump signed an order threatening to withdraw some federal grants from
jurisdictions that bar officials communicating with federal authorities Tlllllllntt At Rlvnlde
about someone's immigration Apartment Complex Tab DoNn
car


Slllpect«< Serial Bu. •.

The senate Public 8afety C mittee considers 5854 Tuesday morning.
The Judiciary Committee will so con-r last-tracked legislallon that
would spend state money, in~ amount thai has not been disdosed, to
provide lawyers for people racrn deporiBUon.

I

SOme Republicans have 3:'
policies, saying bombastic
the Demoaatic reaction to Trump's
. c and provocative legisleUOO will Inflame
tensions with the president an harm California


The debate over sanctuary citi~ reached a fevered pitch in 2015 after
Kate Steinle, 32, was fatally st.Pt
In the back Juan FranQteco t.oPez·
Sanchez, who was in the counirY illegally after muftipre deportations to his
natiVe Mexico, Lopez..S.~ who told pollee the gun fired by acoldenL
------------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 76 of 104

had been released rrom a san Francisco ]all despite a request rrom
federal immigration aUthorities that he be held In aJ8tody for poaalble
deportation. Trump often cited lhe Steinle caae during tile campaign.

Many other cities and counties in Califomia also refuse to detain
immigraniS for deporjallon agOflls out of lagal """"""'• after a federal
court ruled lhat lmmigraniS can1 be held In jail beyond their scheduled
relaase - . . Since !han, federal agOflls have been asking looallaw

:::::;~::::,:;:information about immigrant$ they're
(TMand@
Inc. and its

•comments

Sf'ON$00\m cotm:.NT
Add Some Coffee to Your Ribs

Live life on the edge and try out these mustard and coffee-crusted pork ribs.
Prtmrobd PyC~till

YouMayUke
Federal 'Mortgage RefUnd' Ju.t Went Into Effect
tle.,X::oni-i.com

The IRS Announces 2017 Standard Mileage Rites

-
Man Trapped In Hla Own Body For 12 Years wakes Up, Reveals Heartbreaking

1Tried Blue Apron and Here's What Happened


BlooApron

Republican Clint Eutwood Revailed Who He Voted For, And Fane Are Taken
--------------r------------------~~--~·

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 77 of 104

Aback

• Rock Legend Sells 2,DOO-Sq..ft LA Beach Home

Why FOght Attendants Keep Their Arm!f Behind Their Back$ When Greeting
Pa. . . .,.

$14.95 OR Change Special in New York· Fast & Efftcent OR Changes

More From CBS Los Angeles


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 78 of 104


PLAINTIFFS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE \WEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'SCO~~::os:~~~MOTIONTODISMJSS

Exhibit J-1

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 79 of 104

·. guardian
• Non-dtizens in New York City could soon be
given the right ~o vote
New Yorlc City council is currently drafting legislation that would allow all legal residents, regardless ofUS
citizenship, the right to vote in city elections

Kanisbk Tbaroor
Thursday 2 April 201514.45 EDT
!
New York City is routinely described as a "global hub", a place so thoroughly penetrated by
international capital and migr!ltion that it seems at once within and without the United States. It
is the centre of American colerce and media, but its politics, demographics and worldly
outlook make the Big Apple outlier.
NewYorkmay be about to be me even more distinct. The left-leaning NewYorkCity council is
currently drafting legislation that would allow all legal residents, regardless of citizenship, the
right to vote in city elections. Uthe measure passes ioto law, it would mark a major victory for a
voting rights campajgn that5· to enfranchise non-citizen voters in local elections across the


country. A few towns already ermit non-citizen residents to vote locally, but New York City
would be by far the largest j · ·on to do so.
'
Under the likely terms of the legislation, legally documented residents who have lived io New
York City for atleast six months will be able to vote io municipal elections. Reports suggest that
the city council is discussing e legislation with Mayor Bill de Blasia's office, and that a bill might
be introduced as soon as this ring.
While the legislation stands a ood chance of sailing through the council and even wiunlng the
approval of the mayor, the p ect of New York City enfranchising its residents has stoked
controversy. Many Americans d the idea ofnon·dtizen voting entirely unpalatable and fear
that it undermines the sancti and privilege of citizenship.
Advocates for non-dtlzen vo in New York City argue that it would right a glaring wrong.
Invoking the ancient Ameri battle cry of"no taxation without representation", they point to
the enormous numbers of non-citizen residents who pay taxes, send their children to public
schools, are active members o their communities, but have no say in local elections.
"People are New Yorkers In pr found ways without being dtizens of the us;• said Ronald Hayduk,
a professor of political science at Queens College and a member of the Coalition to Expand Voting
Rights. Non-citizen residents ontribute $18.2bn to New York state in Income taxes every year.
According to a 2013 Fiscal Po cy Institute study, 1.3 million people In NeW York City over the age
of 18 are non~citizens (a full~.. % of the voting age pc;>pulation). Adjusting the figure to account for

• undocUmented migr!lnts, the tudy claims that about one million more New Yorkers would be
eligible to vote were the bill ssed.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 80 of 104

rn the immigrant-heavy borough of Queens, non-citizens makeup as much as half of the
population in areas like Jackson Heights, Elmhurst an!l Corona. rn parts oflll:ooklyn and the
Bronlf, they make up well a11er a thirifof certain districts. "'t'svezy differenUnNew York than iil •
middle AmeriCa," said Jerry Viittamala, a staff attorney at the Asian American Legal Defell$e and
Education Fund.
Supporters of the legislation claim that politicians can overlook the needs ofentire conununities
if non-citizens don't have voting rights. According to Vattamala, cguncil redistricting has
deliberately carved up many immigrant neighborhoodS, pOrtioning their non-citizen residents to
several districts.

"Elected officials salivate at the prospect of districts with people they don't have to respond to,"
he says. "Many of these conununities have lots of non-naturalized residents or newly naturalized
residents who are not yet practiced in voting. Tfu!y get treated like human fillers.• Advocates
believe that legal residents should have a say in the daily matters that affect them, like
transportation, public safety, affordable housing, language access and translation services,
sanitation, schools and parks.
Democratic city councilman Daniel Dronun, the bill's architect, represents District 25, which
includes parts of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. •Enfranchising non-citizens would make
conununities like mille more important to city-wide and state officials," he said. "We can't ignore
themiftheycan vote."

Like local elections elsewhere in the US, local elections in New York City suffer from shrinking
turnout; 24% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2013 election that brought DeBlasio to office, a
new low. "It's ironic that people think national or state elections are more important than local •
elections, when they better detennine lived day-to-day realities," Hayduk says. "If there were 1
million new voters in New York City, voter rtnnout would increase.•
More importantly, Hayduk says, non-citizen voting would refresh local politics to better reflect
the needs of city residents. "lt would produce new issues, new candidates, and new outcomes."

He offered an example from the 19805. From 1969 to 2002,non-citlzen New Yorkers equid vote
in conununity school board elections (the school board was abolished in 2003). Civic groups
encouraged thousands ofDotninicannon-citjzen residents of Washington Heights to vote in
school board polls. Their participation eventually forced the administration of Mayor Ed Koch to
direct greater resources to neglected schools.
Dronun tried two years ago to advance legislation onnon-cjtlzen voting. He had won the supp~;~rt
of 35 of the city cguncil's 51 members, forming a veto-progfrnajority. But he faced the
obstnlction of then CQuncil speaker Christine QUinn and the unbreakable opposition of the
Bloomberg administration. "The speaker and the mayor didn't 'want (the legiSlationlio go
forward," Dronun said. "The speaker Eixerted power over the council's conunittees.• The
legislation stalled on the CQuncil floor.
Two years later, political circumstances make .its passage much more tenable. The current city
cguncil speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, supports the propQSal. While he hasn't given his expli.cit
backing, De BlaSia daims that be rentains open to debate on non-citizen voting. Tfu! mayor has •
launched other pro-immigrant reforms, like the municipal ID card scheme.
-------------T-

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 81 of 104

'AsNewYorkCitygoes,sogoestberestoftheworld'
The city council's three lonely Republicans have repeatedly voiced their opposition to non-citizen

• voting. Two oi;'them come from the Republican redoubt of Staten Island and represent districts
with very few non-citizens, 4% and to% respectively. The third, Erlc Ulrich, represents a Queens
district where one--fifth of resi ents are non-citizens. "The right to vote is a privilege and a sacred
obligation that citizens have e joyed. It should only he for United States citizens,• he told
Newsday. "It's also a reason£ people who are on a path to citizenship to aspire to citizenship.
·

It's something for them to loo forward to?'

Peter Schuck, an emeritus pro essor of law at Yale University, also worries about the dilution of
citizenship. "My guess is that t would cause many Americans to wonder what the point of
citizellllhip is if anyone can vo e without even bothering to learn or be committed ellough to
apply for naturalization," he s ·d via email.

According to Vattarnala, this e phasis on the meaning of citizenship misrepresents the very
llrnited, local scope of non-ci en voting. "Did school board elections- where non-naturalized
parents with children in local ools voted - defile the sanctity of citizenship?" he says. "It's
about effective representation If people live here and pay taxes, they have a stake in the city:'
Permitting non-citizen voting uld also address the fact that pathways to citizenship are not as
straightforward as they were r immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries. "It's more
complicated and expensive ndw compared to a century ago, when it was much easier, faster, and
cheaper to become a citizen," yduk said. He argues that far from being a disincentive to
citizenship, non-citizen vo · would empower New Yorkers and serve as a vehicle for

• integration, fostering "thee ·ence of the practice of citizenship". Vattamala agrees. "Most
people engaged enough to vo in municipal elections will become citizens," he said.
Citizenship has not always be<in
' the prereqnisite for suffrage in the US. During the first 150 years
of American history, non·ci · · ns were allowed to vote in 40 states and territories. "Alien
suffrage• was whittled away · the late 19th century and early 20th centuries, coinciding with
large waves of migration from astern and southern Europe. A xenophobic 1902 Washington Post
editorial captured the politic mood, bemoaning the •marked and increasing deterioration in the
quality ofinunigration" and ft tting that the newcomers were "men who are no more fit to be
trusted with the ballot than !J$ies are to be furnished with friction matches for playthings".
"Voting in America has cons*y changed," Dromm said. "We have an evolving understanding of
suffrage. Women and African ericans were given voting rights. Now it's time to restore those
rights to non-citizens:'
:
Currently in the US, six small towns in Maryland allow non-citizen voting in local elections.
Chicago lets non-citizens vote in its school elections. Non-citizen voting exista elsewhere in the
world, chiefly within the cont~f supranational arrangements like the European Union, the
Nordic Passport Union and th British Commonwealth. But many countries extend suffrage more
broadly, like f'lew Zealand and · e, where permanent residents are allowed to vote regardless of
their nationality, and Colombia and Ireland, where foreigners can vote in local elections.
Advocates ofnon-citizen voting belleve that a victory in New York City would have tremendous


symbolic importance in their elforts to expand voting rights across the country•
"As New York City goes:' Dro~ said, "so goes the rest of the world."
···.~·-

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 82 of 104

More features


Topics
US votlng lights New York US immigration

Save for later Article saved
Reuse this content


---~-------~------------~--~---

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 83 of 104


'
PLAWTIFF'S DE(;LARI\TION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIF'F'S COMBJNED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit J-2

r,,, . .,. "
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 84 of 104

IN'C
OverviewNewsMayor's BloOfflciafs

Mayor de Blasio Launches Voter Registration •
Forms in Five New Languages, Expanding
Access to Voting
July 14, 2016

Voter registration forms now available in Russian, Urdu, Haitian Creole, French and Arable

NEW YORK- As part of the administration's efforts to expand voting participation and access, Mayor
Bill de Blasio today announced the launch of voter registration forms in five new languages: Russian,
Urdu, Haitian Creole, French and Arabic.

"No one should be disenfranchised because of their language," said Mayor Bill de Blasio. uThese voter
registration forms in five new languages will help us involve even more New Yorkers in the voting
process. New York is a city of immigrants, and these forms will help New Yorkers of every background
cast their ballots on Ele<;tion Day.'

"With these new voter registration forms, we are sending a clear message: civic participation matters for
all New Yorkers, and all citizens should be able to exercise their righlto vote," said CommJSsioner
or
Nlsha Agarwal ofthe Mayor's Offlce Immigrant Affairs. "New York City is the most diverse city in
America, with over 200 languages spoken. With this announcement, the de Blasio administration has
now ensured that there are accessible voter registration forms for 80 percent of Limited English

Proficient eligible voters in New York City, and we will continue to expand these efforts in 2016.'

The administration has already taken multipl~ steps to increase participation in the electoral process and
reduce barriers to voting. The Mayor issued Directive #1 expanding the requirements for agency-based
voter registration, Including a requirement that 19 agenCies provide assistance With completing voter
registration forms if requested, and has worked with the City CounCil to expand the agenges covered by
the taw. Additionally, the administration is currently implementing a pilot proje<;t to provide electronic,
agency-based voter registration.

The new forms will be available on the Campaign Finance Board website (www.nyccfb.info/), which I$
also found on the homepage of NYC.gov under "Register to Vote,'

The City will also add additional voter registration form languages in the coming months beyond the five
new languages announced today, with the aim to provide translated versions in the top languages
spoken by limited English proficient eligible voters, Previously, the voter registration forms were
available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Bangia.
Commissioner Nisha Agarwal of the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs announced the launch of five
new form languages at Komecrest Library in BrOoklyn, where she- was joined by the eampa;gn Firlltn¢e •
BOard, elected offiCials, community-based groups and leadership from the Brooklyn Public Library. A
number of immigrant community organi<:Qtions partnered with the Mayor's Office on this. initiative,
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 85 of 104

including MLDEF (Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund), African Communities
Together, Arab-American Family Support Center, GAMBA, Make the Road New York, MUNA NY and
• Shorefront YM-YWHA of Brighton-Manhattan Beach.

Many New Yorkers may be e/igib,le for citizenship and the benefits it provides, inCluding voting. The City
is also providing support to immi rants who want to become U.S. citizens through its NYCitit.ensh/p
program, which Mayor de Blasia launched this year. As part of NYCitizenship, New York City residents
receive appointments with a trus ed attorney for help with citizenship applications, information sessions
about the citizenship process an Its benefits, and free and confidential financial counseling. u.s.
citizenship gives residents the ri ht to travel with a U.S. passport. vote in elections, and access more job
opportunities. To learn more, visil www.nyc.gov/citizenship.
I
Amy Loprest, Executive Directtr of the New York City Campaign Finance Board said, 'Today, New
York City is sending a simple me sage to all its citizens: that we want you to vote, that your voice
matters, and that our city works etter when your voice is heard. Providing these registration forms in
five new languages shows that tlje city is committed to broadening access to the democratic process for
all voters."

"With these new voter registratio forms, we are empowering more of New York City's diverse
communities to vote, which in tu strengthens the vibrancy of our democracy. Forms written in Arabic,
French, Haitian Creole, Russian, and Urdu will allow the voices of immigrants in this city to be heard,
especially the thousands of Broo lynites who live in these languages every day. Every citizen has a right
to be engaged in civic life, no maper what their mother tongue may be," said Brooklyn Borough
President Eric Adams. ~
• "As New York City continues tog ow as a multi-cultural society, the different languages spoken by our
citizens grows as well. I commen Mayor Bill de Blasia for his commitment to eradicate the language
barrier that has kept many great Citizens of New York from their constitutional right to have a voice in the
Democratic process. The launch' f the voter registration forms in five new languages: Russian, Urdu,
Haitian Creole, French, and Ara c now reflects the rich diversity of our community," said State Senator
Roxanne J. Persaud.

State Senator James Sanders r. said, "It is our duty and our responsibility as Americans to make our
voices heard. We have the powe to effect change, but we lose that power when we don't exercise our
right to vote. Our diverse city rep esents a melting pot of cultures. By expanding the languages in which
voter registration forms are avail ble, it is my hope that more New Yorkers will sign up to take part in the
Democratic process."

"I have long supported and advo ted for legislation that would make voter registration materials
available in more languages, I a pleased that this step is being taken. Now, more American Citizens,
regardless of the language they peak, will be able to partie/pate in the process. This truly reflects the
greatness of our democracy," sai State Senator Marty Golden.

"Until toctay, the battle to make th voting process accessible to more non-English speaking New
Yorkers has been a frustrating on that's spanned many years and several administrations," said
Assembly Member Steven Cymbrowltz, whose legislative efforts to mandate Russian-language voting
materials dates back to 2007. "!~grateful to Mayor de Blasia for taking this bold step to ensure that
• many more thOusands of New Yo ers have the ability to participate in the democratic process. I'm
equally pleased that the Mayor ose to make this announcement in my district, where so many
Russian-Americans wilf be posit/ aly impacted."
.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 86 of 104

"I applaud Mayor Bill de Blasio tor answering the call of a cross-section of immigrant speaking
popula~ons by making voting materials available in Haitian Creole, Arable, French, Russian, and Urdu,"
said Assern!l!Y f!!ember Rodneyse Biei!Otte, Who is Haitian-American, and speaks CreOle. •our •
communities and adVocates have been aSking for this change for years, and for people in my
district, which Is a highly populated immigrant district with Haitian-Creole being the first spoken language
for many ()f the residents, this small change makes a big difference. I am personally proud as this
addresses one of the voting rights bllls that I introduced on the state level, which sought to meet the
need of districts with high Hattlan-Creole speaking populations throughout Jllew York State.. It Is another
way that the Mayor is making good on his promise to make New York a more inclusive city, especlli!IIY
and most importantly to new Americans whose voting rights are being protected ood preserved."

"For far too long, potential voters fOr whom English Is a second language have been disenfranchised
because voter registration forms have been unavailable to them in lheir native tongue. I applaud the
New York City Board of Elections for making these new fOrms available, and loa~ forward to working
With them to remove remaining barriers that prevent voters from fully exercising their right to vote," said
Assembly Member Helene Weinstein.

'I applaud the Mayor, the Office of Immigrant Affairs and Council Member Treyger fOr breaking down
language barriers and making voter registration forms accessible in more languages in New York Ctty,"
said Assembly Member Pamela Harris. 'We must do more to create an inclusive voting process, and
that starts with being able to read and understand election matefials. Today, we are one step closer to
fairer civic engagement and giving more New Yorkers the opportunity to get involved in our
communities."
"The Mayo~s Office of Immigrant Affairs decision to include a greater variety of languages for voter •
registration forms is a great first step fOr improving the quality of services to our neighborhood voters. It's
vital that more steps are taken to make voters' experiences at the ballot easier and more efficient This
decision will hopefully encourage more people to come out and vote," said Assembly Member William
Colton.
"One of the many strengths of being a New Yorker is our diversity -whether that Is our different
backgrounds, many languages and cultures. Adding additional voter registration form languages Will
build upon this strength and make sure that all members of our community can be involved in the \toting
process," said Assembly Member Latoya Joyner. "Our commun~ies include families from all walks of
life and different countrles - ensuring that all Bronxites and New Yorkers know how to become more
civic-minded Will guarantee that everyone has a voice."
'In the woMd's capital, one's language shoUld not be a t>arrier to civic participation" seld A!l$emt>ty
Member David Weprln. •As the Assembly member who represents one of the most diverse districts in
the city, 1applaud Mayor Bill de Blasia and Commissioner Nisha Agarwal of the Mayor's Office of
Immigrant Affairs for taking this step towa(ds ensuring all New Yorkers have a volc;e in their
government.'

"As diverse as New York City is I'm surprised that this hasn't happened earlie(' said. Assembly Member
Alicia Hyndman. ''We are so thankful that the Mayor has provided leadership on this pertinent Issue."
"Our elections sy~em needs major improvements. People are not voting .and many who try to vote are
frustrated when they go to the polls. I applaud this effort to boo\!! voter Information by prinfing brochures •
and forms in many more languages. It's a necessary and cost efiective first step to reforming New York's
antiquated voting process," said Asslstanl. Assembly Speal<er Felix W, Ortiz.
--------------r------------------ --------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 87 of 104

"Making our elections more accessible and voter-!iiendly for all New Yorkers remains one of our great
unmet challenges,' said Assembly Member Brian Kavanagh. "While we continue to push for
CQmprahensive reform through IJgislation and better election administration, it is great to see the Mayor
• step up by helping to ensure tha language is not a barrier to participation.•

"Language must not be a barrier far eligible voters In New York City. I applaud Mayor Bill de Blasia for
recognizing this truth and for pro\liding voter registration forms In more languages. Doing so accelerates
civic engagement in the immigrl't Cllmmunities that contribute so much to New York's culture and
economy, • said Council Membe Carlos Menchaca, Chair of the Committee on Immigration.

"New York City Is one of the mo diverse cities in the world, wtth hundreds of different languages
spoken,' said Council Member halm Deutsch. 'His critical that nobody is excluded from exercising
their democratic right to vote sim ly because of a language barrier. As the representative of a multi-
lingual district, I provide funding or ESL classes, as well as doing educational outreach and offering
social services and entitlement s rvlces for those who do not spMk English as a first language.
Providing voter registration form in several new languages is an important step forward as New York
C1ty becomes even more inclusir and supportive of the cultural diversity that is all around us. Thank
you Mayor de Blasia and Commi sioner Agarwal for your continued advocacy on behalf of all New
Yorkers!"

"As the proud son of immigrant~rom the former Soviet Union, the first Russian-speaking City Council
Member, and the elected repre ntative of many immigrants from all around the wand, I applaud the
administration for providing vote registration forms in 5 additional languages, expanding on previous
efforts by the New York State Le islature and grassroots community movements to ensure that all
eligible New Yorkers can registe~ to vote, regardless of what language they speak. With the low levels of
• voter enrollment and turnout thatte see today, tt is imperative that we continue to break down barriers
to voter participation throughout e electoral process. The translation of registration forms is an
important first step, and I look fo rd to working with Commissioner Agarwal and Mayor de Blasia on
ways to extend this increased la~guage access to polling places during elections," said Council
Member Mark Treyger. ~

"By providing voter registration rms to individuals in their native language, we are making voting mora
accessible to the many different eople that make up our city,' said Council Member Mathieu Eugene.
"New York has struggled with a lqw voter turnout-but it's up to us in government to remove the barriers
that prevent too many people from voting. The new voter registration forms available in Haitian Creole
and French, as well as three oth~r languages, will empower voters throughout our city and help ensure
that everyOne has an equal opportunity to make their voice heard."

"New York City is a melting pot. lihe distlict I represent, Flushing, is one of the most c!iverse in the city,
With such language and cultural ~iversity, I am committed to enhancing access to public resources and
information. Thanks to Mayor de "lasio and the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs for expanding
language services to the Russian, Haitian, Creole, French, and Arab communities. I urge all New
Yorkers to take advantage of our city's multilingual voter services, to register to vote and raise your voice
on the election day," said Councl~ Member Peter Koo.

"The City's libraries are centers of civic engagement in our neighborhoods and we are proud to partner
with the Mayor's office to improve voter outreach and registration," said Linda E. Johnson, President
• and CEO of Br'ooklyn Public W~rary. "As a growing number of our pattons speek languages other
than English, providing voter inforation in additional languages is so critical to ensuring participation in
our democratic process."
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 88 of 104

"The Shorefront YM·YWHA .is pleased that the Russian speaking community, as well as other immigrant
communities in NYC, now will have greater acCess and understanding of the voter registt~on ·
process. We anticipate that even more Immigrant residents who now have informa~on and forms in the •
language they best understand will become civically active because of their increased voter registration
access, • said Sue Fox, Executive Director of Shorefront YM·YWHA.
"At AAFSC, our mission is to empower new immigrants with the toots they need to successfully
acclimate to the wortd around them, and to became active participants in their communHies. Our staff
and volunteers work every day with Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian Immigrants from all
five boroughs who need the vital support: of our Adult Literacy and English dasses, and our linguistlcally-
oompetent social services. Arabic is currently the 4th most widely spoken language among English
language learners in New York City, and we are thrtlled that Mayor Bill de Blasia has taken this important
step to make civic engagement more accessible to all New Yorkers. In New York, every person has a
voice that matters and deserves to be heard, regardless of what language they speak, • said Lena
Alhusselni, Executive Director of the Arab-American Family S:upport Center.

"GAMSA is proud to stand with the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Afl'alrs today to make registering to vote
easier for citizens who speak Russian, Urdu, French Creole, French and Arabic," said Joanne M.
Oplustil, President and CEO of CAMBA. "For the past four decades, CAMBA has been helping
immigrants resettle here and become hardworking, contributing- and voting- Americans. Our
immigrants deeply value the right to vote, and we are committed to ensuring that they have equal
access to the polls."

'This announcement is welcome news for New York's groWing African immigrant communities, 1' said
Amaha Kassa, Executive Director of African Communities Together In the Bronx. "After English, •
French is the most widely shared language among New York's Africans. We are especially glad that
New York City partnered with ACT and other immigrant oommunily organizations to make sure that the
translated voter registration forms are dear and culturally competent."

Javier H. Valdes, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York said, "We applaud the de
Blasia administration for its ongoing effort to make voting easier and more accessible, with language
access as a oomponent. Given the challenges that immigrant New Yorkers lace when trying to register
and cast their ballots, it's crttical that New York City continue to take steps in this direction.''

"Registering to vote is one of the doses! steps of exercising the rights and responsibilities of an
American citizen. It gives the feeling of being included in the beautifully diverse oommunity and a sense
of shareq responsibility to contribute for the oommon good. ThisWonderful civic engagement initiative
will reassure us to remember America Is not oofy our home, it is also home for our cultural home-
language too," ~id Mir Masum All, National CIVIC Engagement Director of Muslim Ummah of Noflh
America (MUNA NY).

"New York City is the most diverse city in world, home to immigrants who speak hundreds of languages.
It is critical that our New American New Yorkers are able to participate in the civic process and that's
why we applaud Mayor Bill de Blasio, the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs, and tile Campaign
Finance Soard's efforts to expand language translation of voter registration forms to the city's top 10
languages, • said steve Chol, Executive Director of the New York Immigration CoaUtlon. "Ensuring
that voter registration forms are available in Arabic, Chinese, Bangia, Korean. Urdu, Spanish, Russian, •
Creole, French, and English will expand our Immigrant oommun!Uf3$ ability to be part of the political
process with more ease and will empower them to vote in this Presidential election: The NYIC
---------------,---------------.---
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 89 of 104

Civic Engagement Collaborative identified the expansion of translated voter infonmatlon as a high priority
and we are excited to be part of this first step.''

• "New York City is the ultimate clo/ of immigrants. Council of Peoples Organization (COPO) welcomes
the voter registration fonms in m~ltiple languages, Which will ensure that more citizens are well-infonmed
about this proc$s. At COPO, wlo have translated the current fonm into many languages and regularly
assist naw Amertcsn citizens in registering to vote. We have found that many new citizens are not aware
of the voter registration process~nd as a result, they cannot participate in elections. These tran~lated
fonms are essential to reaching eople in their native languages and ensuring their participation in the
civic life our city, state, and nati . Having these fonms available in five new languages will empower
many citizens to finally have a v¢ice for their concerns in polrtics and city services to Which they are
entitled," said Mohammad RazJI, Executive Director of the Council Of Peoples Organization
(COPO).

"The Mayor's decision to provid non-English speaking New Yorkers with voter registration fonms in their
languages is another procedure~·f inclusiveness and respect. It adds to the many steps this
administration has taken to mak New York City the City of all its citizens. This move will eliminate the
language barrier for the five gro ps and enable them to participate in the civic and political activities and
enjoy their right to vote," said Dr Abdelha!ld Djemll, President of the Islamic Leadership Council
(Majlis Shura) of New York. ·

"It's a proud moment in NYC his*ry that more immigrant communities Will have the opportunity to
register to vote where they will n longer experience any language barriers to be a part of the
Democratic process. I am extre ely grateful for the visionary leadership of this administration for their

• inclusion of all communities. Mamy New Yorkers will now feel that they are just as important and as
valuable as everyone else. Thist truly a great day for New York that ~continues to lead the World in
building Bridges and tearing do Walls," said Naji Almontaser, President of the New York Muslim
Voter Information Club.

"Voting is a critical component inrhe participation of communities and individuals in the democratic
process. Expanding voter registr !ion forms into additional languages makes that process real and
substantive," said Fahd Ahmed Executive Director of DRUM • Desis Rising Up & Moving.

"Language barriers should neve~ be an impediment to exercising one's right to vote and participate in
choosing one's political represe~ative, a fundamental pillar of our nation's democracy. We applaud the
Mayor's efforts to ensure that citi ens of all immigrant backgrounds can fully parti<>pate in this process
and fUlfill their civic dUties, an e rt we highly encourage at Chhaya," said Annetta Seecharran,
Interim Executive Director of hhaya CDC.

"A strong democracy demandsJI voters have access to the voting process - including those who speak
English as a second language. I a city as diverse as Naw York, voter registration materials must be
available in a myriad of langua s to give every voter a chance to vote. We applaud Mayor de Blasia's
Office of Immigrant Affairs for reqognizing the importance of language access and expanding the
trarlslation of voter registration rrfterials to include Arabic. Urdu, Haitian Creole and Russian," said ca..
Executive Director Ana Maria jrchila, the Center for Popular Democracy.


"We applaud the Mayor for this initiative that recognizes the vital importance naw citizens have played in
the civic life ofthe city for more ~an 200 years. With Albany's failure to pass meaningful refonms, the
itF
city's ongoing improvements to voter registration system offers some rare good news for voters," said
'
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 90 of 104

Neal Rosenstein, Government Reform Coordinator of ~e New York Public Interest Research
GroupiNmRG. . . . . . .

"We welcome translation or voter registration fonns as one step towards more inclusi\lity of new •
Americans into the democratic process. Through our work, we have found that language access is one
of the main reasons Ara.b Americans do nat participate, folloWing iss~s like diSCrimination and
confusion at the polls," said Mirna Haidar, Lead Organizer at the Arab American Association of New
York.

pressofflce@cityhall.nyc.gov

(212) 788-2958


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 91 of 104


i
PLAINTIFFS DECLARl\TION IN SUPPORT OF TiiE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBJiNED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit J-3

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 92 of 104

BIG SOYERNMOH bill JUilRfl{l!~M S!G hflttYWUlJO llL:iUNfll SEt:Uil!H
BRIJ1BAIITlllND6N I BRIDBARIJ!RIJSAllM IBRIDBARTJIXAS I BllDTBARTCAUFDRNm
W:ll 'JIUIO $J!llfl!S !JIB"i!IHS ?il1S: lllUIACl
SlORl

EFFORT TO OPEN VOTING TO ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS UNDERWAY IN NYC

BREITBART CONNECT •

SIGN UP FOR OOR NEWstmER
email address S111!MIT

Immigration activists are
pushing for illegal immigrants ; SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
to be granted tbe right to vote emall ac:kh'f!S-'1 SUBMIT
in New York City and say
legislation to tbat effect could
be introduced later this year.
The New Yo'* Post report,'> that a proposal to mend voting rights to Ulegel immigrants,
allowing them to vote in elections for city~\'\'ide offices, was highlighted at a mack and
Latino Legislative Caucus event.

"We want to expand the right to vote for everybody, not suppresS the vote. What a radical
idea." Bertha Lewis, head of the Black Institute, saida«llrding to the Post. The Post notes
she said they expect such legislation to be lntroduoed in the spring. BREITIIART VlllO PICKS
New York City Mayor Bill de Bla&o has made extensive efforts on behalf oflliegal
lmmlgnmts, incl.udlog offering a city Identification card. According to the Post, Lewis said Jel>Ofllblsad
she See& the extension of voting rights as part of that effort.
-----------------------------------,~

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 93 of 104

"People want to come out of the shadows,• Lev,.is said. according to the paper.


As the Post nole", a number of years ago there v.u an effort lo extend voting rights to legal
non-citizen 'residents. The bill, which as~·
·troduced by Queens Councilman Dan Dromm
!llld C<Hpansoredhy Council Speaker Me' Mark-Viverito, never received a vote.

· Lewis has had conversations with! islators including Vjverita. Drommlilld
Brooklyn Council:mi.Ul Jumaane WUI nrns, among others, about expanding rights to
illegal aliens. ,

AViverito spokesman noted that .Je<mncU supports extending voting rights to
green-eard holders, but he st~~rt Stm.dayof saying she would back voting
rights for illegal immigrants.

Williams, hmvcver, endor.scd the t· '

M1'here will be a lot of support for it' the CilyCouncil. We want people to participllte
in civic life and be invested in what pJx.!tt.<~.. It will lead to a healthier community,"
said Williams.

WhiJe activist..; appear enthusiastic aboutte idea. Conservative Party Chaimmn Mike
Long told the Pos( that extending rights t illegal immigrants is •outrageous," telling the
paper, "American Citizen.<> have the right determine the destiny of towns, villages, cities,
states and the country." '

READ MORE SIORIES ABOUT: ·~poct this ad
'
:,. •tr, l're~i,lt·nt:nJ iZt1<'<:, Hi;; '.~t'\Vt!1Mll:lt, ftnmi;;;,1t~;Jr., ilk•!+Jl lmraigr:;:o!F, il!qpl adt~"''"'"""'
illlllli).\r.;tinn, 1-:cw V~ •Tk City, \''lti.ll):. ·


;r!9iil .->;1! 1!:f[t • +>
""!11,

t!i~HtXS tP,V.fU?!l, Fl.$\tW
Efl!nSl1


Around The Web

MOST POPULAR
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 94 of 104


PLAINTIFFS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED JU;SPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit J-4

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 95 of 104


PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMB~1) RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
! THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit K-1

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 96 of 104


NYC Elections Official Scoffs at
Mayor's Call for Him to Resign
Over Voter Fraud Claims
By Madlna Toure • 10/18/16 4:25pm


Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner
Alan Sc:hulkin $peaks at a city Board of Elections
meeting today. Photo: Madlna Toure tot
Observer

Four days after Mayor Bill de Blasio
called on Manhattan Board ofElections
Commissioner Alan Schulkin to resign
over his claims of voter fraud he said

Dhe's staying put-and that the mayor
D
"doesn't control" the board.


~--------------,------------------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 97 of 104

Conservative nonprofit Project Veritas

• secretly recorded Schulkin, a Demqcrat,
saying that de B!asio's IDNYC
i dative initiative does not properly vet
a plicants and enables them to commit
e ction fraud. He also said people are
ur!aware that in minority
n ighborhoods, organizations "bus
le around to vote• to different
lling sites and accused Muslim women
o using their burqas to hide their
i ntities. He also calied for a voter I.D.
!a .


r.:;et tile f\i,:;·,v (uri' Polilics 11ewsletter in your iniJox:

i
Enter you~ email address

.

Q,~••-~.., ~· 4• \1<4' "o"'u
ml.Ulicipal identification program "crazy"
~•u D
,,.,


and proof that he is not fit for his
po~ition.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 98 of 104

"I have no intent to resign,• Schulkin


told the Observer today, following a BOE
meeting in Manhattan. "The mayor
doesn't control the Board ofEiections.•

During the meeting, Susan Lerner,
executive director of good government
group Common Cause, said her
organization and others were surprised
to hear ofSchulkin's comments that he
made given his position. She said there
needs to be clarification and serious
consequences for being on the record,
even if he described the individuai as
someone who was heckling him as a
representative of a particular
organization. He had to have known that
his comments were not going to be held
privately, she said.

"Your comments about the-even

Coet the New ·vork Politks newsletter in your in box:

Em~r your email address

oxp!anattons mat we nave reaa really
D
does nottally. •

Schulkin said he was not planning to
speak on the record about the incident •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 99 of 104

but that he would address it because


~er brought it up. He noted the
infutent happened at a Christmas party
Ia~t year-well before Donald Trump
be an tossing around cavalier claims the
N vember election will be "ri ed" -and
t the did not know who the
wQmanwas.

H I said she started talking to him but
alutted that he should not have spoken

j
h her and insisted that the comments
he made in the video do not represent
· views, in contrast to statements last
'
wik in which he stood by his caught-
a -camera call for requiring voters to
sh w a photo I. D.

• H1 also said de Blasio was wrong to
characterize his statement as a public
stl\tement, saying that it was a private
~¥~ ... ,.. ............ _.._ ...t.,.. .. t. .... --~-<-~ 1..---··~" t...,.. ···--

;:., tLHiV C'f'f\Jii f;..'JtiJrin~: f.h(' rY>J'";t ~rnport:;nt pulit!ol coVCI'J;.St: from :;1·o·:nd Nc·\<'J v' •..• t k
I

Enter your email address

o~y au agree

ann they didn't take it as an insult."
tney J.<n.OW me very Well D
• Sc~ulkin also acknowledged he was
i~ally skeptical of the !DNYC program
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 100 of 104

hut sai<;l the woman did not identify
herself. When Lerner characterized his
response to her concerns as insufficient
given "t:h?-t there are sigrrificant
concerns," Frederic Umane, secretary,

appeared to defend his colleague.

"Isn't part of what your function with
election protection is to make sure that
there's no fraud going at the ballot?"
Umane said. "Isn't that part of what your
observers are looking for while they're
there, to make sure that there is no
fraud?"

Lerner insisted instances of in-person
voter fraud in the United States are rare,
and argued that it was important to
eliminate-not create-obstacles at the
polls.

Get the r'iew York Politics newsletter in yo.ur inbox:

Enter your emailaddr~ss

D 0
"I know !shouldn't say anything, but the


people I've talked to tell me they don't
and rve talked to a number of people
from vatious ethnic groups, elected
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 101 of 104


PLAINTIFFS DEC~TION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION Wim COMPLAINT

Exhibit K-2

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 102 of 104

WATCH: ElECTIONS COMMISSIONER ADMITS TO WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD ON
HIDDEN CAMERA •
A jack Burns e> October 12. 2016

$11Um!i Into $357.24 DillY?
Dls®ve!Thl$ sectel Meth«< Le-am MoM

A Democratic Party election board representative from Manhattan was caught on camera confirming what a
Jot of people already suspect. It's easy to commit voter fraud, and it's made easier by New York's lax voter
identification measures, which really don't exist.

Alan Schulkin, the Democrat Party representative serving on Manhattan's election board, admitted groups
of interested voters get on buses and travel from polling station to polling station casting multi,ple ballots


for their candidates or their issues. Schulkin said, "You know,! don't think it's too much to ask somebody to
show some kind of an !D ... Like I say, people don't realize, certain neighborhoods, in particular, they bus
people around to vote."

Breaking from his political party's traditional stance against voter Identific~tion of any kind, Schul kin said,
"Yeah, they should ask for your ID, I think there is a lot of voter fraud," Going further, Shulkin explained the
conundrum New York faces. "You can't ask for 10," he sald, He said mayor Bill 01 Blasia's attempt to issue
voteriO's is fraught with even more controversy. 14He gave out 10 cards, De Blasia. That's in lieu of a driver's
license, but you can use.ltfor anything. But, they didn't vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can
go In there and say I am joe Smith, I want an to card. It's absurd. There's a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraudi

all kinds of fraud( Schul kin explained.

The election board representative's comments were secretly recorded on a hidden came,ra by Project
Veritas, the same group responsible for catching Planned Parenthood executives on video engaging In
business transactions peddling aborted baby body parts for money. Activist, founder, and proponent of the
Free Press movement, james O'Keefe was immediately targeted by the mainstream media and branded by


liberals as a phony journalist. But without his pioneering work, the world may never have known about
Planned Parenthood's profiting from the sale of aborted body parts.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 103 of 104


How Men Tighten Their Skin
Remove "Old Man" Wrinkles And
Eye-Bags Qmckly AM Easily

Those conversations, many of w~ich were recorded while the participants were dining. touched off a
firestorm of controversy in the US. with many Congressional leaders calling for an end to federal funding

for Planned Parenthood's slaughter of the unborn.

Despite the expose' videos, and ten with Republicans (traditionally anti-abortion) in charge of the federal
budget, the 1.1 trillion dollar omnibus spending package was passed with federal funding for the
abortionists intact. Speaker of tht House, Paul Ryan (R~WI), was instrumental in the Omnibus' passage,
which many believe should have excluded federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

O'Keefe's and Project Veritas' rec~rding of Schulkin's comments, although they were recorded in December

• of 2015, serve to illustrate just hJw easy It Is to commit voter fraud in New York:. It's a safe bet that if the
Democrat representative on Man~attan's election board knows there's a systemic problem of voter fraud at
work, then the results of this yeah presidential election will probably be wrought with fraud as well.

Republicans, going back many ye~rs, have pushed for state legislatures to pass voter ID laws, to ensure

elections are fair and representaJive of the voter base. Attempts to prevent voter fraud by passing voter
identification laws (which by aiJ afcounts shouid be something on which both Republicans and Democrats
agree) has been vehemently chal~enged in court by Democrats all across the country.

This summer, voter ID taws in North carolina and Wisconsin were struck down in the court system amid

concerns the laws made it more ~ifficult for minorities to vote. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ohio, Texas,

Virginia, and Arizona as well, all i~ an attempt by Democrats to open up the polls to everyone (even illegal
aliens as some allege), Some hav, accused the Democratic party of creating a climate whereby voter fraud
is easier to commit, such as in New York as Schulkin plainly stated already exists.

Also1 if you wish to report suspec~ed cases of voter fraud you may do so by contacting the federal

• government1 your district or your state's voter fraud divisions. A list of voter fraud contacts by state can be

found by clicking here.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-4 Filed 04/20/17 Page 104 of 104

HIDDEN CAM: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, "They Bus People Around to Vote"


a

TRENDIIIO

Build and Price the 2017 Corvette. So Funniest Wedding Dresses Ever These 21 Photos Were Timed to


Read Expert Reviews Perfection .And They're Hilalious

-
-------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 128


PLAINTIFF'S DEC~TION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S CO INED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THEPETflnON~COMP~

Exhibit K-3

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 128


PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit L-1

r-~~---- - - - - ---------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 128
I

I


I
I At Part of the Supreme
I Court of the State of lllew York, held ill
1 and for the County of Richmond, at the
Court house thereof located at 26
I Central Avenue, Staten Island, New
I York on the 5'" day of December, 2016.

PRESENT: J~~j:~~f~~'if~~·~MEcoijR'r
fn the Matter of

RONALD CASTORINA, t and
:INDEX NO.
:
,
, •• 1 ·:u" C'
!
L'{ 4:--:;;, •.:)-
0
< - 1 1• {;>
NICOLE MAUOTAKIS,
:ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH
. PetiJoners/Plaintiffs, ;'I'EMPORARYRES'I'RAININ<l
-agatns1- 1 :ORDER

BILL DEBLASIO, in his }.cial capacity .. MA \'OR OF TilE
CITY OF NEW YORK,
TilE OFFICE OF THE iwJYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK·V • , in bcr official capacity as the


SPilAKER OF THE NEW ORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, CO SSIONER OF TilE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES MINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in bi official capacity,
MA1THBW BRUNE, OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY H RESOURCES
AbMINISTRATION/DEP TMENT OF 'SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and=
RICARDO BROWNE, E UTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFO TION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISl!RAT!ONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official f'Pacity,

R<Jpondents!Defendants,

For a llldgcmcnt Pursuant FArticle 78 of the Civil Practice Law and-
I

Rules.

UpoA the annextd Affidavit of Petitioner RONALD CASTORINA, JR., ESQ.,

swom to on the 5th" day of December, 2016, Petitioner NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, sworn
to on the 5" day of Oe~mber, 2016, Affirmation of Jeffrey Alfano. Esq., affirmed to on

• I
I
I
I
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 128

the 5" day of December 2016 and all of exhibits annexed therto, and the Memorandum

of Law dated the 5'" day of December 2016, and upon all the proceedings heretofore

had herein, let the Respondents, or their attorneys show cause at Part l;x:..m (e;

held in and for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the County of

3ichmond, located at 26 Central Avenue, Staten Island, New York on the.:ZC. day of
J 4-I.J<-<4')" :Jo•
O&rem!)a, 2ete at
-z 9.,3o o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon

thereafter as counsel can be heard why an Order should not be made and entered

granting the Plaintiff the following relief:

1. An Order pursuant to C.P.L.R. Section 7803(2) Prohibiting

Respondents proceeding beyond the jurisdiction afforded to them

as public officers and destroying governmental documentation


collected in connection.with the IDNYC program;

2. An Order declartng New York City Administrative Code Section 3-

115(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11 violated FOIL and denying the

enforcement of any part of those sections violating FOIL;

3. Together with such other and further relief as to this Court may

deem just, proper, and equitable.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER:

SUFFICIENT REASON APPEARING, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED, that pending the return date of this motion, the respondents

are hereby enjoined and precluded from the destruction of any and all materials

associated with the IDNYC program , and it is further

2 •
,-------- - --

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 5 of 128

I

• the /S
I
ORDERED, jthat sel)(ice of a copy of this order, and the pap%s upo& , S::
~..,.. '> A-tAt I NCb"'""'
which it ~s granted upor the P1aiRti#!s attorney via overnight delivery, on
,L....
day of Dec,mber, 2015 be deemed good, sufficient and timely service.
I~ "
before
l.
.
~uc,....

ENTER,
I

I

I
ipG.~
I Justice of the Supreme Court

I

I

I

• I
I
I

I

I

I

I

I

• 3
-------~--------------

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 6 of 128

SUPREME COURT 011 TRJi! STATE 011 NEW YORK
COUNTY 011 RICHMOND

In the Matter of :INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. ond
NICOLE MAUOTAKJS,
:AIIF'IRMATION OP
Petitioncrs/Plaintift's, :JEJIF'REY ALIIANO IN SVPPOR':
-against- :011TRO

BILL DEBLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF TilE
CITY OF NEW YORK,
TilE OFFICE OF TilE MAYOR OF TilE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MEUSSA MARK-VIVERITO, in her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF TilE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF TilE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capecily,
MATTIIEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF TilE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official cspacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents/Defendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law ond
Rules.

JEFFREY ALPANO, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the Courts of the State

of New York; affinns the following under penalties ofpeljury:

I. I am the sole proprietor of the Lsw Office of Jeflrey Alfano, attorney for

Pctitionc:rs, Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis. I am fully fiuniliar with all facts and

circumstances pertaining to the within litigation following the review and analysis of the legal

file maintaiocd by this office.

I

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 7 of 128

• 2. This affirmati~ is submitted to sstisfy the requirements of rule 202.7(1).

3. The infonnati~ oontained associated with the IDNYC program is digital in nature
and is very easily delelcd byte custodiam of the ~al.

4. The May<Jr, jhe City Council Speaker, and numerous City representatives
indicated their intentions to ~stroy the materials associated with the IDNYC program on or
before December 31,2016. I

5. To the extent Jlte Mayor, City Council Speaker and other city representatives have

not destroyed the documen~ it will present a significant hardship to notify the Respondents in

advance of this application 'f'king a temporary order preventing the destruction of the ~als

associated with the IDNYC frogram.
Dated: December 5, 2016
Staten Island, NY

• I

I

I

I

I

I

I

!

I

I

• I

I

I
2

I
• Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 8 of 128

SUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
'-In~1he7Ma=ller::-o:;;f------------,INDEX NO. 9{Jz_.<:;<l//-{J
I

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and
NICOLE MALLIOTAKJS,
:VERIFIED PETITION
Petitionersf

BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF lHE
CITY OF NEW YORK,
1HE OFFICE OF 1HE MAYOR OF lHE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSAMARK-VIVERITO, in her official capacityas the
SPEAKER. OF 1HE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF lHE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATlHEW BRUNE, ClllEF OPERATING OFFICER OFlHE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in


his offioiai capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents,

F9r a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules.

TO 1HE SUPREME COURT OF lHE STATE OF NEW YORK:

Petitioners Ronald Cestorina, Jr. and Nicole Malliotaksi (together "Petitioners") for their

Verified Petition and Complaint, by and through lheir undmigned counsel, respectfully allege as

follows:


,--------
• Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 9 of 128

I. 1.
INTRODUCTION

This proceedi] is brought under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law

and Rules (''C.P.L.R."), New ork Public Officers Law§ 84et seq. (the "FreedOm ofinformation

Law" or "FOIL"), and C.P.L R. § 3001 against RespondeniS Mayor de Blasia, in his official

capacity ("the Mayor"). the O~ce of the Mayor of the City of New York, Melissa Mark-Viverlto,
in her official capacity as the S~aker of the New York City Council, Steven Banks. Commissioner

of the New York City H+an Resources Administration/Department of Social Services

(hereinafter "New York City F"), in his official capacity. Matthew Brune. Chief Operating

Officer of the New Y~~-~~r HRA, in his official capacity, and Ricardo Browne, Executive

Dep~ Commissioner, '""''Tement Information Systems New York City HRA, in his official

capac!ty.

On June 26, 2JI4, the New York City Cooncil passed an enabling statute allowing


2.

the Mayor, through the Newtork City HRA, to create and administet New York City's Municipal

Identification Program (herrer, "IDNYC").

3. Respondents jeaten to destroy public records connected with the IDNYC program

in contravention of New York State's Freedom of Information Law before any administrative

agency or court of competen~ jurisdiction evaluates legitimate FOlL requests.

4. Petitioners Jek (I) an order pursuant to C.P.LR. § 7803(2) prohibiting

Respondents from proceedin. with actions in excess of their jurisdiction as public officers; and (2)

a declaration pursuant to ClL.R. § 3001 that 68 RCNY 6-11 (Confidentiality of IDNYC Card

Eligibility Information) violr New York State's Freedom oflnfonnation Law.

• 2
• Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 10 of 128

5.
PARTIES

Petitioner, Ronald Castorina, Jr., is a Member ofth~ New York State Assembly

rep~ th~ 62"' Assembly District covering the South Shore of Staten Island with his district

office locawd at 7001 Amboy Road, Suite 202 E, Staten Island, New York 10307. The Assembly

Member sits on the Commi~ on Banks.

6. Petitioner, Nicole Malliotakis, is a Member of the New York State Assembly

representing the 64~ Assembly District covering the East Shore of Staten Island and Bay Ridge,

Brooklyn. The Assembly Member bas a district office located at II Maplewood Place, Staten

Island, New York I 0306. The Assembly Member sits on the Committee on Banks.

1. Respondent Bill de Blasia is the Mayor ofthe City ofNew York. Upon information

and belief, his principal place ofbosiness is located at City Hall, New York, NY 10007.

8. Respondent Office of the Mayor of !he City of New York (the "Mayor's Office')

is an "agency within the meaning of Public Officers Law§ 86(3).

9. Respondent Melissa Mark~Viverito is the Speaker of the New York City CounciL

Upon infoanation and belief, her principal place of business is located at City Hall, New York,

New York 10007.

10. Respondent Steven .Banks is the Commissioner of New York City HRA. Upon

information and belief, his principal place of business is locawd at 4 World Trade Center, ISO

Greenwich Street, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10007.

II. Respondent Matthew Brune is the Chief Operating Office ofNew York City HRA.

Upon infoanation and belief, his principal place of business is located at 4 World Trade Center,

ISO Greenwich Street, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10007.

3

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 11 of 128

• 12. Browne is the Exeeutive Deputy Commissioner of New York

City liRA for Management In nnation Systems. Upon infonnation and belief, his principal place

ofbusineas is 1oeatedat4 W d Trade Center, ISO Greenwich Strce4 38"'Floor, NewYoti,Ncw

York 10007.

VENUE

13. Venue is pro~r in Richmond County pursuant to C_P.L.R. § 506(b) and§ 7804(b)

in that Petitioners submitted t r FOIL requests from their district olllces loeated on Staten Island.

Staten Island residents provF the records sought by the Petitioners to the New York City

goveromen4 and received ID YC identifieation in New York City HRA olllces loeated on Staten

Island.

JURISDICTION

14. Respondents• ~tened actions, destruction of govenunental records currently on
• file with the City of New Yprk, wlrlcb fonn the basis of this Verified Petition and Complaint,

exceed the jurisdiction and ~uthority of executive officers named as Respondents to the action.

The Respondents' coJJectiv, threatened actions 1) supplant the judicial function of evaluating

FOIL requests from the .Jnmistrative agencies and reconsideration by the New York State

Supreme Court; and 2) seek Lhide governmental actions in contravention of the New York State

..... ·-. Freedom nflnfolmationLaJ by fiat_througb the. wholesale destruction ofgoverrunent documents, -- ..

rather than utilizing stringenf guidelines developed to protect disclosure of personal information.

This Cour4 therefore, bus j,sdiction over this proceeding pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 7801 et seq. and

Public Officers Law § 84 et r"'·
IS. This Court air bas jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3001 to render dec~

relief

• 4_
• Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 12 of 128

16.
FACI'S

On September I, 2016, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of

Financial Services (hereinafter "the Superintendenr') issued a letter to New York's banking

industry encouraging aceeptance of!DNYC for banking and .c:redit products. See Exhibit A.

17. On October 20, 2016, Petitioner, Assembly Member Castorina, wrote the

Superintendent requesting the reconsideration of the sentiments cOntained that letter. See Exlubit

B.
18. The Superintendent issued no response to Assembly Member Castorina'S letter, nor

was it acknowledged in any other way.

19. ln recent weeks Mayor de Blasio announced his intention to destroy all records

associated with the issuance of the IDNYC program through his purported authority under

68 RCNY 6-11. See Exhibit C.

20. On November 28, 2016, Petitioners ""!uested Respondents refrain from the

destruction of any government doeuments submitted in connection with the IDNYC program. Set

Exhibit D.

21. On November 29, 2016, Respondents rejected Petitioners ""!ues!s to preserve

documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC pregram through Speal<er Mark-Viverito

statement to the press for Petitioners to "go aheod [and] sue us." See Exhibit E.

22. On November 29, 2016, at 12:23:11 p.m., Assembly Member Castorina submitted

a FOIL request seeking:

delivery, to my office address liated above, all seanued application
materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
MlmicipaliD pregrarn) program maintained by HRA and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital format.

ExbibitF.

s •
r - - - - - - - --

• Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 13 of 128

• 23. On December

FOIL request seeking: J
1· 2016, al6:51 :06 p.m., Assembly Member Malliotakis submitted a

delivery, to m . office addrQss listed above, aU scanned application
materials asso:tted with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
Municipal ID gram) program maintained by HRA and any other
City Agency · luding the Mayor's Office in digital funnat.

Exhibit G.

24. Identification irsued through the NYCID program expire five years after it is issued

to an individual.

25. Regulations cortained in the New York City Code permit the destruction of records

associated with the NYCID piogram after two years solely al the discretion of the Respondents.

26. The New Yor~ City HRA regulation purportedly grants Respondents unilateral
authority to destroy all reco1s, in the name of preserving participant confidentiality, collected in

• connection with administeriJg New York City's IDNYC program on or before December 31,

2016. See NYC

27.
Administrati~e Code§ 3-JIS(e) and 6& RCNY 6-11.
Public staterntts made by City Council Member. Carlos Menchaca, to the New

York Post on February !5, 015, indicate Respondents chose December 31, 2016 to destroy

documents, but not to end th, program, simply for political purposes. See Exhibit H.

28. City Council ~ember Menchaca indicated clearly, "In case a Tea Party Republican

comes into office and says, •{ve want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs. in 1he

countty,' we're going to takelthe data." /d.
- - -2!C · c;!Y· counciiMeiiilier·-Mer.a;,;cii-TiiCliciiie<Cl\iither ihe oe<:<mb<t-"31; 20i6 --
document des1ruction date "~lows us [the City Council} to prepare for lillY nc\v leadership [in
Washington, D.c.]". /d.

• 6
• Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 14 of 128

30. City Council Member Menchaca's comments led tile New York Post to entitle the •

article concerning the NYCID program, "Municipal ID law has 'delete in case of Tea Party'
clause." ld

31. No legitimate government intereat can be served by destroying ~rds reasonably

collected to ensure the integrity of a governmental identification system for strictly political

reasons.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING A PROHffimON
OF RESPONDENTS FROM DESTROYING GOVERNMENT
RECORDS KEPT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A
GOVERNMENTAL IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM

32. Petitioners. repeat and reallege parsgraphs I through 36 as if fully set forth herein.

33. Article 78 provides an appropriate method to restrain public officers from

proceeding in a manner which is not within, or exceeds, their jurisdiction.

34. Under FOIL executive government records are accessible to members ofthe public,

governmeOOII agencies, and other branches of both the federal and state governments.

35. FOIL permits the executive to redact govenunental records submitted in

accordance with administering programs run by executive agencies to protect the disclosure of

participants' personal infonnation.
36. · FOIL pennits, further, the denial of access to certain governmental records if

expressly authorized by one of FOIL's specific exeroptions. The limited sb1tutm)' FOIL

exemptions are to be construed narrowly, and the government bears 1he burden of dentonstrating

tbat doeuments fall within an asserted exemption.

7

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 15 of 128


I

37. FOIL does not J.mu1 the government to destroy all documents associated with any

government program to protect any individoals' privacy rights fur any reason, and clenriy not for

politically motivated reasons.
'

38. Respondents' piblic statements indicating their intention to destroy all documents,

in whatever format, associate with tbe IDNYC program will cause, immediate and irreparsble

harm to the rights guaranteed Petitioners and to the public at large under FOIL.

39. Respondects' Jublicly stated course of conduct will render FOIL useless and

exceeds their jurisdiction undllaw.

40. This Court sb1uld issue an Order of Prohibition restraining respondents from

exceeding their jwisdiction ~ destroying government documents in response to a federal

election.


41. Petitioners bavt not made any previous request for reliefreqoested herein.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING A
DECLARA:iRY JUDGMENT THAT 68 RCNY 6-11 AND
NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 3-US(E)
VIOLATE PURPOSE OF FOIL GRANTING
TRANSPA CY TO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

42. Petitioners '"lj"t and reallege paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.

43. The rcgulati"'1 promulgated by Respondents in 68 RCNY 6-11 and New York City

Adminis1Ialive Code§ 3-IIS(e) contain no method for the public to access the reoords submitted

in connection with the IDNYJ program.

44. New York Sta~ policy requires full and open access to government
45. The New Yor~ State legislature clearly maintains:

The people's Jght to know the process of governmental decision-
making and tO review the documents and stati<tics leading to
determination is basic to our society. Access to such infonnation
i

• 8
• Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 16 of 128

should not be thwarted by shrouding it with tho cloak of secrecy or
confidentiality.

PubUe Officers Law § 84.

46. The idea that democratically elected government officials may des1roy records

pteVenting their inspection by the public due to tbe resuhs of a federal election is against the ideals

of tho United States aod has no basis in law.

47. This Court should issue an Order declaring New York City's regulations run afoul

of FOIL and deny the enforcement of only those provisions of the IDNYC program.

48. Petitioners have not made any previous request for relief requested herein.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request this Court grant judgment;

a. Prohibiting Respondents from exceeding their jurisdiction and destroying

governmental docwnentation collected in connection with the JDNYC program in conlmvention

of FOIL;

b. Declaring New York City Administrative Code § 3-I!S(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11

violate FOIL and denying tho enforcement of any part of those sections in contravention to FOIL;

c. Awarlling attorney's fees and reasonable litigation costs as allowed under Public

Officers Law § 89; and

9 •
• Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 17 of 128

• d. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dat.d: December 5, 2016
Staten Island, New York

/"~t;{llfl
w tee of Jeffrey Alfano
1000 South Avenue, Suite 104
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel.: 718-701-1441
Anorney for Petitioners Ronald Cast.orina,
Jr. and Nicole Mal/iotakls

• 10
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 18 of 128

.I
STA'1110FNBWYO~ ) ..
}$s;:
COtllrt\( OF lUCHMOND J
t~.omo~d""~A..:.... Jt.tiein ....,;;
.......,.,....... , _ , ~·--
· .._...~lid II)IS!.·. ·. n.u.;....~-.;..·
~"""-
..... ··
~&lllotibavllrt!idlht~pclilionllidfmoi!!bt~tt~lllattbt- .
is fluota8ty <>Ymb!Owled&e, Oitci:;pt as iO :n\iit~c~Slhel'cilisl'alcd to be 4llc£C(I i!i!lri~ !lid
beliill\ dll>at .. to thOle ~ lbCili:Y~ lbcno 10 ... ~

~lc;-&.

li •
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 19 of 128

• STATEOFNEWYORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND /
i
VERIFICATION

Nicole Malliotaks, ~g duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a petitioner in this
proc;eeding, that I have read t e foregoing petition and know the con~ts thereof; that the same
is tnJe to my own knowledge, except as to mallas therein stated to be alleged on infonnation and
belief; and !halos to those ma ers I believe them to be true.

~to before me on this
.)... day of December, 16

• JEFFREY M. LFANO
N(ltaty Public · Sl te ol New York
No. 02Al6 24696
Oualtfled m R1c mood County
M Comm. EJ ae Mar. 28, ~

• 12
-- -- ~~-

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 20 of 128

I


EXHIBIT
A


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 21 of 128

NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENToJ
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Andrew M. Cuomo Maria T. Vullo
Governor Superintendent

September 1, 2016

Michael P. Smith
President and CEO
New York Bankers Association
99 Park Avenue, 41h Floor
New York, NY 10016

William Mellin
President
New York Credit Union Association
P.O. Box 15118
Albany, NY 12212

Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Mellin:

This letter provides guidance by the Department of Financial Services (the "Department") on
whether the New York City Municipal Identification Card ("Municipal ID") can be used by
banks and credit unions to verify the identity of prospective customers Wlder New York's
customer identification program ("CIP") requirem~nts for customers who seek to open bank
accounts.

The Department is committed to ensuring broad access to financial products and services for all
consumers and recognizes the Municipal ID as one method to expand access to financial services
in New York. For individuals, access to bank and credit union accounts helps preserve income,
leads to savings and asset-building opportunities, and improves access to affordable ciedit
opportunities. Indeed, access to banking services can improve the overall economic well-being
of all New Yorkers and the New York economy.

The Department is aware that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the "Federal Agencies") have previously provided

• (SOO) 342-3736 I ONE STATE STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10004-tHl I WWW.OFS.NY.GOV
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 22 of 128

guidance on this issue in a letter dated April30, 2015. 1 The federal CIP rule requires banks to
have CIPs for account opening that use risk-based procedures for verifying the identity of each
customer so that the bank can form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the
customer. The minimum information a bank must obtain is the prospective customer's name,

date of birth, address and an identification number. 2
i
The CIP rule does not prescribe a specific type of government-issued identification card for use
by institutions. Institutions that rely on dOcumentary forms of evidence to verify a customer's
identity should have procedures in place to identify the types of docwnents the institution will
accept for such verification. Accordingly, it is the Department's position that institutions may
accept the Municipal ID as a means of documentary verification as provided in the institutions'
CIP procedures.

The Department encourages New York state-chartered and licensed financial institutions to
accept the Municipal ID as a form of acceptable identification card, utilizing procedures applied
to all potential customers to assess the risk presented by the customer and any need for additional
documentation or information.

;:;;~
Maria T. Vullo
Superintendent

.. See Federal Agencies' response !etter (Aprll3o, 2015). The Federal Agencies also concluded that the
identification number Included on aU Municipal IDs satisfies the non-U.S. person identification number
requirement contained In the federal CIP rules.

• 31 C.F.R.1o20.220i see 3 NYCRR Partn6.2


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 23 of 128

• -
-
---
Qt?l -

-..o ,, ••

BY"""••UJIM!!..
Octclbet 20, 20ft!
!loll. MIIIIIT.\AIIo. ......,..._
NewYorkSW!o·Depenmenlof.......... ....._
One ..... Slreral
-YO!te, NY 10C04

Ill!:' !W:Jid!f!!!brD<slp'MJrzs Sptllll!t
Dew'8uperinlendentv..le:


,.... fliffttde!/ ...... ~·- .. 2011 -~~~.............. _ , ...
td•~~-~
to ""'" • . _ _ - - ....... ,..u.....
,..._.,,.,,•• ....._ ..... anaaJIIBOitll ''•
at llliiSI, ............
fd......... ~ .,._ • ...,..,.mellfa . - • •aa.c guaa:tJ;;~
_,.,.,...,lid - III''H ...,. 8 . . _ . . hi ttl. , . _ . . . ' II -

=====E~i:'!'u·==.-=•
·--------------------------
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 24 of 128

~ to-Mlfllnll'lu!J., and.,.._. .. ,,,
--tD<Iouallol!n,.....,.ll...,. ....,...,__
.....-mztsl·a

Y-ldlcmeUI'IIIii1111V, ,..__,llillloiQe.,...._fllmllel!:!ll;' 7......
z,m••-- •
..... _.._Yadl's,...ID..,..giiN'I'CIOatDM Ill---~~~­
VIII<&-. vaur:::r:,•*tMII05JIIIet....,·l!llllf._lllfllll!l..__,
We:l1•111. Gftet_ no .....,you......_
tNt,_.,
IIIIIIIIOitftO Jllllr Ollfnlon. ll . _ 1101.,..." <101ft
I.-.
'*•...,.• .............
llllllll?lf wl7lt
GIIIOII,_ 17M> NYC 10. Yaur Iller .... ...a" ......
m11ib Gille _, mllifooM
Land-~ Rilb ENM's1ttl wlltt· . . . tftC SOl ib WW:ITT .... Yotk'ltk1•rtdlf
..,.... pmdilotll.. 111 lholt. J1111r ._ Ill••"- v-. lliliU w_, sa lit> illdll
~ .... dilgeo... ICri?MI---fJI ........ yGU .........

v- --. in I!IV apilllan. -1(11 "' ciiOIII-< 11e to;l" · n. ...,. .,.
~ tn2008M-iiMned,t._fM_,, .... IwiWIIW--IWIIIIps 'JJ1 Tour
tNnclii..W.&)111enl. we .. ._ • .._.•our••-••••z · • e tt lllfWDinl
-I?Mifnlegrllyof ... N'I'CIDp~GG~W_illlo ..... q&llllll~

~ lllel'elole. ftiiiiiiiCII'UI teq>JIII 1111 filii 1ii!IJ 1) yGU Nltllld ...... lrllllt
tJC!Itlllld in The Mulllc!IMd 10 ttl1ll; 2) . . . . . . Plllllit » ...._ tlll1f ......
......... !MIIIrlft_Yclk..,................. _ ......... ,.,. ..... u
thoroutlh..t~ . . ....,.... . . ._,..,nt•tormnatt: •~'"*


I - ·~

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 25 of 128


. EXHIBIT
B


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 26 of 128


EXHIBIT
c


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 27 of 128
12/312016 New Ybrk City may erase ID card data to protect !llegallmmlgrarts 1Fox News

• U.S. HOME CRIME

ILLEGAL IIIIMIGRANT$
TERRORISM ECONOMY

New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal
immigrants
IMMIGRATION DISASTERS MIUTARV EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT PERSONAL FREEDOMS REGIONS

1'\l~lioll&d Novemlar 15,2016
Anoctated Pre33

• Th~ undo~&<~
~ilg
imillfl pr¢VIdo0 l>y New York Crty Hal •llowo • nmplo 10 elllll in<HI<I t>y 1M <i:y. Aclvo'"'lo' <lflntyi!lr'o n>,miclpoiiD card progrom ••<~ if would hell' people
\'1 "'" """""" .. gaMy vonl~ 0\JI of 1>0 •h•dowo. Now oomo f&>r ~ oOIIII:< ilot.. ~ _ . . tl\omto <!eportalion. SW.oo Donolci Trump'o prui<loolialolociO'XI victo<y, "'"city
con•ideri>Q *~ray;,g lfle oarOhoi<lo<G" ptor•OMI "'cordo. ~Now York C~ Hal vOo AP)
~

NEW YORK- When New York City launched the nation's biggest munlclpaliO card program last year, advocates saki it would
help people living in the U.S. Ulegally to venture out of the shadows.

II!M:RTISEMENT

But since Donald Trump was elected president, city officials are Instead fielding questions about whether the cards could put
those same people at greater risk of being deported.

The city has vowed to protect cardholders' personal records and might even delete them using a kind of self-destruct provision
that allows for the infom1ation to be destroyed at the end of the year.

• At least one state lawmaker has criticized that idea, saying it could make it impossible to trace people if they have obtained cards
fraudulently.

lttp"l/wlr.w.foxnews.comfus/201&'11115/reN-york--city-may-erase-ld-ciid-data-to-prcl\ect-lllegal-immigriiis.html 114
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 28 of 128
1.2/312016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect lllegallmmigrants 1Fox NEM'S
Some Immigrants take comfort in the city's stance, while acknowledging they are still wary.

Alberto Saldivla got his "IDNYC'' card this year after spending 15 years in the country without legal authorization.

~It
did cause me considerable concern, because they have my infoflJlation, also the infoflJlation of my son," the 53-year-old
Mexico native said through an interpreter.

But he felt reassured when Mayor Bill de Blasia said last week that the city would "absolutely" safeguard cardholders' Identities.
De Blasia, a Democrat, said officials would assess whether to delete the personal records, a provision that was built into the
program partly over concerns about the possible election of a Republican president such as Trump, whose campaign promises

included a vow to deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

MunicipaiiD programs began in 2007 In New Haven, Conn., and have expanded to about 10 cities, including Los Angeles and
San Francisco. New York's program is the most ambitious, with more than 800,000 cardholders, many of them U.S. citizens or
legal residents.

Officials encouraged everyone in the city to sign up, but the program was aimed at those without other fonns of 10, Including
homeless people and, especially, the estimated 500,000 Immigrants living illegally In the city. The ID would help them do such
everyday things as cash a check or attend a parent-teacher conference at a public school, advocates said.

The program quickly proved popular, with New Yorkers waiting hours in line and months for appointments to register earty on.
Pope Francis received a ceremonial one during his visit to the city last year, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
said the card would make him "a real New Yorker."

But civil liberties advocates sounded alarms about the city collecting identity documents that immigration authorities or law
enforcement could request, with a judge's approval.

The program's backers included language that allows for destroying the applicants' identity and residency information at the end
of 2016 if administrators do not move to keep them.


"Protecting it from a possible Republican president was just one of the reasons" for the provision, said City Councilman Cartos
Menchaca, who wrote the law that created the program.

A critic of the program said deleting the records would only compound concerns about it.

"lfs completely irresponsible to destroy the documentation of people who applied for a government~issued 10 card," said state
Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican.

She said the proof-of-Identity requirements may not be stringent enough to prevent fraud, and deleting the records would leave
authorities "no way of knowing who these people are, how they obtained this documentation."

Some immigrants and their advocates remain hopeful that the IDs won't backfire. The extent of the program should thwart using
II to target immigrants here illegally, since they represent only some of the cardholders, said Javier Vek:les of Make the Road
New York, an advocacy group that pushed for the program.

Juan Rosas Carrera plans to keep his appointment this weekend to get an IDNYC card, despite a friend's warning that it could be
risky to give authorities his name and address. Rosas Carrera, a Mexican national and construction worker, has been !Mng In the
U.S. illegally for 17 years.

Stilt, he wants an 10 can:i to open a bank account and feels it's worth the worry.

"I feel safe In New York. J also think that if you don't have a criminal record, nothing bad w~l really happen," said Rosas carrara,
48. "But I am a bit worried about Trump."

Trending In U.S.
1 Why Trump wn right to talk with
Ta~n .. pr1111dent

z rm • Demoeratand I'm asl'lln'lltd at
how tone d81f -'ve beeom.


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 29 of 128


EXHIBIT
D


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 30 of 128
12/412016 Malllotakis, Castor!na. ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs I S!Uve.com

-------------------------------·
Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy
IDNYC docs

Assembly members Nicole Malllotakis and RQil Castorlna Jr. speak against the IONYC program In St. George on
Monday, Nov.28. 2016. (Rachel Shaplro/Sbten Island Advance)

By Racbel Shapiro I rsh.aplro@sladvanee.ec:un
Email the author I Follow on Twitter
on November 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, updated December 02,2016 at 7:05AM

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.- If city officials destroy documents collected from illegal immigrants who apply for municipaiiD cards, they
are creating a "slippery slope" and putting national security at risk. say Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina
Jr., who are calling on officials to hold off.

The Republican Malliotakis "'as oeposecLthe~IDNYC P.rosr~..!!! since its creation, as it exists primarily to provide undocumented
immigrants with photo IDs, something that will help them come out of the shadows, proponents argue.

Her newly-elected colleague, Castorina, also objects to giving government-issued IDs to those in the country illegally,
specifically £i!i!!l his Dl!l!!?Sition to ~llowlng~-~!1£_19.!

ADVERTISING
lnRoo41nnnled 1>y Tea~•

htlp:I.WWW.silive.canlnewsflrdex.ssff2016/11/malliolakls_castorlna_ask_city.11ml

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 31 of 128
121412016 Malllctakls, Castorlna ask City rD: to destrc:71 IDNYC OOcs I SIUve.can


On Monday, the two Assembly Republicans spoke outside the Staten Island Business Center on St. Mark's Place in St. George,
where city residents can obtain the ID cards.

They argue that the documents required to btain an 1D card are not solid proof of identification and residency in the city. The
city doesn't consider legal status when dete mining whether to issue an ID card.

With Donald Trump's election, the liberal-lea ing mayor and City Council are in favor of destroying the ID documents for fear they
could be used to locate undocumented imm .grants in the city and deport them.

Initially saying on the campaign trail that he hoped to deport the 11 million people in the country illegally, Trump has walked that
back to deporting only those who commit crimes.

The city included a provision when it create the municipaiiD program to destroy all personal records it collected if a "Tea Party
Republican" wins the White House .

• was done for "political reasons" Malllotaki said. "That in itself is concerning."

She noted the 9/11 Commission Report, whi h states that many of the hijackers used fraudulent documents to obtain IDs.

"That's the concern we have today," she said.

If a person with a city municipaiiD card uses It for nefarious reasons. investigators would need access to the documents given to
the city. If they're destroyed, that could hind~r justice, Malliotakis argued.

"It was a mistake to create this program andl more of a mistake to destroy documents," she said.

While people applying for the ID must have three points to confirm their identities --like U.S. or foreign passports. U.S. or
foreign driver's licenses and U.S. or foreign ~irth c;"rtificates --but they o-~~Y~d~~e to confirm their city residency.

That could be a utility bill, a bank statement or a letter from the city Housing Authority if the applicant lives in public housing.

Malliotakis often notes that one needs only to reside in a homeless shelter for 15 days before being considered a city resident,
and a letter from the shelter management fulfills the requirement for one proof of residency.

lice~se, board an airplane, cross international borders or rent a car.
IDNYC can't be used to obtain a driver's

Castorina called the ID program an "unmiti~ted disaster" and ~an issue of national security."

Castorina, a lawyer and former commission+r for the city Board of Elections, is researching whether destroying the documents is
illegal-- if it is, he'll bring legal action against the city.

6e should not be issuing identification cards to people who are not here legally," he said.

;
hltp:l!\wAY.sillve.comlnewSJ1n::lex.ss"U201&11fmal.ll,s_castorina_ask_City.ttrnl
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 32 of 128
121412016 Malltotakis, Castorlna ask city rrttodeslrcy IDNYC docs I SIUve.com

He suspects that In many cases. fraudulent documents are used to obtain the IDs.

Those IDs may be used to get other IDs.

The term "slippery slope" was used several times by both Assembly members.

As for handing over documents to the federal government should it ask for it. "the City of New York has an obligation to follow the
law." Castorina said. "The city is not above the federal government."

A City Hall spokesperson challenged the Assembly members' assertions that the ID program is lax and unsafe.

"The safety of New Yorkers is City Hall's top priority, and that includes the nearly 40 percent of city residents who are foreign
born. We rely on law enforcement professionals from the NYPD to set the bar for security, and IDNYC consistently meets this high
standard. Claims that IDNYC is being used by those intending serious harm is reckless fear-mongering· the IDNYC application
process is similar to DMVs across the country, highly trained staff use state of the art technology to identify instances of fraud,
and IDNYC cannot be used to obtain a driver's license, board a plane, or cross a border. Over 900,000 New Yorkers have IDNYC,
and we are committed to protecting the privacy and security of our data. The City will make a decision regarding record retention
in the near future."

The story was updated to include a comment from the mayor's office.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User AgNetnent and Prtll~~ey Policy

® 2016 SIUve.com. All rights reserved (About Us).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, trai'\Smltted, c<tehed or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission
of SIUve.com.


Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.

lb<'AdCholces

tttp:J..WWW.slllve.cornlt'leNslil'1delc.ssf/2016/11!malllotakls_castorina_ask_c1ty.l"ml1
"'

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 33 of 128


EXHIBIT
E


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 34 of 128
121312016 City CCUlCi! Speao;er to GOP: 'GoJIJlead ard SUe Us' Over Proposed lmml~ Reca'd Pu"ge

~----------··------ ··-----------·--·--

1
. ·····--···-·-I •
D D
City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go
Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed
Immigrant Record Purge
By Mad ina Toure • 11/29/16 6:25pm

00880


surrounded by Council colleagues, Speaker
Melissa Mark·Viverito lauds the JDNYC program
at a 2015 event. JDNYC

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito
offered a curt retort today to two Staten
Island Republicans preparing legal
action against the city over its plan
to flush municipal identification
records and to shield undocumented
immigrants from President-elect Donald
Trump: "go ahead and sue us."

tttp:f/ob6erver.com/2016/11/clty-coti"Cil-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-ard-sue-us-over-proposed-immlgrart-record-pLJ'rp' 1/S

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 35 of 128
1213f2016 City COlllCil Speaker to GOP: 'GoAheadanrJ Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Plrge

A legislative trap door in the bill that
created the lD NYC program almost two

• years ago enables the city to trash the
data files on its applicants, many of
whom are foreign nationals lacking
other forms of government paperwork,
should a nativist president assume
office. Assemblyman Ronald Castorina
and Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis
contended yesterday that this option, if
Mayor Bill de Blasio utilizes it as
proposed, could make it harder for
federal law enforcement to track
potential terrorists and criminals.

ADVERTISING

The two GOP lawmakers said they
gearing up to take the city to court to
force it to retain the documents .

• hltp:/fct>server.com/2016'11fclty-Cotr1CII-speaker-to-~go-ahe00-SJ'd.sue-us-over-proposed-lmmi!1ant-recad-ptXge/ 215
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 36 of 128
12fll2016 City COlllCil Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed lmmfs,-ant Record Pt.rge

"Go ahead and sue us/' Mark-Viverito, a
fierce advocate for both JDNYC and the
undocumented, spat out when the
Observer asked about the potential suit
at an unrelated press conference at City
Hall today.

The speaker, a prominent surrogate for
Hillary Clinton, has attacked Trump
repeatedly on Twitter and vowed that
New York City will remain a sanctuary
city in spite of Republican threats of
economic sanctions. She echoed the
mayor today in pledging that the city will
do whatever is necessary to protect the
program and its applicants from federal
incursions.

"There's a law in place and the law is very
explicit about how information is to be
handled," Mark-Viverito said during the

City Council's monthly pre-stated
meeting. "We are looking at exploring
those options and so we are gonna
exercise whatever rights we have as the
city. They want to raise the funds aud
they want to sue the city, they have every
right to do so if that's what they choose
to do."

And Mal!iotakis, for her pari, caught
wind ofMark-Viverito's comments. She
delivered an equally terse response.

ttlp1/ctserver.corru"l015'11/city-COLroCII-s]:e8ker-to-gop-go-ahea:t-and-sue-UB-over-proposed-immigrant-record-r.ugef

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 37 of 128
121312016 City COU"'dl Speaker to GOP: 'GoPJ'lead and Sue Us' CNer Proposed Immigrant Record Ptrge

"Arrogant," she tweeted. "l guess as long


as taxpayers will be footing the bill to
defend her shady policies in court, it's
ok."

The de Blasio administration, along with
Mark-Viverito and advocates, has argued
that IDNYC enables undocumented
immigrants to partake in simple, run-of-
the-mill activities that require proof of
identification, such as opening a bank
account. And while the mayor is still
encouraging people to sign up for
IDNYC, Mark-Viverito isn't ready to do
the same.

She said the city is reviewing its legal

• options .

"l have not taken that position," she
added. "Obviously we are very concerned
about the [issue] now-between now
and the end of the year and now and
January 20-so we're very
clearly engaged in a conversation as I've
indicated before about one, the data is
secure right now and we're going to
retain a confidentiality."

A City Hail spokesperson told the
Observer yesterday that its staff carefully
verify personal information used to
obtain the municipal identifications, and

• that an !DNYC an cannot be used to get
a driver's license, board a plane or cross a
t1tp:l/observer.C0011201&'11/city-COU1Cll-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-ard-sue-l.S-over-p-opoaed-lmm!grant-record-purge(
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 38 of 128
12f312{}16 City COU1CII Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead ln:l Sue Us' Oler Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

border. The spokesperson also said the
city relies on the NYPD to "set the bar
for security."

This story has been updated to include a
comment from Assemblywoman Nicole

Malliotakis.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-
law ofJared Kushner, the publisher of
Observer Media.

Council Speaker:
Security Costs

ALSO FROM THE WEB

Homeowners
Must Claim Guide For Join A Meal Causes of Male
their $4271 Perfect Kit Delivery Dysfunction
Sponsored
FetchRate
I Sponsored 1
Verizon Wireless
Sponsored
HelloFresh
I Sponsored I
Health Central

&5

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 39 of 128


EXHIBIT
F


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 40 of 128
1112912016 1l1ilrl; You from NYC.gov ·The Ofllcial New York City Web Site

NYC Resources I 311 \ Office of the Mayor

Thank You For Filling Out This Form

Shown below Is your submission to NYC.gov on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 12:23:11
This fonn resides at http:/lwww1.nyc.gov/site/hra/abouUfoil-request.page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Ronald
Last Name: Castortna Jr
Address: 7001 Amboy Road Suite 202 E
Cl1y' Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10307
Email: roncastorina@gmail.com
Phone: 718-967-5194
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application
materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys Municipal
Request: ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency including
the Mayors Office in dig ita~ format.

Copyright 2016 The City of New York Contact Us I Privacy Policy I Terms of Use

h!Jp:/fwww.fftC.govldcftlcapc:t'a'validatecap 111

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 41 of 128


EXHIBIT
G


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS
Thank You frot.E NYC.gov wThe Official New York City Web SiteDocument 36-5 Filed 04/20/17
http:/Page 42 of 128
lwww.nyc.gov/doittcaptcha/v.alidatecap

NYC Resources l l 311 Office of the Mayor

Thank You For Filling Out This Fonn

Shown below is your submission to NYC.gov on Friday, December 2, 2016 at 16:51:06

This fonn resides at ht1p://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/abouttfoil-request.page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Nicole
Last Name: Matliotakis
Address: 11 Maplewood Place
CHy' Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10306
Email: nysassembly60@gmail. com
Phone: 716-967-0197
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned
applicatlonmaterlals associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citya
Request:
MunicipaiiD program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency
includingthe Mayors Office In digital fonnat.

I !

Copyright 2016 The City of New York Contact Us Privacy Polley Terms of Use

I ofl

121212016 4:51 Pfo..
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 43 of 128


EXHIBIT
H


1

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 44 of 128
121412016 MuiclpaiiD law has 'delete In case of Tea Party' clause I New Ycck Post

METRO

MunicipaiiD law has 'delete in case of Tea
Party' clause

By Tara Palmeri FebruBry 16, 2015 I 11:27pm

The city's new 10 program allows for personal date to be destroyed et the end of20161n case 11 conservative Republican Is elected president, the law's co-
sponsor told The Post.
Photo: Dennis A. C..rk

Get the shredders ready- the Tea Party could be coming.

The city's new munlclpaiiD program allows for personal Info proVIded by applicants to be destroyed at the end of 2016, In case a
conse!V8tive Republican wins the White House and demands the data, the law's co-sponsor told The Post on Monday.

City Councilman Carlos Menchaca (0-Brooklyn) said the measure was crafted so data submitted by those seeking the cards can be
destroyed on Dec. 31, 2016.

The cards are aimed at undocumented Immigrants.

&In case a Tea Party Republican comes Into office and says, 'We want all of the data from all of the munldpaiiD programs In the country,'
we're going to take the data," he explained.

The next president assumes office Jan. 20, 2017.

"That date is an Important signal to the future of Immigration reform. That allows us to prepare for any new leadership,~ Menchaca said.

In order to get an ID, residents must provide their names, addresses, aliases, dates of birth and other Information, making It easy for the feds
to Identify undocumented Immigrants.

Menchaca said the Obama administration has shown no Interest In going after the data, but he didn't want to take any chances on the next
administration.

"Though we have not seen documents like this get requested at the level of the federal government, that could be a posslblllty, so that
really allows us to protect the data," he said.

Immigrant advocates praised the provision.

"tt's no secret that one of the biggest sticking points In the ID programs Is ensuring that there's confidentiality, th&t Immigrants are
comfortably gMng their Information to the city; said Steven Chol, executive director of the New Yor1< Immigration Coalition,

"The sunset Is part and parcel of the effort to ensure confldentlallty.K

The bUllets the city destroy the Info If It determines It's no longer needed.

The cards were first available early last month. Demand has been overwhelming, with more than 200,000 appointments made for the cards
In less than a month.


Additional reporting by Bob Fredericks

Filed under barack obama, bill de blasio, carlos menchaca, municipal-id program, tea party

hltp:J/nyposlcoml201510211&municlpal-id-IBW'·hBs·del$irrcase-of..tea-part.y-Ciause/ 1/2
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 45 of 128


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 46 of 128

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

In the Matter of :INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORJNA, JR. and
NICOLE MALIOTAKIS,
:AFFIDAVIT OF
Petitioners, :RONALD CASTORINA, JR.
-against-

BILL DEBLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VEVERITO, in her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules.

STATEOFNEWYORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

RONALD CASTORINA, JR., being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the elected representative of the 62nd Assembly District representing the

South Shore of Staten Island, New York. I am the ranking member of the Assembly's Committee

on Banks.

1


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 47 of 128

• 2.

NY 10307.

3.
The address to my district office is 7001 Amboy Road, Suite 202 E, Staten Island,

I submit this affidavit in support of the instant special proceeding seeking an Order

pursuant to CPLR § 7803(2) prohibiting the respondents from deleting, scrubbing or otherwise

destroying any and all information submitted in connection with New York City's Municipal

Identification Card program (hereinafter "IDNYC"); and a declaratory judgment determining

68 RCNY 6-11 (Confidentiality of IDNYC Card Eligibility Information) violates New York

State's Freedom oflnformation Law (hereinafter "FOIL").

4. On November29, 2016, at 12:23:11 p.m., I submitted a FOIL request seeking:

I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned
application materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New
York City's Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA
and any other City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital
format.

• See Exhibit A.
5. On September 1, 2016, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of

Financial Services, Maria Vullo, provided a letter to New York's banking industry encouraging

the acceptance ofiDNYC for banking and credit products. See Exhibit B.

6. On October 20,2016, I wrote Superintendent Vullo urging her reconsideration of

sentiments contained in her letter. See Exhibit C.

7. I raised my concerns relating to the ease with which individuals may fraudulently

utilize IDNYC to wreak havoc on New York's financial system. !d.

8. I additionally informed Superintendent Vullo her directive to New York's banking

industry may run afoul of multiple federal regulations governing the national banking industry.

Id

• 2
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 48 of 128

9. Superintendent Vullo failed to respond or acknowledge my letter dated October

20,2016.

10. Superintendent's actions leave me with no other option but to introduce legislation

at the State level designed to prevent New York State banks from accepting IDNYC to utilize

financial products. I, however, must access the IDNYC files to determine the level of due

diligence performed by the City before issuing government identification.

11. In recent weeks Mayor De Blasia announced his desire to exercise his purported

authority under 68 RCNY 6-11 and delete all records associated with the issuance of

governmental identification through the IDNYC program. See Exhibit D.

12. When my colleague and co-petitioner, Nicole Maliotakis, and I requested Mayor

De Blasia reconsider his position relating to IDNYC, respondent, City Council Speaker Mark-

Veverito, challenged us to sue to enforce the people's right to preserve and access infonnation

supporting the issuance of government issued identification. See Exhibit E.

13. If Mayor De Blasio, and members of his administration named here as co-

respondents, destroy the IDNYC records I will be unable to conduct a legitimate investigation

before preparing legislation affecting the rights of all New York citizens.

14. Any document destruction policy must, at the very least, maintain the records until

the governmental identification expires. Here, IDNYC identification remains effective for five

years, but the government purports to destroy the documents after only retaining them for two

years. This course of conduct proves to be simply illogical and cannot provide the basis for

transparent government espoused by the Mayor and Speaker.

15. The content of my FOIL request proves necessary to perfonn my duties as a

member of New York State's Assembly. The documents used to support the issuance of a

3

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 49 of 128

• ~<n""!"lentiill:ntillcatlon card,m\ghr IQ iem.m inWcf. )<)· ~· o!lt l~itil1uite govemm-1· ai>d
.:plL inl&eatS
bli'L.

16,
, -~

The content, manni:r, arid: tliriin'g of * discli>sur• Of tlt<:M gJ>Vemm-r
d~ts m~st [C\!i:Un oubjecua New York State's FOIL law.

17. Beyond my need w acees& these rCcar<l& for a l<gitifuate state interest. t:&e

gOvernment must retain goyernmental identiilc~on ·records and ~ir SJJpl>Orting ~ocubletdation

leadiftgto its issuance as: a:matter·ot"M~iOnal sequrity; it is conceiVably~ and. likely, a petsQn with.

nefariOus' intent could find their way into apprOpri~ng·an 1DNYC ca,rd, and may·utitize same to:

. criminal sets, .deleteriOus to t:&e. wellllre
propagate . of oor city, stare, aDd naticn.
18. It would be incumbent upon law enforcement agencies to seek outafot~tioned

doc_uttienlatiQn for the plU.')lOses-of crime solving, and/or crime deterrence.. ThC'dC:.struetion ofthiR:

-
dOc~D,tatiOn wo:ul<f tetJder ·such hwesUgatitu,t ~it h:npossibility,


.
Dated> Dcecmber ~0!6
Stirten Island, NY

ST~rE OFNEW y()RJ( )
)ss.:
C()lJl<TY OF RICHMOND ) 1

On fu),. \..r ( ,
2Ql61. befqre me jlef801l31Jyq:~
IfmJ, ,Ro)llll~
Caslprina, Jr., to me known, aild known to be t:&e•indiVi<hlal ~rlb<d .in, aild•wJ,o ~the·
fo Affidavit, and dul)l owledge to me
jhai be execii(e!l (lie ism~. .


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 50 of 128


EXHIBIT
A


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 51 of 128
1112912016 Th!lrk You from NYC.gov.The OfHcial New York City Web Site

NYC Resources I 311 I Office of the Mayor

• Thank You For Filling Out This Fonn

Shown below is yours bmission to NYC.gov on Tuesday, November 29,
This fonn re ides at http://www1.nyc.gov/sitelhrafaboutffoil--request.page
2016 at 12:23:11

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Ronald
Last Name: Gastorina Jr
Address: 7001 Amboy Road Suite 202 E
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10307
Email: roncastorina@gmail.com
Phone: 718--967·5194
I request dellvery, to my office address listed above, all scanned appllcatlon
Request: materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys Municipal
10 program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency including
the Mayors Office in digital fonnat.

Copyright 2016 The City of New York Contact Us I Privacy Policy I Terms of Use

• hltp://WWW.IlfC.!PJ/doitlcaptdlafvalldatecap 1N
-- -~ ----~~-

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 52 of 128
' '


EXHIBIT
B


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 53 of 128

NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENTof
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Andrew M. Cuomo Maria T. Vullo
Governor Superintendent

September I, 2016

Michael P. Smith
President and CEO
New York Bankers Association
99 Park Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

William Mellin
President
New York Credit Union Association
P.O. Box 15118
AJbany,NY 12212

Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Mellin:

This letter provides guidance by the Department of Financial Services (the "Department'') on
whether the New York City Municipal Identification Card ("Municipal ID'') can be used by
banks and credit unions to verify the identity of prospective customers under New York's
customer identification program ("CIP") requirem~nts for customers who seek to open bank
accounts.

The Department is committed to ensuring broad access to financial products and services for all
consumers and recognizes the Municipal ID as one method to expand access to financial Services
in New York. For individuals, access to bank and credit union accounts helps preserve income,
leads to savings and asset-building opportunities, and improves access to affordable credit
opportunities. Indeed, access to banking services can improve the overall economic well~being
of al1 New Yorkers and the New York economy.

The Department is aware that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Systetl4 the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, t~?-e "Federal Agencies'') have previously provided

• (800) 342-3736 I ONE STATE STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10004-1511 l WWW.DFS.NY.OOV
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 54 of 128

guidance on this issue in a letter dated April30, 2015. 1 The federal CIP rule requires banks to
have CIPs for account opening that use risk-based procedures for verifying the identity of each
customer so that the bank can form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the
customer. The minimum information a bank must obtain is the prospective customer's name,

date of birth, address and an identification number. 2

The CIP rule does not prescribe a specific type of government-issued identification card for use
by institutions. Institutions that rely on dOcumentary fonns of evidence to verify a customer's
identity should have procedures in place to identify the types of docmnents the institution will
accept for such verification. Accordingly, it is the Department's position that institutions may
accept the Municipal ID as a means of documentary verification as provided in the institutions'
CIP procedures.

The Department encourages New York state-chartered and licensed financial institutions to
accept the Municipal ID as a form of acceptable identification card, utilizing procedures applied
to all potential customers to assess the risk presented by the customer and any need for additional
documentation or infonnation.

}:;;;jL,
Maria T. Vullo
Superintendent

~See Federal Agencies' response letter (Aprll3o, 2015). The Federal Agencies also concluded that the
identification number included on all Municipal IDs satisfies the non-U.S. person Identification number
requirement contained !n the federal CIP rules.

a31 C.F.R.1020.220; see 3 NYCRR Part 116.2


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 55 of 128


EXHIBIT
c


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 56 of 128

---
--
- •
-
--- . . .,. f$ IIIH

ax-.• M UIIIAIL ·
OCiabet 20, 20M
Horl. Milia T. VUllo. ...............
ar.s.e ....
-York. NY 1-
Hew YOlk IA8Ie ~IIIF'Imlncllll SllnloM

IU!: • ' n r• a r tnll1n Z' nn Cl!!l
DMr~Vull>:

, _ _ JIIIniJJOIIf_ .......... 1,20t8,1D. . - - . ~ill
AMCidan.lt'ld ....... YOlk Cfeiill~IU' tlii-Mfii'W . . Ii•S! C« ,_.,
10 IICiMIIt- Y<lltt Clr MWnloiptllds:III:.IIDII Clldl a adrt Ml snaftlltGti II'W •
~~ant-. Thlllillm,tf lds:IIIII•Uon 1u01 . . .,....,., • - • • lllui••


lhltWIIInldlitkll.doiii ..... MIIriii ................ _ _ _ ,IrC
dfndllll <I ptllOI.....,. to tilllllln tn NW: Mill Ia' II 10 c.t 11 • .,.. -
-.eerta'llly .........................
fDr
NYC MWnloiptiiO en.- 11111....,1u ......,.. SMIII....,._Ntrr••• tni
ctoft01d.il8f'llwdtthlillfomtlllttW1prntt&d . . . . :JGa•••••fft M&IIDftCIIIIIII
-fDr....., ..
do. lnfMt.lwNYCI..FIIIIIpeiiDc.t ....... e_JIIII .......
Nlfdlllr:.. Ona...,...,.......... ...,. .......,.,,....lf•P•nrn
•• PllfO!i1 afflllelil tl _ _ . • ••• . . •••• m,...._
..._..a 1&11...,
MlliJ tilllllln M lillm of lds:lllll:eii!IIID fl" I lie · - S ... l.s?o .. M )Jill
n OJIII*'IV. taolgrlll • ._ P"FIIIIIIIIf...., 1111111! •::r:•:d10 tni esii.IIIW
.......... .Od .............. Hew YOitoiiiW ... .., ...... AII---IIIa .... •s•
Wily.


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 57 of 128

• ...,_
~to~
.....-.-....,.---.
fraud. .... ., ............ , Mli:Udlr ttllllblll ,., ........

p11b1o,--
Yaok-
y_ ...... , •••• ...,......... _ ............................. ...
v_two,.,.u,._,,.,,o
no.__
W.IIOIIIII, c:iles
....... .-.......
"'* ..-.
, • .._...,..Diir
Yaok's ........ ID..,.,..N'IC DID-Ill --~~~-
plllg JOU.-. 1: dlle 110 .........,..
IIUIIIIQIIno )'1111< opiii[Qp. "doe~'*.- 111 _.:De,_.
-
••mil•••
..... NYC 10. Your leaior. f l i t - to...... _... • ., . . _, .... tiON
will
t.- _.., - ... ~ wilh .... N'IC .,. to .......... ~ .... .
...w.. ptCCiido. ... ....... )'1111< ....... to ..... Yell(. . . . . . . - · : -
_....,.......,d!lill:lneeforh•!IOin~c:f. . -J!OU........_ .....

Your-. in lilY"""*"" 11 11~ ID -~~ . . Loet' · - . . - . , .
,....... ln2008 ... felflell, . . _ _ _ , : : · · - - · · I -

fntlidlf~syllam. W.ate~a..,.•ourue.tceaeq TattiiC. .. ,...,.
_ . . iJ'dearilllc:fl'leNYCIOIJIOUOMO:_Inlio_'f 11 •

~ lllerllfonl. rn~ ~ llle.fclc. 1),... mCIJI:I ... .......,
..-cl in The MunlcliPal ID l.lllllr; 2) llliw . . !*Jill Ill - tl:!lir IPI i..,.
flllllldll¥ thlull!lllr in,_ Yoot< IMio4lh . . •- iilfoe -~~~.- 3}lfll*.,.u!lt•
lhon>uglo-~-....,...to . . tes' 'llnforcar lk:.....,_


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 58 of 128


EXHIBIT
D


Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 36-5 Filed 04/20/17 Page 59 of 128
' 12/312015 New York City may erase ID card data to prolectlllegallmmlgranls 1Fox News

• U.S. HOME CRIME

ILLE!GAL 11U11GRAN1S
TERRORISM ECONOMY

New York City may erase 10 card data to protect illegal
immigrants
IMMIGRAT10N DISASTERS MILITARY EOUCATION ENVIRONMENT PERSONAl FREEDOMS REGIONS

Publlthed No119ml>er 15, 2016
Auode~Jte~Pran

• Jlli< •odatod Jno~ prov~ l>y N""'York Ctrv Hall ·~- a ••..,..ID oor4 iUti<!d b'f 1ho ~.1\dVt>Ooloo ofl.. l y .. (, ~liD card program •aid ~ WOI/III ~olp poo,;o
tvirlg in lho <o1.<1lry il>lldv vomcn OUl o!'tl!e on.-. Now"""'" loor ~ coul:l in<l....:l opou t!>om lo dopon:oflon_ Siote Oono\11 Trwnp'• prooidon11ololochon Vic!Or'J, lho ell)' ;o
oonold..-,g <:loo!royiog tl'to eonttooldoro' pouonol "'""'"'· {Now Yott Cil)' Hahio AP)

NEW YORK- When New York City launched the nation's biggest municipaJID card program last year, advocates said it would
help people living in the U.S. illegally to venture out of !he shadows.

ADVERTISEMENT

But since Donald Trump was elected president, city officials are Instead fielding questions about whether the cards could put
those same people at greater risk of being deported.

The city has vowed to protect cardholders' personal records and might even delete them using a kind of self-destruct provision
that aUows for the infonnation to be destroyed at the end of the year.

• I>J.Ieasl one state lawmaker has criticized that idea, saying It could make it Impossible to trace people If they have obtained cards
fraudulently.

htlp:/M<ww.toxnews.comlual2016111/15frew..yock-clty-may-erase-ld-card-data-fo..prolecl-Uiegal-lmmigarts.hlml