Strunk's 2nd Circuit T1080 08-3242-cv Motion To Hear On Same Day As 08-4323-cv Stamped Received

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Thurgood Marshalt U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
MOTION INFORI\.lATION STATEMENT
Docket Number(s):
Motion for:
08-3242-
~ e & s t to have ~ppellant

~ r i abefore
f the - Panel as in 08-432- Sfrunk V . USPS et al.
Caption [use short title1
Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:

1
Appellant Brief was submmed and scheduled to be heard January 15.2010 on submisskm
without oral argument Tho subjecl malter is relatedto the Appeal 054323-cv and should be heard
at the &me time by the samo Panel of God-feating Judges falher than Gnostic and or non-believers.
MOVING PARTY: OPPOSING PARTY:

E ' -
m e city d ~ e yw eY-.
- . .--
9
I .
Plaintiff Defendant %>70 TI -.

_I
Appellanfletitioner AppelleelRespondent w-oz'

wc> -
=K -
mr.: .. ,z
MOVING ATTORNEY:
Christopher-Earl:Strunk In esse
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse OPPOSING ATTORNEY: MICHAEL A. CAR
[name of attorney, with firm,address, phone number and e-mail]
100 Church Street
CJI
- Counsel d me Clty d New Yo*
CorpoRldr
ui
I
-
593 Vanderbilt Avenue %281 New York. New York 10007
Brooklyn New York 11238 Telephone: (212) 780-0849
(845) 901-6767 email: chris@sbunkws Email: SKitzing63law.nyc.gov
Court-JudgeIAgency appealed from:
Please check appropriate boxes:

USDC of the Eastern DisMcl of New Ywk Order to Dismiss of Judge Allyne R. Ross in NDNY 08-1~-1744.
FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND

I
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has request for relief been made below? yes NO
Yes No (explain): Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? Yes 63 No
Requested return date and explanation of emergency:
Opposing counsel's position on motion:
Unopposed b p o s e d
P
on't Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
Yes NO O ~ o n ' Know
t
Is oral argument on motion requested? m ~ e sn N o (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
Has argument date of appeal been set? q Yes No If yes, enter date: Jan~aV15.2010
0
Date:JMqy IdIu1
Has service been effected? q YCS No [Attach proof of service]
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion is GRANTED DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O ' H A G A N WOLFE, Clerk of Court
Date: By: 1
Form T-1080
STRUNK’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE T1080 MOTION
REQUEST TO HAVE APPELLANT BRIEF FOR 08-3242-CV HEARD
THE SAME DAY BEFORE THE SAME PANEL AS IN 08-4323-CV
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28

USC §1746:
1. Declarant is the Appellant/Petitioner herein Appeal Case Strunk
v. USPS et al. 08-3242-cv, and with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt
Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238.
2. Declarant files this declaration in support of the T1080 motion
request to have the Appellant Brief of 08-3242-cv Appeal heard on the same
day before the same panel as in Appeal Case 08-4323-cv.
3. That the Hearing date on submission for the 08-3242-cv Appeal
Case is scheduled for January 15, 2010 and hereby is requested to be
coordinated for a different date at the Court’s choosing, in that Declarant is
one of three Appellants in the appeal case Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. 08-
4323-cv.
4. Declarant has spoken with Appellants, H. William: Van-Allen
in esse, and John-Joseph: Forjone in esse who are all members of THE AD
HOC NYS (New York State) CITIZENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING, an un-incorporated membership
association of Plaintiffs, and neither oppose this motion request to have
1
Appellant Brief of 08-3242-cv heard on the same day before the same panel
as in 08-4323-cv.
5. Declarant is an active voter within the New York (NY) 57th
Assembly District (AD), NY 18th Senate District (SD) and NY 11th U.S.
House District created in April 2002 and is affected by the same questions
before the Appeal Court Panel in the Appeal Case Loeber et al v. Spargo et
al. 08-4323-cv.
6. Those as a matter of economy of Court time and consistency of
the Appeal decision, as both are directly related, must be heard together; as
both would be the subject of a consolidation motion for Certiorari Writ from
the U.S. Supreme Court were it necessary.
7. That as a ninth amendment injury issue before this Court also,
the nature of the matter before this Court requires any Judge to absolutely
believe in God, in that the Preamble to the New York Constitution states
quote:
“We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God
for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH
THIS CONSTITUTION. “
8. That Declarant’s inalienable rights are given by Almighty God
not a man, men or entities, and contends that any Gnostic un-believer must
recuse him or herself in that such Judge by default accepts a usurper
2
temporal power in provision of rights, whose one world temporal and
spiritual leader over all men contrary to requirements of the Declaration of
Independence of July 4, 1776 thereafter incorporated into each Constitution
of the,founding colonies including the April 20, 1777 New York
Constitution, that thereafter broke with King George 111.
9. Declarant as a matter of epistemological proof and logic, knows
as to his 9" amendment right that there is no possible way Appellant(s) may
obtain a fair hearing without a Judge@)dedicated to Almighty Godfor our
freedom and the Original Constitution, and which is diametrically opposed
to the Jesuit Doctrine of ggSocial

Justice that has permeated the Court
"
system and governance since 1868 and is synonymous with the
unconstitutional heresy of the "theLiving Constitution".
Respectfilly submitted and certified to be true under penalty of
perjury 9
Dated: January 8,2010

Brooklyn, New York
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281

Brooklyn., New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 .
Email: chris@,strunk.ws
08-3242-cv
________________________________________________________________________
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk,
Appellant / Plaintiff,
-versus-
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS), James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS
Board of Directors; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC); NYC BOARD OF
ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony
Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O’Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy
Mottola-Schacher, Gregory C. Soumas, Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and
Individually;
Appellees / Defendants,
New York State Board of Elections, New York State Attorney General, and
the United States Attorney General,
Parties-in-interest
________________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT BRIEF
(errata corrections)
________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk

pro se without being an attorney
593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281
Brooklyn New York 11238
(212) 307-4444 uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
Appellant / Plaintiff

(212) 307-4444 email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
Appellee / Defendants:
James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS Board of Directors

United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.
Washington, DC 20260
by
Benton J. CAMPBELL
United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201-1820
Phone: (718) 254-6024
THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC)

Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo
NYC Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS

NYC BOE Commissioners
32 Broadway
New York, NY 10004.
Parties-in-interest
Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General

State of New York, Office of the Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York, NY, 10271
Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq.

Special Counsel
New York State Board of Elections
40 Steuben St.
Albany, NY, 12207
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................……………………....iii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..……………………………… 1
QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................……………………... 2
• Court Jurisdiction over United States Postal Service under 28 USC 1339 with Issues 1- 4 ….2
• Court Jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service agents under Bivens with Issue 5.…2
• Court Jurisdiction over the Constitutionality of 39 USC 201 as to the process appointing
directors for the “independent” United States Postal Service agents with Issue 6………….……..4
• Ballot Access and Suffrage injury with Issues 7 thru 12………………………………………5
• Court jurisdiction over the question of first impression of what is Voting Age Population of
NVRA and HAVA that does affect ballot access and suffrage with Issues 13 thru 15………..…..7
• Court jurisdiction over gerrymander injury to ballot access and suffrage with Issues 16 – 19..8
• Court jurisdiction over supplemental injury that must be ancillary to a related case request for
a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel with Issues 20 thru 21……………………………………........9
• Court disparagement of claim of civil rights conspiracy of secret organizations w/ Issue 22..10
STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION......................................………………………10
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .................................………………………11
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................………………………11
STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................…..………………......12
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………...18
CONCLUSION...........................................…………………...........................................………..20
JURAT…………………..………........................................………………...................................20
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Federal Authorities:
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)………..3
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)……………………………….19
Kalson v. Patterson U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit No. 07-1243-cv (9/9/08)…………7,19
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ………………………………………………...…………10,19
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)……………………………………………..……………19,
WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964)…………………………………………………10,19
Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983): revisit equal eligible voters …………………..…9,10,19
Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966)………………………………………………….……...19
Rodriquez v Pataki USDC SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284)…………………………………10,19
Davis v. Bandemer 478 U.S. 109 (1986)…………………………………………………...……. 19
Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1946)…………………………………………………………..19
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13 n. 16 (1976)……………………………………………..………3
Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 61 n.13 (2d Cir. 1994)…………………………………..……….6
Luther v. Borden (1842) – Republican form of government question………………………….…19
Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) ("Shaw II"): voting civil rights involved in redistricting
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 652 (1993) ("Shaw I"): voting civil rights involved in redistricting
Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. ("PRLDEF") v. Gantt et al. EDNY 92 cv
1521 / 92 cv 1776 by minority reapportionment complaints
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992): “Usual Residence” definition by 8 Justices
Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973)
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730
Gray v. Sanders, 372 US 368 (1969)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article I Section 3 Cl. 4 - Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate…...4
Article 1 Section. 8 Cl. 1- Congress shall have Power to lay & collect Taxes, Duties, ……………5
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 - regulation of commerce clause……………………………………..5
iii
Postal Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 7…………………………………………….…………5
Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5 - No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State…5
Article II: Section 2 Clause 2 - [the President] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate,………………………………………………………………………………5
Article IV Section 2-1: Citizens of each State enjoy equal privileges and immunities……….
Article IV Section 4: Guarantee of Republican form of government………………………..….19
First Amendment: People right to assemble / petition government to redress grievance ………….3
Fifth Amendment: no deprivation w/o due process of law…………………………………………3
Ninth Amendment: certain rights shall not deny/disparage rights retained by People…….……….3
Tenth Amendment: Powers not granted Federal nor prohibited reserved by People…....................3
Fourteenth Amendment: Citizen due process and equal protection…………………………….
NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION

The amended New York State Constitution
NYS Constitution Article III Section 4………………………………….…………………………9
Article III the State Legislature Sections 5 ……………………………………………. 8,9
NEW YORK STATUTES

NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 . sovereignty in the people
NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Art 5A Section 53 thru 57
NYS Election Law:
§1-104(3) for qualifications of state parties
§3-102 (granting the State Board the power to "issue instructions and promulgate rules . . . relating
to the administration of the election process," to "direct" that county board procedures be
modified, and to "perform such other acts as may be necessary")
§3-104(1) (granting the State Board responsibility for "statutes governing campaigns, elections
and related procedures")
§ 4-100 (creation of election districts)..............................…………………………………..
§5-304 (3), EL §5-210(g), EL §5-604, EL §5-606 certification of lists as apply to NVRA and
HAVA, EL §6-136(1), EL §6-136(2) (h), EL §6-136(3)………………………………….……….6
§5-602 - voter enrollment list………………………………………………………………..…..…6
§6-124 for the Republican Party Judicial Convention to choose Republican Judges………..……..1
FEDERAL STATUTES
• 28 U.S.C. § 1291..................................................................................……………..……….1,10
• 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) …………………………….……………………….……3,7,19
iv
• 1965 Voting Rights Act Section 5 review……………………………………..…………9,14,17
• Civil Rights Act pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Sections §1983, §1985, §1988…………………..3
• National Voter Registration Act 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg (NVRA) .................………….2,3,7,13,18
• Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) under postal service treaty with the State of New York,
NYC and NYC Board of Elections for equal protection under 42 USC §1973..……2,3,7,13,18
• The Hatch Act 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508 for State employees…..2,3
• The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (ch. 27, 22 Stat. 403) of 1883………………………3
• the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, (P.L. 92-225), 86 Stat. 3,
enacted 1972-02-07, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.)……………………………………………….…..3
• 28 USC §1339…………………………………………………………………………….……3,
• 28 USC §1343 (a) (1) (2) (3) (4); 28 USC §1331; 28 USC §1357.
• 28 USC 2284 for three judge panel……………………………………………….………2,9,10
• 39 U.S.C. § 201 : There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service………….….4
FEDERAL RULES
• USPS Non-profit Standard Mail Rule 703…………………………………………..…..….2,3
• 2nd Circuit Rule §.27 - Certification of an Issue to the NYS Court of Appeals……..............20
• Fed. R. Ap. P. (FRAP) R. 34, oral argument in re USPS Non-profit Standard Mail Rule 703
• Fed. R. Ap. P. R. 44(a), Constitutional question when USPS is party
• Fed. R. Ap. P. R. 44(b), Constitutional challenge to gerrymander by state laws
RELATED CASES (Appellant as direct party):

• Rodriquez v Pataki - SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284)
• Arbor Hill et al. v. Albany County et al. NDNY 03-cv-502 (NAM) and at 2nd Cir 04-9132
• Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193………………………………..………2,7
• Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002………………………………2,7,14
RELATED APPEAL CASES:
Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193 with appeal case 08-4323-cv with an
emergency motion for expedited hearing of three judge panel issue…………………………11
v
INTRODUCTION
Pro se Appellant, Christopher Earl Strunk (Strunk), below appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, with the Notice of Appeal filed 6/30/08 (A-17) from the Order and Civil Judgment of
6/11/08 (A-18) of Judge Allyne R. Ross for the case in the Eastern District of New York along
with the underlying Memorandum and Order of 5/9/08 (A-20) as to the underlying Amended
Complaint (AC) of 08-cv-1744 filed 6/9/08 (A-26).
That Strunk had filed a T1080 emergency motion for ballot access for the Republican
Primary on September 9, 2008, and other relief 7/3/08 (A-4) that was denied by the Hon.
Barrington D. Parker, Circuit Judge on 7/15/08 (A-3); and that thereafter 2nd Circuit Clerk
9/5/08 Order to Show Cause for Dismissal on Default of Appeal Case 08-3242-cv Strunk v
USPS (A-1), requires that this Appellant Brief and Appendix annexed be filed on or before
9/19/08 accordingly.
That Strunk is a legitimate Republican Party Candidate with important issues including:
the Election Law (EL) §6-124 Judicial Nominating Convention for which Strunk also sought to
be a Republican Delegate from the 57th Assembly District (AD) to be put on the agenda in
Albany involving Brooklyn Home rule; various legislative initiatives; preparation for the 2010
Federal Census that would lead to the 2012 redistricting of all State and U.S. House seats; most
importantly for facilitating the 2016 State Constitutional Convention; and therefore, I sought
ballot access for the September 9, 2008 Primary and November General Elections for election to
the New York State Senate from the extremely gerrymandered political district of the 18th Senate
District (SD) within the Borough of Brooklyn within the City of New York and have been helped
by Republicans outside NYC having provided Strunk with a gratis website at www.strunk.ws .
That Strunk had filed the complaint informa pauperis, and that although having been
granted the opportunity to amend the complaint, nevertheless the Judge dismissed the exparte
1
action sua sponte as being irrational and frivolous with prejudice, without reaching the merits of
the complaint. That this complaint has supplemental injuries associated with the gerrymandering
and federal issues related to those alleged in Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193
and Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002; both requesting a 28 USC §2284
three judge panel on statewide districting.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Court Jurisdiction over United States Postal Service

under 28 USC 1339 with Issues 1 thru 4
ISSUE 1: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the conclusive
presumptive evidence of injury when eligible voter lists are systematically maintained with
between 20% and 35% inactive voters as impacted wrongly by dicta associated with the NVRA
and HAVA in which the USPS has a direct duty and authority to act with the NYS BOE and
respective local Boards including the NYC BOE to ascertain the actual certification and
eligibility of those qualified to vote, and duty failure directly injures and burdens Plaintiff along
with those similarly situated.
ISSUE 2: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon his challenge to
the applicability of the Hatch Act 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326 to the USPS in regards to Rule 703 and
that the USPS in that regard must not be exempt under Section 7324 of the Hatch Act that
provides an exemption to the ban on political activities to:
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be
pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
2
ISSUE 3: That the Judge erred by dismissing the complaint as to the USPS despite 28 USC
§1339, USPS Board of Directors are a return to the spoils system in that without a meritorious
competitive hiring with an appointment system that violates the Pendleton Civil Service Reform
Act (ch. 27, 22 Stat. 403) of the year 1883 as the United States federal law that established the
United States Civil Service Commission, which placed most federal government employees on
the merit system and marked the end of the so-called "spoils system." The act provided for some
government jobs to be filled on the basis of competitive exams.
ISSUE 4: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon his challenge to
the applicability of USPS Rule 703 under the Federal Election Campaign Act Among the act's
major features are the creation of the Federal Election Commission and rules concerning
disclosure, public financing, and contribution limits: while the Hatch Act pertains to only the
Federal workforce, the Federal Election Campaign Act (or FECA) regulates all activities
associated with federal elections—Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional races.
Court Jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service’s

agents under Bivens with Issue 5
ISSUE 5: That the Judge erred by dismissing the complaint as to the USPS despite 28 USC
§1339, in that USPS and its agents as of right as against the Director(s) and their agents under
Bivens, as of right as under congressional enabling legislation under the NVRA and HAVA
provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) have violated the 1st, 5th 9th and 10th amendment
rights of Plaintiff and those similarly situated, and as a matter of denial of substantive due
process and equal protection under the law enabled by Congress, Strunk alleges a conspiracy
with state action as applies under 42 USC 1983 and 1985. Discovery would have proven such.
3
Court Jurisdiction over the Constitutionality of 39 USC 201
as to the process appointing directors for
the “independent” United States Postal Service agents with Issue 6
ISSUE 6: There is a case of first impression challenging independence of the USPS Directors
from the executive branch appointment that now by advise and consent with the Executive VP as
President of the Senate does not conform with the law for an independent establishment;
whereby, control by members of two federal political parties is a matter of misadministration and
misapplication and or unconstitutionality of 39 U.S.C. § 201 as would apply to appointing
directors.
When the Congress established the USPS as an independent establishment of the
executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service, it
requires unlike that of the Court system as if a fourth branch of government to be separate from
manipulation by the executive; now in fact is not an independent body from the Executive
different than from the Justice Branch must at least have election of all USPS Director of the
board by the entire Congress not just the Senate when members are proposed by the Executive:
a. Nine members are selected from the Republican and Democratic Party appointed
by the President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate only.
That the activity of the USPS by the very nature of its mandate interferes with interstate
commerce, individual rights and directly conflicts with:
Article I Section 3 Clause 4 - The Vice President of the United States shall be President
of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. Means that the vote of the
Senate alone is not independent entirely of the executive requires a votes of the House unlike that
of the Executive officers who serve at the pleasure of the President and of Judges who once
approved are not part of the Executive or Congress however may be limited as to jurisdiction by
the entire Congress with a two thirds vote.
4
Article 1 Section. 8 Clause 1 that the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 – that congress has the power to regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes, not the USPS;
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7- To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5 No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
State. – The USPS affects such activity directly. albeit first class mail in the same from every
state some state sin the matter of USPS Rule 703 burdens some more than others in the elective
process in other states, in that the subsidy is not done on upon a per capita basis; and therefore,
singles out and injures political opponents to incumbents of specific smaller State parties.
Article II: Section 2 Clause 2 - [the President] He shall have Power, by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all
other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,
and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the
Heads of Departments.
Ballot Access and Suffrage injury with Issues 7 thru 12
ISSUE 7: The Judge erred in dismissing when there is conclusive evidence of speech and
association injury from the burden imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents, as
complained of in AC. See paragraph 43 (A-13) in Strunk’s Affidavit in Support of Relief that
5
starts at (A-6) therein Petitioner has been injured by denial of ballot access, and is entitled to a
certified voting list as required by this court in the appeal case Schulz v. Williams 44 F.3d 48. 6 1 n.
13 (2d Cir.1994). and therein this Court stated that EL Section 5-602 provides in relevant part:
"The board of elections shall prepare at least fifty copies of such pamphlet and
shall send at least one copy of each such list to the state board of elections. at least
two copies to the county chairman of each political party, and shall keep at least
five copies for public inspection at each main office or branch of the board. Other
copies shall be sold at a charge not exceeding the cost of publication."
ISSUE 8: That the Judge erred in dismissing sua sponte when there is conclusive presumptive
evidence which is rebutable by the NYC BOE misapplication and misadministration of active
voters list shown by the facts and allegations asserted in the AC starting at paragraph 23 (A-34).
ISSUE 9: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the alleged facts
of the Brooklyn BOE office manager denial of access to the active Republican Party voter
enrollment, alleged at AC paragraphs 54 through 59 (A-40).
ISSUE 10: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon unlawful denial
of enrollment and voter list at the cost of reproduction alleged at AC paragraphs 59 (A-41).
ISSUE 11: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the NYC BOE
denial of a certified enrollment and voters list on digital media at the cost of production of $1
cost of a CD.
ISSUE 12: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the
constitutionality issue of capping signatures for those State Parties while burdening minor or
smaller State Parties with significantly more signatures under the 5% of enrollment rule related
to EL §5-304 (3), EL §5-210(g), EL §5-604, EL §5-606 in which certification of lists apply to
NVRA and HAVA, EL §6-136(1), EL §6-136(2) (h), EL §6-136(3).
6
Court jurisdiction over the question of first impression of what is
Voting Age Population under NVRA and HAVA
that does affect ballot access and suffrage with Issues 13 thru 15.
ISSUE 13: That the matter of Voting Age Population (VAP) used by the HAVA, has been
misconstrued by bad actors to mean all persons of Voting Age rather than all persons qualified
under law to vote; and under Federal Law as well as State Law that means only those qualified to
vote, which is at the center of the controversy burdening Plaintiff herein; and remains a question
of first impression complained of in the case Loeber v. Spargo in NDNY 04-cv-1193 now on
appeal from an order to dismiss and is related to the supplemental injury to plaintiff herein. The
two cases are inseparable and have interlocking issues yet to be heard by a three-judge panel.
That the VAP issue as a matter of first impression has been alleged in Loeber et al. v.
Spargo et al. in NDNY 04-v-1193 and Forjone et al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002;
however, has never been heard on the merits of the injury involved, should be heard herein,
especially since the matter has been discussed in the affirmative in the appeal case Kalson v.
Patterson U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit No. 07-1243-cv with a decision issued 9/9/08.
.ISSUE 14: That the Judge fails to guarantee Petitioner’s equal treatment of fundamental rights
as applies to Citizens of each State for suffrage and autonomy excluding non-citizens, who
absolutely have no right to vote; and therefore, aren’t part of the Voting Age Population at all.
ISSUE 15: That the Judge fails to recognize that Petitioner is a member of the Voting Age
Population that by gerrymandering, varies wildly from one district to the next, suffers from
Disproportionate Diminished Dilution of voting power, notwithstanding total persons, within
any total population district as a result of mechanistic malfeasant dicta set forth under the VRA.
7
Court jurisdiction over gerrymander injury to ballot access and suffrage
with Issues 16 thru 19.
ISSUE 16: That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon an ongoing
conclusive presumption of gerrymandering injury in that the 57th AD is subdivided by the 18th
SD that imposes an unreasonable burden upon petitioner's ability for ballot access as the
Republican Party Judicial Convention delegate from the 57th AD, and that when the 57th AD is
not wholly within the 18th SD as required by the New York State Constitution Article 3 Section
5, quote:
“Assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be

of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable, each of which
shall be wholly within a senate district."
"In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts
shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be evenly divided
among the senate districts of any county."
ISSUE 17: That the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing with evidence that the 18th SD
does not have a minimum number of ADs wholly within as required by the State Constitution for
mandatory equal protection, that provides AD residents a reasonable expectation to unify the AD
with the adjoining ADs to effect control over the respective corresponding senator .
ISSUE 18: That the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing despite evidence that the 18th SD
does not have the same number of ADs wholly within equal to the other existing SDs within
Brooklyn as a matter of equal treatment and burden upon petitioner and those similarly situated
as a gerrymandering injury. That in regards to the Strunk Affidavit in support of relief from
paragraph 13 on A-8 that in general as to gerrymandering injury, is shown starting at A-63,
compares the 17th SD has portions of 7 ADs; at A-64, the 18th SD has portions of 8 ADS; at A-
66, the 19th SD has portions of 8 ADs; at A-67, the 20th SD has portions of 10 ADs; at A-69, the
21st SD has portions of 9 ADs; at A-71, the 22nd SD has portions of 9 ADs; at A-74, a part of the
8
23rd SD has portions of 6 ADs; at A-74, a part of the 25th SD has portions of 4 ADs; and at A-
75, the 27th SD has portions of 9 ADs..
ISSUE 19: That the Judge erred in dismissing when there is prima facie evidence of
misapplication and misadministration of the State Constitution Article III Section 4 as to
redistricting of Senate. and as directly coincides with Article III Section 5 for Assembly
redistricting, related to county home rule as well as to U.S. House seats that shall be drawn
together and have from the April 2002 redistricting, notwithstanding any pre clearance process
under the limited purpose of the Voting Rights pre-clearance process for which any seat within a
Voting Rights Act (VRA) covered county specifically dealing with home rule boundaries without
recognizing the interrelation of the two branches of the state legislature and House seats, that
mindlessly calculates an arbitrary guidelines without proof of any injury 40 years after some
minorities in jurisdiction long resolved complained with reason long forgotten, appears a knee
jerk exercise to gerrymander for unjust enrichment and a dynastic political autocracy under its
control using backroom computer programmers for redistricting.
That Justice Rehnquist in the decision for the case Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725
(1983), stated that county political boundary lines are a legitimate concern in districting and that
even with total population being equal, voters may be effectively disenfranchised and chosen by
an incumbent using a sophisticated computer program; and that the Justice refers to New York as
traditionally cunning in that regard.
Court jurisdiction over supplemental injury that must be ancillary to a related case
request for a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel with Issues 20 thru 21
ISSUE 20: That the Judge erred even when notified of the supplemental injury affected by the
related case request for a 28 USC 2284 panel; must be seen as ancillary to such actions.
9
ISSUE 21: This case is dispositive to the related case Loeber v. Spargo in that facts associated
with the injury support the claim here, that there is a substantial issue for creation of a three
Judge Panel and requires a narrow interpretation of the State Constitution and related remedies
available to a Federal judge as created under Baker v Carr, and Karcher v. Daggett that kept
home-rule state political Boundaries when drawing districts.
Court disparagement of claim of civil rights conspiracy of

secret organizations with Issue 22.
ISSUE 22: The judge erred when it characterized as irrational and frivolous the claim that asserts
there is an underlying civil rights conspiracy to deprive rights involving the York and Scottish
Rite Freemasonry of the Free and Accepted Fraternity of Masonry operating with those of the
Sovereign Military Order of Malta in conjunction with State action based upon available history.
STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION
Certainly Circuit has jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 USC 1291; and in regards
to whether or not the District Court has jurisdiction over these above matters it clearly does and
that as to the ancillary matter of the supplemental injury associated with the request for a three
judge panel this case absolutely does apply to the jurisdiction that the district judge would have
under 28 USC 2284. However, herein it gets complicated by related cases. Circuit must have
jurisdiction at this point to resolve this complicated matter. Especially since the related case
decision shown at A-123 alleges such a request is insubstantial uses the WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo,
377 U.S. 633 (1964) and Rodriquez v Pataki SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284) too broadly; and
needs review herein whether in a panel on the same day or jointly since Strunk is also a Plaintiff.
10
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
When I got the fax from Circuit Emergency Motion Counsel on July 16, 2008, evidenced
by the date stamp on the faxed page shown at A-2, I was not aware that on the same day there
had been a Schedule issued requiring that I had to provide my brief by 8/15/08. I don’t remember
seeing any such paper and I get a lot of legal paper and realize how important it is. I have all my
mail delivered to my facility where it may take service. However, because I have been working
up in Massachusetts last week, I did not receive the OSC date 9/5/08 shown at A-1 until
Wednesday whereby I am to deliver my brief by 9/19/08 or else. I did not start to work on this
brief and appendix until Wednesday afternoon and as such it is both abbreviated and possibly
will go without response by respondents; and therefor whether or not I am able to Reply per se to
a non response is also up in the air.
Therefore, I believe it essential that I be allowed both a reply to a non response; and
furthermore, be granted the opportunity for oral argument even if respondents do not appear, and
that I be granted an extended oral argument time at the hearing, to be expedited to occur before
the election in November 2008, and on the same day before the same panel as that of the appeal
with an expedited emergency three judge matter before it in Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al. in
NDNY 04-v-1193 with appeal case 08-4323-cv with an emergency motion for expedited hearing
of three judge panel issue
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is not a simple informa pauperis case of an inexperienced pro se litigant as the
record will show. This is also not the first time that I have had a case before Judge Ross, who in
fact has three such cases that under the district dicta to assign a judge to a pro se and poor
person. I am hit with an additional burden because I am involved in issues that no bread and
11
butter attorney would touch with a ten foot pole, but perhaps would wish they had the
opportunity to do so without losing their law practice because of retribution from the bench. I
was one of three plaintiffs in a matter in which they sued the Federal Reserve Bank and some
very lofty defendants. The plaintiffs in their first complaint were granted copious amounts of
time and energy by the magnanimous court including all parties in a phone conference for as
much as two hours; wherein, the judge made every effort for the minority plaintiffs. However,
district ordered Plaintiffs to amend the complaint. Thereafter, because I was a party in interest to
the outcome, I joined in the amended complaint, which eliminated defendants as the court
requested, but kept the Federal Reserve Bank and the lofty defendants, and the case was
dismissed with prejudice; and that we had no money to launch an appeal.
I have been at this for a long time and I am well aware for how everything works. But as
a pro se litigant whose every effort is to save this state by using every opportunity including
running for office with little or no funds is what I have to do; and that I should not be penalized
for having no funds under the conditions that I am subjected to here in this particular district
where I reside. If I were to have money or be a minority and have an attorney, I would get better
process and hearing; however, haven’t and rather than commiserate the merits or circuit dislike
of pro se cases, which should be apparent, I merely request my day in court as if I had money.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
There is a statement of a series of facts stated both in the Amended Complaint starting at
A-26 and in the Strunk Support Affidavit for emergency relief starting at A-6. I am not going to
repeat all the facts since District hasn’t seen them, and since the ballot access effort is moot for
this year; however, injury is not moot, will repeat time and time again, and must be corrected.
1. I am an active voter within the New York 57th Assembly District (AD) and NY 18th
Senate District (SD) created in April 2002.
12
2. I am an enrolled New York State Republican Party member actively seeking ballot access
as the Republican Candidate for election to the 18th S D and as a Republican Party Delegate or
alternate from the 57th AD to the Republican Party Judicial Nominating Convention at the
September 9, 2008 and or General Election of November 4, 2008.
3. For a state candidate in a district which the local state party in very small and in the
minority, That the basis to get a candidate on the ballot is to collect designating petition
signatures equal to 5% of the respective state party enrollment list within a political district.
4. However, the dominant State Party has benefited by gerrymandering, and in this case is
the Democratic Party that doesn’t have to get 5% of the enrollment; because, the signatures are
cappped on signatures for membership over a certain size. There is a serious ballot access
problem for challengers especially when the enrollment lists are inflated 30% illegally as is
going on statewide, and can only be confirmed by the discovery process under subpoena.
5. I am the challenger to anyone not a citizen to keep them from participating illegally in
elections unlike a majority of Democrats and past President like Mr. Clinton and the current crop
of open border, ‘let them all in’, presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle.
6. I have credentials in fighting vote fraud and am associated with controversial people in
that regard including my good friend the Honorable Robert K. Dornan as referenced at A-91 thru
A-96.
7. When a challenger to any incumbent especially within a party has no money or very little
money to wage an expensive campaign and petition effort, then the USPS becomes essential for
mailing which is the least expensive and most efficient way to seek office; and given the fact that
the 18th SD involvement is enormous and would involve expenditure of an inordinate amount of
time without an accurate certified enrollment list. The USPS Rule 703 is a burden.
8. Since enactment of the NVRA and the fallout from HAVA operates so that when the
13
state and localities deal with the voting lists without oversight of the EAC and DOJ, can get more
money by maintaining false listing in exchange for Federal dollars, in part is what the Forjone et
al. v. California et al. in NDNY 06-cv-1002 case is about, and in which I am a plaintiff; the end
result is an inaccurate enrollment list with up to 30% or more false names of the dead, moved,
homeless, duplicates and or outright illegal alien or say felons and the excluded included.
9. I performed a series of mailings that prove such facts, and because it is all done by the
USPS, provides presumptive evidence that gives me standing for the complaint to go forward.
10. Because the effort for ballot access was ongoing, the Judge never saw the evidence
gained by my campaign and petition activity, represent supplemental facts to the amended
complaint filed June 9, 2008.
11. In the Strunk Affidavit in support of emergency relief (A-6) there is a chart of the 66
USPS Returned Mailings within the 57th AD of the 18th SD (see A-99) compiled based upon 420
individual mailings posted with the USPS from June 6, 2008 through June 18, 2008, and
delivered by the USPS to active Republican Party members of the 57" AD in the 18th SD with a
conformed copy of the Designating Petition (shown at A-86 thru A-88) mailed out with a return
envelope addressed to petitioner sender campaign for the candidacies.
12. That there is prima facie evidence of misapplication and misadministration of the State
Constitution Article 3 Section 4 as to redistricting of Senate, Assembly, and House seats from
the April 2002 redistricting, and must be notwithstanding any pre clearance process under the
Voting Rights Act (VRA) or review performed by the US Department of Justice.
13. There is conclusive presumptive evidence that is rebutable by the NYC BOE
misapplication and misadministration of active voters list.
14. There is conclusive evidence of speech and association injury as a result of the burden
imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents.
14
15. That under USPS Rule 703 for Non-profit Standard Mailing rates, as relates to any
challenger or voter's expectation of reasonable effectiveness in participation in suffrage, is
absolutely a component part of petitioner’s ballot access actions and a voter’s right to know at
the mail box, as such voter injury is compounded as a result of the gerrymandering done
16. Of the 110 pieces of mail sent on June 6.2008 to the Republican Party County Committee
members with addresses posted by the Republican Party in October 2007 for the 57th AD
intersection with the 18th SD, listed on Exhibit D-5 page 4 through page 6 (A-81 thru A-83), 12
of 110 pieces were returned by the USPS. were: 1-FTE, 3 -Am, and 8- IA and as such is a
questionable return rate of say 11 percent unable to deliver.
17. That the Republican Party list of County committee members intentionally do not provide
an adequate address sufficient to deliver notice to the County Committee members of petitioner's
candidacy with the 110 pieces sent using the USPS, and as compared to the address list provided
by the NYC BOE date June 9, 2007 used for mailing 310 pieces to those Republican party
members other than the County Committee, and; whereas, of the total pieces 8 of 110 were IA as
opposed to only 2 - IA of 310 pieces referenced below; and furthermore. as shown at line item 1
through 4 on Exhibit E (A-99) the County Committee listed were not even designated by the
NYC BOE list of June 9, 2007 with a Voter ID.
18. An 11% return rate for official Republican Party county committee members is counter
intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.
19. Of the 100 or so pieces of mail sent on June 16, 2008 to the Republican party members
within the 57th AD in the 18th SD all recipients were chosen based upon the multiple number of
party members within a single household (available to no less than say 250 Republican party
members available to sign a designating petition). and of that total listed on Exhibit E (A-99), are
listed from Line item 13 through 40 as returned pieces of mail with the USPS remarks, total 28
15
being: 11- NDAA, 13- ANK, 3-FTE and 1 VAC; and is a questionable return rate of 28 percent
wherein the USPS is unable to deliver.
20. A 28% return rate for a multiple Republican Party member single households is counter
intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.
21. Of the combined 210 or so pieces of mail sent on June 17 and 18, 2008 to the Republican
Party members within the 57th AD intersection with the 18th SD, all recipients were chosen
randomly within a single household, and of that total listed on Exhibit E (A-99) are listed from
Line item 41 through 66 as returned with the remark subtotal for the 26 returns being I0-NDAA,
9- ANK, I -FTE. 2-lA. 1 -NSS, 1 -NSN. 1 -UNK. 1 –UR (Unknown return); and as such is a
questionable return rate of say 13 percent, wherein the USPS is unable to deliver for petitioner to
obtain ballot access with signatures.
22. A 13% return rate for those single Republican Party members in a single household is
counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.
23. That because the NYC BOE list of June 9, 2007 used to make the 310 mailings within the
57th AD intersection within the 18th SD have certified presumption by the NYC BOE as valid
Republican Party active voters any USPS return is questionable.
24. That under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America
to Voter Act of 2002 (HAVA) the USPS and NYC BOE have a fiduciary responsibility to do all
due process involved to verify active voting registration and or enrollment by mail. including any
change of address or as otherwise known as motor voter registration complained of by petitioner.
25. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers 13 through
66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of
irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list.
26. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E(A-99) line item numbers 13 through
16
66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of
irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list and or failure of fiduciary duty of the USPS
and or its agents.
27. That the results of the 12 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers 1 through 12
designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of
irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list to check and certify the Republican County
Committee members on file with the NYC BOE.
28. That the results of the 1 of 66 shown at Exhibit E (A-99) line item numbers I through 66
designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive evidence of
irregularities in the NYC BOE voter enrollment list and possible voter fraud that would support a
order allowing for inspection of the original voting buff cards of elections going back to no later
than 2002.
29. That there is prima facie evidence of misapplication and misadministration of the State
Constitution Article 3 Section 4 as to redistricting of Senate. Assembly and House seats from the
April 2002 redistricting, notwithstanding any pre clearance process under the Voting Rights Act
(VRA) or review performed by the US Department of Justice.
30. There is conclusive presumptive evidence which is rebutable by the NYC BOE
misapplication and misadministration of active voters list.
31. There is conclusive evidence of speech and association injury as a result of the burden
imposed by the USPS and NYC BOE and or its agents.
32. That under USPS Rule 703 for Non-profit Standard Mailing rates as relates to any challenger
or voter's expectation of reasonable effectiveness in participation in suffrage is absolutely a
component part of petitioner’s ballot access and right to know at the mail box as a voter compounded
as a result of the gerrymandering injury.
17
ARGUMENT
Ballot access and the active right to associate involved in party building within a political
district depends upon equal protection of the law for ballot access at the primary and general
election. Equal ballot access is outrageously missing in my district and throughout NYC and
statewide because of the significant difference of VAP and the referenced arbitrary rule for
capping rather than getting 5% of district enrollment that varies from one district to the next;
varies as much as 40% below to 40% above the mean eligible voters within the state and federal
districts- that is a fact and as such greatly impacts the primary and general election process.
Wealth must not be a standard to run for office, every method must be available for me.
The USPS and an accurate voting enrollment list are essential and the provision of that list has
broken down as one based upon partisan gain and money. The USPS has a fiduciary duty under
NVRA and HAVA to work and coordinate with the NYC BOE and others to guarantee accurate
enrollment lists and that process has broken down when partisan greed inflates the lists and
USPS returns are ignored for the purpose of filing false claims with the state and federal
government in hopes of HAVA and other funding. Inflated lists injure me and my party.
That NYC Defendants are ultra vires under the State Constitution Article 3, and act with
the USPS and its’ agents by operation of the NVRA and HAVA are culpable herein and are
operating together in conspiracy as applies herein as if under the Bivens case decision by the US
Supreme Court. Petitioner is without a constitutionally mandated Senate, Assembly and
Congressional District as apply to the mandatory relationship to the component ADs that must be
wholly within the respective senate district, and that based upon the breach of NYC BOE
fiduciary duty and social contract as applies, both segregate active voters and without
ascertaining citizen status of active voters, and that petitioner is under imminent threat of injury
from alien(s) voting with impunity by inaccurate voting lists; and that Petitioner has no other
18
means for relief available and has expended all options and is entitled to expedited suffrage
protection herein. The arguments used by the Judges in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.
Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) Kalson v. Patterson U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit No. 07-
1243-cv decision issued September 9, 2008 are germane herein.
Since the Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964),
decision have changed the gross aspects of disenfranchisement, there has developed a more
insidious form of disenfranchisement that requires knowledge and intelligence to detect. The
decision in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), regarding the inadequacy of equal total
population that then discriminates against actual voters within a district and between districts
must be revisited herein and within the lens of the Justices in the cases Burns v. Richardson, 384
U.S. 73 (1966), Davis v. Bandemer 478 U.S. 109 (1986), Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1946),
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13 n. 16 (1976), that give a glimpse of the problem now existing
big time in New York state, the land of computers and greed.
In the matter of districting related herein, the narrow decision of Rodriquez v Pataki
SDNY 02 cv 618 (28 USC 2284), in which I was an intervener told to start a new case separate
and apart from it did so in the Loeber Case, and all Plaintiffs and those similarly are suffering
from the underlying problem affecting us all statewide since the 1962 districting is WMCA, Inc. v
Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964); that it must be revisited as a narrow decision not in the sweeping
one that it was thought to be, that has thrown with improper use the baby out with the bathwater
has eliminated one problem in favor of another. Although no court since Justice Taney in Luther
v. Borden (1842) has taken on the heart of the issue that in all the cases is denial of a republican
form of government. In New York imprudent use of WMCA has destroyed any expectation of
participation in the electoral process and that the vast majority of state citizens resident in a home
rule county who in no less than 47 counties are without a dedicated voice in the NYS legislature.
19
We already know the answer, but we have a right to know whether or not the court
considers the state constitution has been nullified in its entirety by the WMCA, Reynolds v Sims,
Rodriguez decisions and whether or not this court considers our citizen right to a republican form
of government under the 9th amendment to Federal constitution continues. Nowhere in any
federal case to date has there been any expression that would give anyone other than a state
citizen who is also a USA citizen over 17 years of age the right to suffrage and when otherwise
construed disparages that right protected by the 14th Amendment.
CONCLUSION
Although the issues in this appeal are broad and complicated they are all related and are
festering. This case must be remanded to district to incorporate the supplemental injury that is
accruing since the June 11, 2008 order to dismiss. Discovery must proceed and a decision on the
constitutionality of the above referenced issues settled either in district or for economy of the
calendar by a fully briefed presentation to a hot court here in Circuit and if deemed under 2nd
Circuit Rule §.27 for Certification of an Issue to the NYS Court of Appeals. I believe my
requests are reasonable and sound within good jurisprudence- however unique they may seem. I
also request that the hearing of the gerrymandering and ballot access issues be heard on the same
day for oral argument before the same panel for economy of the court’s time.
Respectfully submitted and certified to be true under penalty of perjury,
Dated: September 19, 2008 /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk

Brooklyn, New York ________________________
Respectfully submitted conformed brief corrected and certified true under penalty of perjury,
Dated: September 29, 2008 /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk

Brooklyn, New York ________________________
20
08-3242-cv
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Appellant / Plaintiff,
-versus-
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS), James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS
Board of Directors; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC); NYC BOARD OF
ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony
Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O’Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy
Mottola-Schacher, Gregory C. Soumas, Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and
Individually;
Appellees / Defendants,
Parties-in-interest
________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX
________________________________________________________________________

(212) 307-4444 uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
Table of Contents for Appeal 08-3242-cv Pages
Docket entries as of June 30, 2008………………………… A-120

2nd Circuit Clerk 9/5/08 Order to Show Cause for Dismissal
on Default of Appeal Case 08-3242-cv Strunk v USPS… A-1
Order denying T1080 Motion Emergency Relief of 7/15/08 … A-3
Strunk’s Affidavit in support of emergency relief of 7/2/08….. A-6
Notice of Appeal of 6/30/08……………………………………A-17
Judge Ross’ Order and Civil Judgment of 6/11/08..…………..A-18
Judge Ross’ Memorandum and Order of 5/9/08……………….A-20
Amended Complaint of 08-cv-1744 filed 6/9/08………………A-26
Letter of Transmittal of Amended Complaint of 6/8/08……….A-98
USPS Returned Mailings within the 57th AD / 18th SD………..A-99
NYC BOE- June 9, 2007 Active Voter List extract within
Within the 57th AD / 18th SD……………………………A-100
Endorsed Republican Party Designating Petition of 6/16/08…A-101
2nd Circuit’s Summary Order of 8/15/05 in re Loeber v Spargo
04-5720-cv remanding to NDNY 04-cv-1193………….A-102
nd
2 Circuit’s Order of 1/24/06 in re Loeber v Spargo
05-6536-cv granting poor person relief……..………….A-106
Judge Arcara’s Decision and Order of 8/14/06 transferring
Forjone v US EAC et al. WDNY 06-cv-0080 to
NDNY 06-cv-1002………………………………….….A-107
Legal Memorandum in re Crawford v. Marion County
Election Board heard by the USSC published by
the Heritage Foundation 3/10/09………………………A-112
Judge Kahn’s Order of 7/31/08 dismissing Loeber v Spargo
NDNY 04-cv-1193..……………………………………A-123
Strunk’s 8/8/08 Letter Motion for Reconsideration of
Judge Kahn’s Order of 7/31/08 dismissing
Loeber v Spargo NDNY 04-cv-1193……..……………A-130
NYS AAG’s 8/18/08 Letter Opposing Reconsideration of
The 7/31/08 Order dismissing Loeber v Spargo.………A-135
Judge Kahn’s Order of 9/10/08 affirming dismissal of
Loeber v Spargo NDNY 04-cv-1193…………………. A-138
NDNY 9/2/08 Electronic Notice of Appeal of 04-cv-1193…A-142
9/17/08 Amended Notice of Appeal in NDNY 04-cv-1193…A-143
UNITED STA'I'ES COUKI' 0 1 7 APPEALS
FOR TEE
SECOND CIRCUIT
At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel
PatrickMoynihul United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City
September, two thousand and eight .
Plaintiff-Appellant.
v.
DIS3ZISSAL ON DEFAULT
Docket Number: 08-3242-cv
United States Postal Service, James C. Miller Ill, Chairman USPS Board of Directors, The City
of New York, NYC Board of Elections: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane,
Secretary, Anthony Como, Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O'Connor, Juan Carlos
Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher, Grgory C. Soumas. Maryann Yennella, each in official
capacity and Individually,
Defendant-Appellee.
An appeal having been filed in this Court on 6130108 and a scheduling order having been issued on
7/16/08 in accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court,
Civil Appeals Management Plan, Appendix, Part C, pursuant to which appellant's brief was due to be filed
on 8/15/08; and,
Appellant having been advised in the scheduling order that upon the failure to file the brief by the
date set in the scheduling order the appeal would be subject to dismissal,
IT IS ORDERED, that appellant show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed due to
appellant's failure to file the brief by 8115/08, the date set forth in the scheduling order.
Appellant is directed to file with the Court by 9/19/08 : 1) a bneE or, 2 a motion requesting a short
extension supported by an explanation why the extensioii is necessary and demonstrating good cause for the
default. Upon appellant's failure to respond as directed, the appeal will be dismissed.
For the Court:
BY L.-J& 35,r.r.-
Catherine O'Haan Wolfe, Clerk
Armando Gonzaleq Deputy aerk

07-16-2008 13:59 From- 1-398 P.001/001 F-801
d a k apjcjprlat2b.m: :. FOP LMOICEWCV ~brlol~s.~onOWS

mil STAYS AND
IAIUNC~IOWS PVNDIWC AweALr
ntr at o f o p j t x i o 1 c o w l : - H u mgunt r a rdicCk.. o d e be1.d Yc* n.
A h w a W X'YCS ' 0 Nr .
6. b o b a h d l 0 Y u )( No H u thi6 d t f b a r pm- rW
4 NO
L~ r n . . l & q ~ e P r d '
(rkqmD for MI * ~ t e ~ vnolc mer
i ~
p" 0
y L. 'rrlcd)
No
.
' i m lhlr C o a ~ ? o Yes
I(uyiutard.rrolappslk.rtrl? 0 Y a No -
If- @#Ic)&u .
..
F ..---- ..-- ---.-.-
(I
I
C
Beforc: Hon. Bsrrington D. arkcr. Circuit Judge
ORD_ER
I-
I
I
.
T1S HEREBY ORD
l
3
that Appellsnt Stnmk's unergcncy motion for ballot access Tor the Republican
Primary on September 9, 008 and other rclief is DENTED.
Cllhniac O'H- W o k , Clcrk

EDNY 08-CV-1744
Plaintiff-Petitioner,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS), James C. Miller Ill. Chairman USPS
Board of Directors; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC) NYC BOARD OF
ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel, President, Frederic M. Umane Secretary. Anthony
Como. Julie Dent, Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O'Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy
Mottola-Schacher. Gregory C. Soumas. Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and
Individually;
Defendants-Respondents,
T1080 emergency motion for relief with a tro and preliminary

injunction for mandamus equity relief for ballot access and
remand in re EDNY 08-CV-1744 appeal taken from the
June 11,2008 Order and Civil Judgment of
Eastern District Judge Allyne R. Ross

593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#28 1
Brooklyn New York 1 1238
(63 1) 745-6402 uncasvotes2~vahoo.com
Plaintiff 1 Petitioner

593 Vanderbilt Avenue 4 2 8 1
(63 1 ) 745-6402 uncasvotes2@.vahoo.com
Defendants 1 Respondents:
James C. Miller 111, Chairman USPS Board of Directors

475 L'Enfant Plaza. SW.
Washington, DC 20260
TI-E CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC)

Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo
NYC Law Department
100 Church Street
New York. NY 10007
NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS

NYC BOE Commissioners
32 Broadway
New York, NY 10004.
Parties-in-in terest
Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General
State of New York, Ofice of the Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York . NY , 10271
Todd D. Valentine Esq.

40 Steuben St.
Albany , NY . 12207
Michael Mukasey. United States Attorney General

the United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20530-000 1 ;
Charles J. klynes Brooklyn District Attorney

District Attorney's Office. Kings County
350 Jay St. 20th F1.
Brooklyn .NY . 1 1201-2908
STRUNK'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH A
TRO AIM) PRELTMINARY INJUNCTION FOR MANDAMUS EQUITY RELIEF
FOR BALLOT ACCESS AND REMAND in re EDNY 08-cv-1744
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:
COUNTYOFKINGS )
Accordin~lv,I. Christopher Earl Strunk. being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty
of perjury:
1. Am petitioner herein with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue
#28 1 Brooklyn. New York 1 1238.
2. 1 am an active voter within the New York 57'' Assembly District (AD) and
NY 1 Senate District (SD) created in April 2002.
3. 1 am an enrolled New York State Republican Party member actively
seeking ballot access as the Republican Candidate for election to the 1 gLhSD and as a
Republican Party Delegate or alternate From the 57IhAD to the Republican Party Judicial
Nominating Convention at the September 9,2008 and or General Election of November
4. 2008.
4. On June 30. 2008 filed a Notice of Appeal from the entire order to dismiss
of Judge Allyne R. Ross dated June I 1.2008 (Notice) (see Exhibit A).
5. The Notice of Appeal is From the sua sponte Order and Civil Judgment
dated June 1 1.2008 dismissing the exparte Amended Complaint (Order) (see Exhibit B)
6. This emergency motion requests relief unreasonably denied by the sua
sponte Order and Civil Judgment dated May 9,2008 dismissing the exparte Complaint
(underlying Order) (see Exhibit C)
7. The Amended Complaint (AC) with Exhibits I thru 14 annexed was filed
June 9.2008 (see Exhibit D and by reference sub exhibit D-I through 11-14)
8. That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon the
alleged facts of the Brooklyn BOE office manager denial of access to the active
Republican Party voter enrollment as alleged at AC paragraphs 54 through 59.
9. That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon
unlawful denial of enrollment and voter list at the cost of reproduction as alleged at AC
paragraph 59.
NYC BOE denial of a enrollme~~t

and voters list on digital media at the cost of production
of $1 as alleged cost of a CD at AC paragraph 59. .
1 1. That the Judge erred by not allowing petitioner standing based upon an
ongoing conclusive presumption of gerrymandering injury in that the 57' AD is
subdivided by the 18' SD that imposes an unreasonable burden upon petitioner's ability
for ballot access as the Republican Party Judicial Convention delegate from the 57' AD.
and that when the 57" AD is not wholly within the 18'" SD as required by the New York
State Constitution Article 111 Section 5 , quote:
"Assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may

be. of convenient and contiguous temtory in as compact form as practicable, each of
which shall be wholly within a senate district."
"Ln counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly
districts shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be
evenly divided among the senate districts of any county."
12. Illat the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing with evidence that the
18'" SD does not have a minimum number of ADS wholly within as required by the State
Constitution for nlandatory equal protection, that provides AD residents a reasonable
expectation to unify the AD with the adjoining ADS to effect control over the senator.
13. That the Judge erred by denying petitioner standing despite evidence that
the 18" SD does not have the same number of ADS wholly within equal to the other
existing SDs within Brooklyn as a matter of equal treatment of petitioner and those
similarly situated as a gerrymandering injury. as shown in Exhibit D subexhibit 3;
compares 1 7' SD- 7ADs, 18' SD- 8 ADS, 19" SD- 8ADs. 20" SD- I OADs. 2 1'' SD-
9ADs. 22"d SD-9ADs. (part) ~ 3 SD-6ADs.

' ~ (part) 25' SD-4ADs. and 27' SD-9ADs.
14. That the Judge erred by dismissing the complaint as to the USPS.
15. The chart of the 66 USPS Returned Mailings within the 57th AD I 18th
SD (see Exhibit E) was compiled based upon 420 individual mailings posted with the
USPS from June 6 2008 through June 18,2008 and served by the USPS to active
Republican Party members to only those members ofthe 57" AD in the 18' SD with a
conformed copy of the Designating Petition shown at D-8 and return envelope addressed
to petitioner sender campaign for the candidacies rcferenced at above paragraph 3.
16. Of the 66 pieces of mail returned by the USPS each piece was
systematically returned with a standard remark by USPS. and in which each remark
shown on Exhibit E colu~nnmarked "Remark" are explained as follows:
f T E - Fonvard time expired return to sender
IA- Return to Sender Insufficient Address Unable to Fonvard
NDAA - Return to Sender not deliverable as addressed unable to fonvard
ANK - Return to sender attempted - not known unable to forward
NSN - Return to sender no such number unable to forward
NSS -Return to sender no such street unable to fonvard

UNK / UR - Unknown return to sender
VAC - Return to Sender Vacant unable to fonvard

17. Of the 66 total pieces of mail returned by the USPS shown listed on
Exhibit E. the USPS remarks for each category explained in above paragraph 16 are
subtotaled as follows:
5 pieces - F I E - Forward time expired return to sender

10 pieces - IA- Return to sender Insufficient Address Unable to Forward
21 pieces - NDAA - Return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward
25 pieces - ANK - Return to sender attempted - not know-n unable to forward
1 piece - NSN - Return to sender no such number unable to forward
1 piece - NSS - Return to sender no such street unable to forward
2 pieces - UNK / UR - Unknown return to sender.
1 piece - VAC - Return to Sender Vacant unable to forward
18. Of the 1 10 pieces of mail sent on June 6.2008 to the Republican Party
County Committee members with addresses posted by the Republican Party in October
~ intersection with the 18' SD, listed on Exhibit D-5page 4 tlvough

2007 for the 5 7 AD
page 6, 12 of 110 pieces were returned by the USPS. were: 1-FTE, 3 - A m , and 8- IA
and as such is a questionable return rate of say 1 1 percent unable to deliver.
19. That the Republican Party list of County committee members
intentionally do not provide an adequate address sufficient to deliver notice to the County
Committee members of petitioner's candidacy with the 1 10 pieces sent using the USPS,
and as compared to the address list provided by the NYC BOE date June 9,2007 used for
mailing 3 10 pieces to those Republican party members other than the County Committee,
and: whereas, of the total pieces 8 of 1 10 were IA as opposed to only 2 - IA of 3 10
pieces referenced below; and furthermore. as shown at line item 1 through 4 on Exhibit E
the County Committee listed were not even designated by the NYC BOE list of June 9.
2007 with a Voter ID.

20. A 11% return rate for official Republican Party county committee
members is counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.
21. Of the 100 or so pieces of mail sent on June 16,2008 to the Republican
party members within the 57' AD in the 18"' SD all recipients were chosen based upon
the multiple number of party members within a single household (available to no less
than say 250 Republican party members available to sign a designating petition). and of
that total listed on Exhibit E, are listed from Line item 13 through 40 as returned pieces
of mail with the USPS remarks, total 28 being: 1 1- NDAA, 13- ANK, 3-FTE and 1 VAC;
and is a questionable return rate of 28 percent wherein the USPS is unable to deliver.
22. A 28% return rate for a multiple Republican Party member single
households is counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.
23. Of the combined 2 10 or so pieces of mail sent on June 17 and 18,2008 to
the Republican Party members within the 57" AD intersection with the 1 8thSD, all
recipients were chosen randomly within a single household, and of that total listed on
Exhibit E are listed from Line item 41 through 66 as returned with the remark subtotal for
the 26 returns being I 0-NDAA, 9- ANK, I -FTE. 2-lA. 1 -NSS, 1 -NSN. 1 -UNK. 1 -UR
(Unknown return); and as such is a questionable return rate of say 13 percent, wherein
the USPS is unable to deliver for petitioner to obtain ballot access with signatures.
24. A 13% return rate for those single Republican Party members in a single
household is counter intuitive and is thereby questionable requiring further investigation.
25. That because the NYC BOE list of June 9,2007 used to make the 3 10
mailings within the 57th intersection within the 1 gthSD have certified presumption by the
NYC BOE as valid Republican Party active voters any USPS return is questionable.
26. That under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 w R A ) and the
Help America to Voter Act of 2002 (HAVA) the USPS and NYC BOE have a fiduciary
responsibility to do all due process involved to verify active voting registration and or
enrollment by mail. including any change of address or as otherwise known as )notor
voter registration complained of by petitioner.
27. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E line item numbers 13
through 66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive
presumptive evidence of irregularities in the NYC BOE voter I enrollment list.
28. That the results of the 54 of 66 shown at Exhibit E line item numbers 13
presumptive evidence of irregularities in the NYC BOE voter I enrollment list and or
failure of fiduciary duty of the USPS and or its agents.
29. That the results of the 12 of 66 shown at Exhibit E line item numbcrs 1
presu~iiptiveevidence of irregularities in the NYC BOE voter I enrollment list to check
and certify the Republican County Committee members on file with the NYC BOE.
30. That the results of the 1 of 66 shown at Exhibit E line item numbers I
through 66 designated as pieces of mail returned by the USPS are conclusive presumptive
evidence of irregularities in the NYC BOE voter I enrollment list and possible voter fraud
that would support a order allowing for inspection of the original voting buff cards of
elections going back to no later than 2002.
3 1. That the results of the 1 of 66 pieces of mail shown in Exhibit E as
returned by the USPS is presumptive evidence of failure of the NYC BOE fiduciary duty
under the NVRA and HAVA for maintaining an accurate active voter 1 enrollment list.
conclusive presumptive evidence of injury shown in the above paragraphs.
33. That the chart of the NYC BOE - June 9,2007 Active Voter List extract
within the 57th AD in the 18th SD (see Exhibit F) line items 67 through 68 and 70
through 79 have separate voter ID numbers, however are suspect as being duplicate
voters maintained by the NYC BOE as active voters and when compared with the birth
and registration date columns only Line item 72 and 73 niay be separate voters based
upon a different birth date.
34. The executed designating petition signed June 17.2008 by Active Voter
shown at line 69 on Exhibit F. (see Exhibit G). and was part of the June 16,2008 mailing
for any address with more than one Republican Party member.
35. The 2ndcircuit Mandate for NDNY Case Loeber v Spargo 04-cv-1193
that required Judge Lawrence E. Kahn to make a decision on a 28 USC

(see Exhibit H),
2284 three judge panel on statewide districting . which to date he has not done. and
therefore supports petitioner's gerrymandering injury in the 18" SD and 57' AD; and
that the 2ndCircuit Mandate was Ibllowed with District's Order dated September 22,
2005, then followed after the Amended Complaint was answered with a Decision and
Order dated January 8. 2008 is further delaying a decision on the 28 USC 2284 matter.
36. The 2ndcircuit Mandate for NDNY Case Loeber v ,'$pargo 04-cv- 1 193 (see
Exhibit I) allowing petitioner to devise whatever method necessary to serve state-
subdivisions ignored by the Court in efforts of plaintiffs therein 04-cv-1193 to serve the
Amended Complaint and Sumnlons there. that then deponent did proceed to devise the
method to serve all the State subdivisions by due service in the case Forjone v California
in WDNY 06-cv-0080 therein, goes to gerrymander injury.
37. The order by WDNY Judge Richard J. Arcara transferring the case
Forjone v California WDNY 06-cv-0080 to NDNY 06-cv- 1002 as related to Loeber v
Spurgo NDNY 04-cv-1 193 (see Exhibit J)goes to gerrymander injury.
38. An emergency appeal for equity relief of a three judge panel at 2"*Circuit
to address an ongoing gerrymandering injury is unresolved and is supported by
conclusive evidence that has a presumption of credibility to be rebutted herein.
39. That there is prima facie evidence of misapplication and misadministration
of the State Constitution Article 111 as to redistricting of Senate. Assembly and House
seats from the April 2002 redistricting, notwithstanding any pre clearance process under
the Voting Rights Act (VRA) or review performed by the US Department of Justice.
40. There is conclusive presumptive evidence which is rebutablc by the NYC
BOE misapplication and misadministration of active voters list.
4 1. There is conclusive evidence of speech and association injury as a result of
the burden imposed by the USPS and h Y C BOE and or its agents.
42. That under Rule 703 for Non-profit Standard Mailing rates as relates to
any challenger or voter's expectation of reasonable effectiveness in participation in
sufiage is absolutely a component part of petitioners ballot access and right to know at
the mail box as a voter compounded as a result of the gerrymandering injury.
43. Petitioner has been injured by denial of access to a certified voting list as
require by this court in the appeal case Sclzrrk v. Williatns. 44 F.3d 48. 6 1 n. 13 (2d Cir.
1994). and therein this Court stated that EL Section 5-602 provides in relevant part:
"The board of elections shall prepare at least fiflj. copies of such pamphlet and
shall send at least one copy of each such list to the state board of elections. at least
t~vocopies to the county cliair~ilanof each political party. and shall keep at least
five copies for public inspection at each main office or branch of the board. Other
copies shall be sold at a charge not e~ceedingthe cost of publication."
41. The judge erred when the court suggests that sonlehow there could not
possibly be an underlying civil rights conspiracy involving the York and Scottish Rite
Freemasonry operating with those of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and as such
must be deemed on its face, based upon readily available history, the court's arbitrary and
capricious process resulting in the Orders appealed from herein.
45. That there is a presumption of law that by definition of conspiracy has
been considered by the New York State legislature, that has an underlying reason for
enactment of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A and as relates to the
Benevolent Order Law as a standard of measure for operation of any conspiracy against
suffrage and individual liberty, and is cited by petitioner in the Amended Complaint.
46. That deponent has read the Amended Complaint with eight (8) Causes of
action having 14 Exhibits annexed thereto shown as Exhibit D, and makes this affidavit
in support of the demand for a temporary restraining order of the USPS, the NYC Board
of Election and its agents to perform their duty under law in the matter of ascertaining the
accuracy of the active voter lists in the 18' Senate District and that those related to the
state sub-division of Brooklyn, a.k.a. Kings County, as time is of the essence for my
ballot access for the Republican Party Primary and General Election in November 2008
election: and
47. that NYC Defendants are ultra vires under the State Constitution Article
III and act with the USPS and agents by operation of the NVRA and HAVA are c~llpable
herein and are operating together in conspiracy as applies herein as if under the Bivens
case decision by the US Supreme Court.
48. Petitioner is without a constitutionally mandated Senate, Assembly and
Congressional District as apply to the mandatory relationship to the component ADS that
must be wholly within the respective senate district, and that based upon the breach of
NYC BOE fiduciary duty and social contract as applies, both segregate active voters and
without ascertaining citizen status of active voters, and that petitioner is under imminent
threat of injury from alicn(s) voting with impunity by inaccurate voting lists; and
49. that Petitioner has no other means for relief available and has expended all
options and is entitled to expedited suffrage protection herein. and
50. that deponent knows the contents thereof; the sane is true to deponents
own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and
belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true, and that the grounds of
deponent's beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows:
3rdparties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
51. That deponent cites the March 10.2008 Memorandum of Law entitled
Stolen Identiries. Stolen Votes: A Case Study in Voter Inlpersonotion by attorney Ham A.
von S p a k o v s ~of the Heritage Foundation in conjunction with the January 9.2008.
hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States with oral arguments in Crmvford
v.Marion County Eleclion Board, a case challenging the constitutionality of an Indiana
law that requires most individuals who vote in person to present a government-issued
photo identification Indiana's law was upheld by a federal district court and by the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, (see Exhibit K herein), applies herein too.
52. That there is longstanding proof of ongoing vote fraud in Brooklyn that is
alleged to be still ongoing as indicated by the presumptive proof of the foregoing
evidence that shows there is questionable starus of the NYC BOE maintained active voter
list, and that District was premature in its sua sponte dismissal of the case herein..
Wherefore, petitioner prays for emergency relief with a TRO and prelimioary injunction
for mandamus equity relief for ballot access and expedited remand and order:
for a threejudge panel herein to hear an expedited oral presentation on the alleged
injury that results as an ongoing gerrymandering injury to determine whether or not
the State Constitution as to gerrymandering is a nullity
NYC BOE immediately provide petitioner with a certified active voter list for the
18' Senate District for the costs of the media which is one dollar for a CD.
NYC BOE and its agents provide access for petitioner checking of buff cards;
NYC BOE is to provide a certified copy of the NYC Active Voter list to the Justice
Department for it to ascertain whether or not any registered voter is legally able to do
so especially checking such list with the records under its control with Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, and that
Different and additional relief deemed necessary by this c o r n
Sworn to before me this

day of July 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No.: 08-CV-1744
(-I (LB)
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRmK,
Plaintiff.
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS).

JAMES C. MILLER 111. Chairmarl USPS Board of Directon : NOTICE OF,..--
THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC) . -
.*
-
NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS: James J. Sampel. Prrsidznt, : APPEAL

Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony Corno, Julic Dent. :
Nero Graham Jr.. Terrence C. O'Connor. Juan Carlos
Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher. Gregory C. Soumas.
Maryann Y e ~ e l l aeach in official capacity and I ndividunlly; :
Christopher Earl Strunk, Plaintiff pro se. henby t~ppealsfrom each and every part of rhe
find Order and Civil Judgment of Judge Alljme R. Ross dated June 11.2008 to dismiss
sua sponte the esparte .Amended Complaint with prejudice. This appeal is against each of
the above captioned defendants. and is being =quested as an emergency appeal. on an
es@ted basis.
Dated: June 30.2008

Brookl~nNew York
593 Vanderbill Avenue. #28 1

Brooklyn, New York 1 1238
63 1 745-6402, uncasvotes2(ii,~ahoo.com
Cc: hTS Attorney General

US Attorney Genenl
NYC Corporation Counsel
NYC Board of Elections
EXHIBIT A
8 I
FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFlCE
* JUN 1 3 M08 *
u.$.OlslRH=tCOURT W.N.Y.
EASTERN DISTNCT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------- x NOT FOR PRINT OR
ELECTRONIC PUBRE~@OFFICE
BCW
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff, 08-CV- 1744 (ARR)(LB)
-against- ORDER AND

CIVIL JUDGMENT
United States Postal Service (USPS);
JAMES C. MILLER 111, Chairman USPS
Board of Directors; The City of New York (NYC);
NYC Board of Elections: JAMES J. SAMPEL,
President, FREDERIC M. UMANE, Secretary,
ANTHONY COMO, JULIE DENT, NERO
GRAHAM, JR., TERRENCE C. O'CONNOR,
JUAN CARLOS POLANCO, NANCY MOTTOLA-
SCHACHER, GREGORY C. SOUMAS,
MARYANN YENNELLA, each in official
capacity and individually,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------- X
ROSS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, appearingpro se, brings this action under the Civil Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. $$ 1983, 1985, 1988, and under various voting rights statutes, including the Voting
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. $ 1973, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, and the 2002 Help America
to Vote Act. By order dated May 9,2008, the court granted plaintiff's request to proceed informa
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(a), dismissed the civil rights claims, but granted plaintiff
leave to replead the voting rights claims. On June 9,2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
However, the amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies found in the original complaint,
ignores the court's dismissal of the civil rights claims, repeats allegations previously found to be
frivolous and fails to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 1915(e)(2)(B). Ln essence, pIaintiff re-
submits the same complaint the court found deficient in the first place with a few immaterial
alterations. Accordingly, it is
EXHIBIT B
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York

June 1 1 ,2008
-
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That the action is dismissed for
failure to state a claim and as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. $1915(e)(2)(B). The court certifies pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 5 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma
pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Co~pedgev. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this cas

LWITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
E.4STERY DISTRlCT OF NEV* YORK
___________________---------------------------------------
x NOT FOR PRINT OR
ELECTRONlC PUBLlC.I\TIOh'
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRLYK,
Plaintiff.
I\*lEMORANDUM
tLKD ORDER
United Sates Postal Service (USPS);
J.4MES C. MILLER ill, Chairman USPS
Board of Directors; The Ciry of S e w York VYC):
NYC Cit\- Council Speaker CIlRISTINE QUINN:
NYC Mayor MICHAEL BL0031BERCi; S Y C
Board of Elections: J-AMES J. S-AMPEL,
President. FREDERIC M. UMAYE, Secretaq,
ANTHOXY COMO, JULIE DEYT. NERO
GRAH,k\I. JR., TERRENCE C. O'CONNOR
JUAN C-4RLOS POL?INCO. K-WCY MOTTOLA-
SCHACHER, GREGORY C. SOUMAS.
MARY.4\T4 YENNELLA, each in official
c a p a c i ~and individually,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------- S
ROSS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, appearingpro se, brings this action. infer alia, under the
Civil Rights Actl 42 U.S.C. $9 1983, 1965, 1986, 1988. Tht court grants plaintiffs requesr to
proceed i1:-forn~apauperispursuant to 28 L1.S.C. § 191j(a). The complain1 is dismissed with leave
ro repiead as set forth belo\\,.
Backmound
Plaintiff is a self-described "Republican P w Candidat?" who is '*seekingballot access and
support oithe State Republican Party in Brookl-m for nomination as the candidate for the 18"' Senate
District to unscat incumbent Democrat Senator Velamette Monrgomep-." Compl. at 2-3. According
to plaintie. his candidacy has been hampered by inaccurare Rcpublican voter lists. Cornpl. at 10.
EXHIBIT C
In addition to the Civil Rights .Act claims. plaintiff also alleges the violation of other federal
lalvs. including the Voting Rights .Act, 43 L.S.C. $ 1975. Bi\?ens v. Six Unkno\\n Agents of the
Fekral Bureau of h'arcorizs, 403 C.S. 388 (14-1 j. the 1993 Sationa! Voter Resistration Act. and
th: 2002 Help . h e r i c a to l'ots Acr. Compl. z: 2. P1ainti;':'also n a m s additional individuzls and
er.:ities as "panies-in-interst." Compl. at 1. Plzintiff seeks. inler ulic. a tempor- restraining order
a d prelimin? injunction. the appointment c i a special master, bi-partisan ballot access. use of
s ~ i d a r dmail for campaign statements, and ucspecified d ~ n a g e s .Compl. at 31 -32.
Standard of Revie-
In reviewing the complaint. the coun is mindful that plaintiff is proceeding pro se 2nd that
hi.: pleadings should be held 'YO less stringent nandards that formal pleadings drafied by la\\yers."
Huohes v. Roive, 449 U.S.5.9 (1 9801: see also SIcEachin \ . X4cGuinnis, 357 F . 3 197.200(2d Cir.
2Cl0-1) ("[WJhen the plainriffproceeds pro se ...a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally.
pz~icularly\\.hen they alle,oe ci\*ilrights \.iolations." (citation omitted)). However. pursuant to the
pauperis slatute. Ihe coun must dismiss a complaint if it determines that the action is "(i)
i~:.rorma
fri\.olous or malicious. ( i i ) fails to stare a claim upon tvhich relief may be granted. or (iii) seeks
monetan relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." lS U.S.C. $ 191j(e)(2l(B). .4
claim is frivolous if its "factual contentions arc clearly baseless. such as when allegations are the
product of delusion or fantasy," or if it is "based on an indisputably mcritless legal theory" -that is.
\\-hen it lacks an arguable basis in la\v ... or [\\-hen]a dispositive defcnse clearl!. esists on the face
oithe complaint." Livincston \-.Adirondack Bev. Co., 14 1 F.3d 434.437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal
quorations omitted).
Discussion
A. Civil Rinhts Act Claims
Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations b!. defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.8 1983,
1985,1986,1988, and Bivens v. Sis Unkno\m .Aeents of rhe Fedcral Bureau ofNarcotics. 403 U.S.
388 (1971) ('-Bi\lens"). Compl. at 7. 1. Section 1983 provides. in relevant part:
Every person \vho. under color of any statule, ordinance. regulation.

custom, or usage. of any State ... subjects. or causes to be subjected.
any citizen of the United States or orher person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights. privileges. or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at la\\., s u i ~in quit!.. or orher proper proceeding
for redress.
19,U.S.C. 8 1983: Pitchsll \I. Callan, 13 F.3d 515,547 (7d Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted).
Section 1983 itself creates not substantive rights. [bur] ... on]). a procedure for redress for the
depritSarion of rights established elsewhere." Svkes v. James. 13 F.jd 5 15, 5 19 (2d Cir. 1993)
(citation omitted).
Section 1985 generally prohibits conspiracies to interfere with civil rights. Section 1985(1)
prohibits conspiracies to prevent federal otlicials from performing their duties. Weiss v.
Feipenbaum. 558 F.Supp. 265.272 (E.D.N.Y. 1982). Section 1985(2) prohibits conspiracies aimed
at deterring \\itnesses from participating in either federal or state judicial proceedings. See Chahal
v. Paine Webber Inc.. 725 F.2d 20. 23 (2d Cir.1584). Section 1985(3) prohibits conspiracies to
deprive "an!. person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities under the la~vs... whereby a person is either injured in his person or propertj~ordeprived
of any right of a citizen of the United States." B r o w v. Cirv of Oneonta 22 1 F.3d 329.34 1 (2d Cir.
2000) (quotation omitted l. The conspiracy must be moti\*atedby ..some racial or perhaps otherwise
class-based. invidious discriminaton animus." Palrnieri v. L\nch, 392 F.3d 73. 86 (2d Cir. 2004)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Section 1986 liabiliy is imposed on an individual who has
kno\vledge of m~ongsprohibited under 42 U.S.C. tj 1985. Thus. a ?$ 1986 claim is contingent on a
\.?lid 8 1985 claim. A plaintiff must have a valid 5 1985 claim in order to proceed under $ 1986.
Clrsharn v. Henderson, 89 F.jd 75. 82 (2d Cir. 1996).'
-4claim under Bivens permits recove? for some constitutional violations by federal agents.
e\.=n in the absence of a sratute conferring such a right. Carlson \I. Cirzen. 446 L*.S. I I. IS ( 1 980).
Like actions against stale officials pursuant tc j 1983. a plaintiffs Bivens claims must be brought
q i ~ s the
t individual officials responsible for the alleged deprivatiot: of his constitu~ionslrights.
biareover. the United States Government and kderal agencies. such as the USPS. are immune from
sxit for damages. FDlC v. Mever, 51 0 U.S. 471.175 (1 994) (".4bsent a waiver. so\lereign immunity
stields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit."). Evzn upon liberally construing
phintiff s allegations, he fails to allege facts sufticient against any defendant to support a cognizable
claim under any of the aforementioned sections ofthe Civil Rights .Act or under Bivens.
B. Fri\lolous Claims
The Supreme Court has obsened that a--findingof factual frivolousness is appropriate when
thr facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the ~vhollyincredible, whether or not there are
judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton 1.. Hernandez, 504 U.S.25, 33
( !992): Shoemaker v. US, Deu't of .iustice, 164 F.3d 61 9 (2d Cir. 1998). Here. plaintiff makes the
following allegations:
As plaintiff has not retained an attorney, 5 1988 is inapplicable to this case. Under 31,
L.S.C. $ 1988(b). the court ''in its discretion. may allow the prevailing parry ... a reasonable
anorney's fee as part of the cons." See e.&, LaRouche 11. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68,71 (2d Cir. 1991):
Tsombanidis v. C i n of \\'est Haven. Connecticut. 208 F.Supp.2d 263.270 (D.Com., 2002).
Mayor Bloomberg is a Knight of Sovereign Military Order of Malta
(SMOM).
That the SMOM is at the top and controls from its Vatican State
Headquarters shared with the Society of Jesus and the Black Pope in
the conspiratorial Masonic movement depicted in the diagram of
Emblematic Structure of Freemasonry.
That Candidate [Stnmk] complains of injury by agents of the SMOM

and others by their manipulating the public with media acquisition
that forms a questionable monopoly control using print, radio and
television media in NYC,thereby giving campaign favoritism by the
SMOM conglomerate media nationally and internationally, both
disinformation and concealment infringes campaign speech in
Brooklyn that would otherwise challenge the hegemony of SMOM.
Compl. at 12.
That Defendants are a racketeering enterprise and by its conduct

promote open borders and cause the conditions for the ongoing
genocide to enrich itself, have taken plaintiffs personal proprietary
property in the form of proprietary suffrage rights and as damage to
the class have forced tax dollars to be directed to the enterprise
measured based upon the following categories and amounts
developed at www.immimationcounters.com sources and formulas ....
Compl. at 30.
M e r construing plaintiffs pleadings liberally and interpreting them as raising the strongest
arguments they suggest, Pabon v. Wrie.ht, 459 F.3d 241,248 (2d Cir. 2006), the court findsthat a
majority of plaintiffs allegations rise to the level of the irrational.
Leave to Amend
Plaintiff also alleges violations of various voting rights claims, including the Voting Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 1973, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, and the 2002 Help America to
Vote Act, yet he fails to allege facts sufficient to show that each defendant named violated any
provisions of these statutes or that he is even entitled to rclicf under these statutes.
However. the court grants plaintiff leave to lilc an amended complaint. The mended
Complaint must contain a shon plain slatemen1 pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure against each defendant named. -4 plaintiff nlust disclose sufficient information to permit
the defendan\ '-to have a fair understanding of what the plainrifl'is complaining about and to know
whether there is a legal basis for recoilery." Ricciuti v. Nciv York Citv Transit Auth.. 94 1 F.2d 1 19.
123 (2d Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is forewarned that an amended complain1 that does not comply with
Rule 8 in that it is so prolix that neither the court nor defendants can determine the nature of the
claims raised shall be dismissed. Simmons v. Abruuo. 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995).
Conclusion
Accordingly. the complaint. filed ir<forn~apalcprris.

is dismissed as frii*olousand for failure
ro state a claim pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C.fj 1915(e)(2)(B). However, in an abundance of
caution and in light of plaintiffs pro se status. the courl grants plaintiff leave to replead within 30
days from the date of this order as set forth above. Gomez v, C r t q 202 F.3d 593.597 (2d Cir.
2000)(citation omitted). If plaintiff fails to replead within the time allowed. judgment dismissing
rhe complaint shall be entered. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.5; 1915(a)(3)that any appeal
fiom this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore inforn~apauperisstatus is denied for
the purpose of an appeal. Coppedee v. United States. 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1 962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn. New York

May ? $2008
C'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW I'OKIi Case No.: 08-C\'-1744
(ARR) (I-R)
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNY
Plaintiff.
LILTED STATES POSTAL Sl'.R\'ICE (USPS).

JAMES C MLLLER 111. Chaimian USPS Board of Directors .AR.IENDED
THE CITY OF h'EW ) ' O K W Y C )
NYC BO.ARD OF ELECTIONS James J SanipeL President. : COMPLrlINT
Frederic 11 Umane Secretaq.. Anthony Conlo. Juiie Denr.
Kero Graham Jr.. Terrence C O'Conno~,Juan Carlos (July Trial recluest)
Polanco. Kancy blottola-Schacher, Gregory C Soilmas,
h l q a n n \'ennella, each in oflicial capacity and Individually. wit11 demand for
Dct'endants, Ten~poraryRestraint
and
Preliolinary Lrljurlctio~~
h T C City Council by their Speaker Christirie Quinn.
MrC%layorh6chael Bloomberg. ant1 Special XI;lster
Boroush President Alarty Marko\\itz
Sew l'ork State Board of Elections, Equity Relief
Xttorney General .Andre\v Cuomo.
Senator Vclamettc h4ontgoniei-y.
Brooklyn Community Board 3, L . S I-Touse of Representatives
Subcomnlittcc on Connmcrcs. Trade. and Consumcr Protccl~on
3q- House Jlernbers- Edolphus T O ~ T 1IoLh.
S hlajor oxen! I I *.
Carolinc hlalone\. 1.1~'.
John h1 blcHugli 23''. Brian bg,ins 27"
L.S. Dcpartmenr of Holi~ulandSccurit! . Immlgra~ionCusloms
Enforcenicnt: and rhc U S. Depnr~n~cn~of Jusrrcc
Pursuant to the h\eniorandum and Order of &,lay9, 300S, Plaintiff Christopher Ear1 Stn~nE(Srmnk)
hereby coniplains of hndamental rights and civil righ~sinjury with monetary damage caused by
defendants with request for preliminary injunctiont and for the information of parties-in-interest,
respectfully alleges against eacli entity and named agent or yet to be named intlividual ly and in
ofificial capacity as a Federal question under USPS i\?ol~-prqfi/ Rule 703, and USPS
S'1~711~/rn~iA4~7i/
Amended ('omplaint Paze 1 of 33 EXHIBIT D

A - 26
s d v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-CV-1744
responsibilities under the Natiotial Volit~gfightr Acr (NVRA). the Help Ameria fo Vole Act
(HAVA) to the postal service treaty with the State of New York, NYC and NYC Board ofEl=tions
for equal protection under 42 USC $1973, that defendants cause substantive due process and equal
protenion injury that infringes 1' ,5* ,9' and lob fundamental rights for suffrage and equal
protection for ballot access for State action under the 14' Amendment, along with those similarly
situated, that denies a republican form of government by misapplication and misadministration of
State Election Law (EL) and State Constitution; and challenges the unconstitutionality of EL 55-304
(3), EL $5-210(g), EL $5-604, EL $5-606 certification of lists as apply to NVRA and HAVq EL
$6-136(1), EL $6-136(2)(h), EL $6-1 36(3), to enforce EL $5-2 13 despite any narrow Federal Court
Order, seek for remedy under FRCvP Rule 65(b), 28 U.S.C. $2201 and Local Rules.
JURLSDICTION
1. This action with eight (8) Causes of action is brought under: the Civil Rights Act
pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Sections $ 1 983, 51985, 5 1 988; the Votiizg Rights Act (VRA) Title 42
U.S.C. $1973 including NVRA and HAVA as may apply to New York State Election Law that
operates with rules as apply under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Article 11, Article Ill,
Article IX and United States Constitution Article I. Article IV. and Article VII amendments: 1: 5~ ,
'9 , 10' and as to State action under the 14' Amendment thereto; as to the USPS under 28 USC
$1339,28 USC $1343 (a) ( I ) (2) (3) (4); 28 USC $133 1; 28 USC $1357.
. VENUE
2. Venue applies under 28 USC $ 1391(b)(2),(e)(3); 28 USC $ 1402(a)(I), 28 USC

$1657; 28 USC $2201(a): 28 USC 42202; 28 USC $2402; 28 USC $2403: that this complaint is
properly laid in this Court where Plaintiff is a Republican Party Candidate for the 18' SD Brooklyn
grate&] to Almighty God for our Freedom in order to secure its blessing and guarantee of a
republican form of government under the NYS and US Constitutions, heard by an Article ITI Judge.
Amended Complaint Page 2 of 33
A - 27
S& v. USPS et al. EDNY 0 8 4 ~1744
-
Related Cases
3. Loeber el d v. Spmgo et al. in NDNY 04-V-1193 (beber) before Judge Lamnce
E.Kahn with a 28 USC $2284 decision to create a three judge panel there regarding
natewide State and Federal Political District gerrymandering injury including the'' covered county"
herein for pre-cle-w by the US DOJ - VRA Section, involving eligible voter disproportionate
diminished dilution beyond the 10% de-minimus effected by the 1993 NVRA and 2002 HAVA:
4. Forjone el ul. v. CalifDrniu er al. in NDNY 06cv-0080 (Fo jone) before Judge
Lawrence E. Kahn with a pending 28 USC 52284 decision for multidistrict nationwide case
involving an equity challenge to false billing by various states of the several states under the HAVA
funds formula effecting local reimbursement in New York real property taxpayers under EL $4- 138
differently in each of the New York State subdivisions entitled to have a local board of elections
within and is a matter related to the gerrymandering issue in Loeber.
Related Citations
5. WMCA. Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1 964) - Warren Court overreaching effort to
negate the great compromise by a coop against the NY Constitution social contract for the People's
suffrage that had been abused in 1962 redistricting. as if Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 one person
one vote suffrage applied to totai population with no age or citizenship limit for voting privilege.
6. Rosario v Rockefeller, 4 1 0 U.S. 752 ( 1973). regarding lock box and party association
7. Lopez-Torres et ul. v New York Board of Election el al. EDNY heard by the US,
Supreme Court in the matter of right to party association and in which Strunk was a party in interest
on the side of the State through intervention that went to 2" Circuit and Supreme Court on appeal..
8. Green Party v New York Bourd of Elections et ul EDNY upheld in 2ndCircuit for the
compelling interest of the state to protect the association rights of political parties in which Strunk
was a party in interest through intervention that went to 2ndCircuit.
A - 28
Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1744
9. Lermo,r 1,. NY Bwrd of Electiorrs. 232 F.3d 135 wherein 2ndCircuit held that a
favorable judgment would redress the injury to the plaintiffs rights to engage political association.
here too. redress injury to Candidate Smnk's subscribing witness not in the party.
Controlling State law for equity protection
10. NYS Corrstia~tio~~

Article Ill Secfiolt 5 for Brooklyn (aMa Kings County) that in
April 2002 was not used to redistrict the New York 18h Senate District (SD). and was done
differently than other SD within Brooklyn to cause equity injury despite express mandate, quote:
assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. as may be.
shall be wholly within a senate district
In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts
among the senate districts of any county.
1 1. NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2. quote:
S 2. Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever. be

exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the
people of this state.
S 9.Freedom of elections. All elections osght to be free;and no person by force of arms,
malice. menacing, or othenvise, should presume ro disturb or hinder any citizen of this state in the
free exercise of the right of suffrage.
12. _TheNYS Civil Rights Statute Chapter 6 Article 5-A. quote:

- .... --.. .-......---............--. ......... . ..... . . - ....-
--...... ... .----.,-......... - "--.....
. + - . - ... .--..-..--.
S 53. Copies of documents and statements to be filed. Every existing membership
corporation, and every existing unincorporated association having a membership of twenty or more
persons, which corporation or association requires an oath as a prerequisite or condition of
membership, (other than a labor union, a fraternity or sorority having chapters composed only of
students in or alumni of colleges and universities in this and another state or states, or a chapter of
such fraternity or sorority. or a benevolent order mentioned in the benevolent orders law), within
thirty days after this article takes effect, and every such corporation or association hereafter
organized, within ten days after the adoption thereof, shall file with the secretary of state a sworn

: copy of its constitution, by-Laws, rules, regulations and oath of membership. together with a roster
; of its membership and a list of its officers for the current year.
Every such corporation and association shall, in case its constitution. by-laws, rules,
: regulations or oath of membership or any part thereof, be revised, changed. or amended. within ten
: days after such revision or amendment file with the secretary of state a sworn mpy of such revised,
: changed or amended constitution, by-law, rule, regulation or oath of membership.
Every such corporation or association shall within thirty days after a change has been
f made in its officers file with the secretary of state a sworn statement showing such change.
Every such corporation or association shall at intervals of six months file with the
secretary of state a sworn statement showing the names and addresses of such additional members
: as have been received in such corporation or association during such interval.
S 54. Resolutions concerning political matters. Every such corporation or association
: shall. within ten days after the adoption thereot file in the ofice of the secretary of state every
: resolution, or the minutes of any action of such corporation or association, providing for concerted
: action of its members or of a part thereof to promote or defeat legislation, federal, state or
municipal. or to support or to defeat any candidate for political office.
S 55- Anonymous communications prohibited. It shall be unlaw-hl for any such
: corporation or association to send. deliver. mail or transmit to any person in this state who is not a
: member of such corporation or association any anonymous letter, document, leaflet or other written
or printed matter, and all such letters, documents, leaflets or other written or printed matter.
intended for a person not a member of such corporation or association, shall bear on the same the
name of such corporation or association and the names of the officers thereof together with the
addresses of the latter.
S 56. Offenses; penalties. Any corporation or association violating any provision of this
article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars
nor more than ten thousand dollars. Any officer of such corporation or association and every
member ofthe board of directors. trustees or other similar body. who violates any provision of this
article or permits or acquiesces in the violation of any provision of this article by any such
corporation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who becomes a member of any such
corporation or association, or remains a member thereof, or attends a meeting thereof, with
knowledge that such corporation or association has failed to comply with any provision of this
article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
S 57. Additional penalties. In addition to the penalties provided by section fifty-six of this
article. a violation of the provisions of this article may be restrained at the suit of the people by the
attorney-general.
A - 30
Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 0 8 - c ~1744
-
PARTLES
13. Plaintiff ("Strunk, -.Candidate") is an active eligible voter (XEV) candidate with
website www.strunk.ws fiom the Brooklyn New York 1 gLhSenate District with service at 593
Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn New York 1 1238, and contact e-mail uncasvotes~ahoo.com
14. Strunk is also a candidate for the Republican Party position of Judicial Convention
Delegate from the 57' AD to associate as applies under EL 96- 124 for the Republican Party
Judicial Convention to choose Republican Judges to serve within the Second Judicial District.
15. Plaintiff Strunk isj~rslerrii as of right under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, representative of a class of all State citizens of New York and Republican Party
members in Brooklyn and New York statewide, under USPS rules for candidates nationwide.
16. Candidate is seeking ballot access and support of the State Republican Party in
Brooklyn for nomination as the candidate for the 18" Senate District to unseat incumbent Democrat
Senator Velamette Montgomery, a campaign statement calling card herewith marked Exhibit 1.
17. That Strunk suffers voting rights equal treatment infringement by injury to speech.
association. sufhge, liberty, Freedoms and proprietary s u e a g e property rights as an active eligible
voter I Republican Party candidate in the Brooklyn 18" Senate District (SD) classified a Caucasian
class member, Vietnam Era Veteran, properly classified as a heretic 'I), over 60 years old, by
misapplication and administration of law has been invidiously singled out for discrimination;
18. Strunk seeks ballot access under the outrageous burden of equal protection injury to
his liberty and first amendment rights caused by both Federal and State action.
1
"Heretic" : As conccrns Iustorical Roman Calllolic useof tllis term: A 'labcl' applicd by [lie Papacy to anyone who
dared in the past. or who dares today. to qucstion eithcr (1) papal authority, or (2) any of the unscriptunl doctrines
based solely upon 'tradition' that have been promulgaicd by thc llicrarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. sucll as
'tmmbmnliation'. 'indulgences'. 'papal id"llibi1ity'. 'purgalory', 'worship of images'. 'a celibate priesthood'.
'auricular confession 10a priest*. CIC."
A - 31
Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744
Defendants hereinafter known as

Defendants or individually as Defendant:
19. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. (USPS) is an independent agency of the
executive branch of the United States government (see 39 U.S.C. 5 201) responsible for providing
postal service in the US. Within the United States, it is colloquially referred to simply as "the post
ofice". "the postal service". "the mail" or "USPS".
a. As a auasi-aovernmental
- agency. it has many special privileges, including sovereign
immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign
nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Lndeed. in
2004. the U.S. Su~remeCourt ruled that the USPS was not a government-owned
corporation and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
b. The USPS has a Statutory monopoly right of the United States government to engage in
postal services is established by the Postal Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7) of the
Constitution and holds a statutov monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound
U.S. international letters as well as theexclusive right to put mail in private mailboxes,
as described in the Private Exoress Statutes.

c. The USPS operates under the directorship of the Board of Governors of the United
States Postal Service that is an eleven-member board comparable to a board of directors

of a private corporation, except in service of the American postal system.
d. Nine members are selected from the Republican and Democratic Party appointed by the
President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
20. JAMES C. MILLER 111, is Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United
States Postal Service Presidentially appointed along with members: Alan C. Kessler, Vice
Chairman; Mickev D. Barnett, Member; James K Bilbray, Member, Carolyn Lewis Gallagher,
Member Louis J. Giuliano. Member: Thuraood Marshall. Jr., Member; Katherine C. Tobin,
Member, Ellen C. Williams. Member.

I
a. Each Governor is appointed to a nine-year term or to the remainder of an unexpired term

created by the death or resignation of a sitting Governor. Terms of Governors are
staggered to expire each year on December 8.
b. A Governor whose term has expired may continue to sit on the Board for up to one year
until a successor has been appointed.
c. No more than five of the nine Governors may be of the same political party.
d. The Board generally meets once a month. Each January. the Governors elect a Chairman
and a Vice-Chairman. Three standing committees--Audit and Finance, Capital Projects,
and Strategic Planning--meet regularly during the year to consider matters within their
area of responsibility and refer items to Board for consideration.

e. The nine presidentially appointed Governors choose the Postmaster General. who also
serves as a member of the Board. These 10, in turn, choose a Deputy Postmaster
General, who becomes the 1 lLh member of the Board. The Postmaster General and
Deputy Postmaster General serve at the pleasure of the Governors. John E. Potter,
PostmasterGeneralPatrick R. Donahoe, Deputy Postmaster General and Chief
Operating Officer with service at 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW. Washington, DC 20260.
21. THE CITY OF NEW Y O W (NYC) is a New York state subdivision and as a
municipality entity is represented by its corporation counsel Michael Cardozo located at the NYC
Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

22. NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS www.vote.nvc.ny.us OIJYC BOE) whose
commissioners are equally composed of the Republican Party and Democratic Party by law:
a. Jamcs J. Sarnpel. d. JulieDent, : h. Nancy Mottola-
President. e. Nero Gnham lr.. Schacher.
b. Frcdcric M. Umane f. Tcrrcnce C. i. Gregory C. Soumas.
Sc~rctary, 0-Connor. j. Maryann Yemclla,
c. Anthony Como, g. Juan Carlos Polanco.
each in officialcapacity and individually with service at 32 Broadway New York, NY 10004.
A - 33
STATEMENT OF FACTS pursuant to

FRCvP Rule 65(b) for a Temporary Restraining Order
23. Candidate seeks equity relief under FRCvP Rule 65(b) with a temporary restraining
order (TRO) of defendants the USPS, NYC BOE and their agents, for ballot access at the
September gh 2008 primary, that without certified voter list for mailings without aliens registered to
vote. within Brooklyn and NYC is a Federal matter statewide and nationwide. That TRO relief is
requested until hearing for a preliminary injunction and special master sort out the ballot access
matter for existing SDs improperly districted in April 2002 remain the same with serious unequal
protection issues, as time is of the essence for ballot access before September and November 2008.
24. That NYC has exclusive home-rule over 5 Boroughs as a non-complying state
subdivision with population too large for a home-rule entity, has more than one-third of the state
Senators 26 of 62 rather than 20 of 62, and with political districts mis-distributed shown below:
New York City Political District Maps
a65sa ELZLBB 34841:a49If5293031B e e l

Strunk v. USPS et al EDNY 08-cv-1744
25. That the 18" SD is contrary to NYS Constitution Article I11 Section 4 mandates. in
that the 18" SD, has no Assembly District (AD) wholly within. per above fl 10, requires Assembly
Districts wholly within othenvise is prima facie injury in fact: however, the 18' SD is composed of
8 ADS with portions of the 44, 50. 5 1. 52, 54.55, 56 and 5 P enlarged map. see Exhibit 2 herein.
26. The 18" SD as of the 2000 Census has 3 1 1.260 total persons including aliens. and of
the total persons. 226283 are 18 years or older, with 179869 as of October 2007 deemed AEV.
27. The 2000 Census count for the 18" SD created a class of Caucasians total 12.73%
among Hispanics 24.45%, Non-Hispanic Blacks 57.66%. and Others 5.14%. as shown in Exhibit 2.
28. The NYC BOE reports October 31,2007 that the 1 8 SD

~ has 179869 active eligible
voters in 8 ADS Brooklyn Senate District Map at Exhibit 2. with total population summary by AD
portions (see Exhibit 3) within each SD of the 9 SDs left unrelated to the 21 ADS per above n24,.
29. Candidate in his campaign to unseat Senator Velamette Montgomery contends
Brooklyn residents and communities suffer because the 18 local community boards. each with say
135k persons. need elected community board delegates Brooklyn-wide that would compose a
bottom-up republican form of legislative body with home-rule that must include an Executive-
President empowered as it was before the 1960s Mayor Wagner Administration's consolidation.
30. In June 2007 Candidate obtained from the NYC Board of Elections an active voter
list of Republican Party members consistent with the Party Call and list of non-Democrats.
3 1. There is a significant lack of Republican Committee members from the 1 8 SD

~ for
ballot access for a Republican Party candidate without petitioning for 446 party member signatures
equal to 5% of party votes for the Republican Party Gubernatorial candidate at the 2006 election or
as an independent candidate 3000 signatures later chis summer due to failure of efforts to associate.
32. Candidate went to 26 Court Street in January 2008 to find no Republican Party
Ofice in Brooklyn there anymore at that address, was vacant.
A - 35
Strunk v. USPS e! a1 EDhT 0s-c\:- 1 744
-9
2- The 18th SD was created in .April 2002 by Stale La\$ at the same time as for the
State Assenihly and U.S. I-louse Politicill Ilistricts. ~~ntler

la\v shall be created together ivithin the
state subdivision and pre-cleared by the DOJ: the maps for comparison of districts follo\s::
Figure I - Brooklyn State Assen~hly1)istricts Figure 2 - HrooMyr~State Senate Districts
Figure 3 - Brookl)n U.S. nuusc i)intrirts 1;igut-c. 4 - Rrrn~klj11 City Council District>
Amended Complain! Page I I of 33
A - 36
Strunk v. USPS et al EDNY 08-cv- 17-61
31 For comparison of the districts show in above Fi~urss1 thru 1 as a niatter ofiarv
are non-coterminous requires return of Brooklyn Homc~-iClrlcpas a statc sub-di\*ision.that should
conform as do the districts in Figures 5 thru 8 belaw for consistency with home-rule as follo\\:s:
Figure 5 - Brooklyn Cornmu~~ity

Boar-d Districts Figure 6 - BrooWyn Police Precincts
- - ~
~~ -
Figure 7 - Brooklyr~School Uo:trd Districts Figure 8 - Brooklyn Census 'Tr:tcts
Amended Complaint I1age 12 of 33
A - 37
- -
35.. July 2007 Strunk used the electronic Brooklyn Republican Party list obtained h m
the NYC BOE to select 200 Republican Party women of middle age on the basis of family. and
location in the Brooklyn 44 AD to receive a Republican Party building campaign statcment with a
self addressed envelope for response; 12 letters of the 200 letter mailing were returned by the USPS
marked unknown: statistically should receive 1% - didn't.
36. The Brooklyn Republican Party Directory of Assembly District Leaders who are also
State Committee Members, 2 per AD, was issued after the September 2007 primary. see Exhibit 4.
37. The Brooklyn Republican Party Call List of May 2007 issued for September 2007
Primary elections to elect Republican County Committee members from each election district has
274 members in the 18' SD. as the mailing list shows 60% are vacant. see Exhibit 5.
38. In order for Candidate to build a Republican campaign committee in the 18' SD on
February 25.2008 used the Republican voter list to produce a mailing by USPS standard first class
mailing by selecting 300 or so Republican women for greater results, of middle age, on the basis of
family. location, 2 for each vacant Election District (ED), and as such 150 letters first mailing were
delivered by the USPS to half the list as a first mailing with my letter marked Exhibit 6.
39. By March 14,2008 the USPS returned 25 of 150 letters of the first mailing marked
address or occupant unknown, as highlighted on the mailing list shown on Exhibit 5.

40. Without expending considerable h d s , that Candidate does not have, there is
insufficient time to assemble a Republican Campaign Committee in the 18' SD to build support
locally in this election cycle before the September and the November 2008 elections, without an
efficient way to reach individual Republican Party members using USPS mailings with an accurate
active voter list fiom the NYC BOE for the 18" SD, and available for Strunk to obtain sigmtures by
walking house to house for support as a burden for ballot access that infringes 1'' amendment rights.
4 1. The NYC BOE is required to work with the USPS under the NVRA to notify of
address changes and or occupant unknown so that the NYC BOE may modify active voter rolls.
Amended Complainl Page 13 of 33
A - 38
Suunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv- 1744
42- Candidate has spent more than $300 in two test mailings for printing and mailing
costs in the 1gLhSD, no less than 17% names unknown due to the bad NYC BOE list-
43. That Senator Montgomery was re-elected in 2006 with a vote of 42.869 with a 25%
voter turnout against the Republican Viviana Vasquez-Hernandezwith 2,420 votes.

44. The NYC BOE reports the 18' SD has 179869 AEV equal to 139864 Dems, 8710
Reps and 3 1295 other eligible voters, shown on Exhibit 3. and that a Candidate has to convince
sufficient AEV and new registrants to vote in the amount of no less than 25% of the AEV to win.
45. The NY State Constitution Article III mandates that every state sub-division shall
have all Assembly, Senate and by inference U.S. House Districts wholly within a sub-division
except for one remainder shared with the adjoining subdivision; and as such NYC and Brooklyn
don't comply, as Figures 1 thru 3 show, was not done for timely ballot access for the 2008 elections.
46. That Strunk contends that any qualified candidate as a sovereign citizen of the State
of New York gratehl to Almighty God for our fieedom to secure its blessing, has a compelling
state interest that must not be barred from office on account of lack of funds to do so.
47. That Strunk contends that a qualified candidate as a sovereign citizen who is a
member of one of the two competing majority state parties of the State of New York gmeful to
Almighty God for our fieedom to secure its blessing, has a compelling state interest that there
absolutely must not be any bar to competition between candidates of the two major state parties for
office on account of any burden upon such competition to do so.
48. On June 3,2008 Strunk as a Republican Party Senate candidate for the 18' SD
started to seek signatures of Republican Party members on his designating Petition for ballot access
to the Republican Party Primary for filing 36 days before the September 9,2008. a copy of the
Designating Petition (see Exhibit 7 ) for the NY SD 18' SD.
49. On June 3.2008 Strunk is a Republican Party Judicial Convention Delegate
candidate from the 571hAD and Senate Candidate fir the 18* SD, has a combined candidate
A - 39
desipating petition seeks signatures of Republican Party members on the Petition for ballot access
to the Republican Party Primary for filing 36 days before the September 9,2008, a copy of the
Designating Petition (see Exhibit 8) for the NY SD 18" SD and 57' AD delegate combined.
50. On June 3,2008 Strunk as a Republican Party Judicial Convention Delegate
candidate from the 57' AD because the 57' AD is not wholly within the 18" SD. seeks signatures
of Republican Party members from the 57' AD who do not reside within the 18' SD on his
designating Petition for ballot access to the Republican Party Primary for filing 36 days before the
September 9.2008, a copy of the Designating Petition (see Exhibit 9) for the NY 57' AD.
5 1. On June 5,2008 Strunk used the USPS to mail thc combined candidate designating
petition for ballot access shown as Exhibit 8 seeking signatures of the 110 members of the
Republican County Committee from the 5? AD within the 1 8fi SD shown in Exhibit 5. and that on
the reverse side of the Petition has introductory letter (see Exhibit 10) to each State Committee
member instruction to have a witness to the signature if possible and then to be returned to Chris
Strunk for New York Senate committee address 595 Vanderbilt Avenue #I02 Brooklyn NY 1 1238.
52. That no Brooklyn SD has an equal number of ADS wholly within as required by the
State Constitution as cited in above 710.
53. That equal protection of suffrage under law requires every SD to have ADS wholly
within to prevent such burden upon Judicial Convention Delegate and Senate candidates.
54. That Strunk needs a certilied Republican Party member list for the 18' SD to decide
where to walk house by house to obtain signatures most efficiently with limited time.
55. On June 5,2008 Strunk went to the Brooklyn Board of Elections to obtain a certified
list of Republican Party members within the 18' SD.
56. The Brooklyn Board of Elections Democrat Party Office Manager denied Strunk the
opportunity to review a copy of the actual list without first purchasing every AD book for $80.
57. The Democratic Party Ofice Manager stated that "the Brooklyn BOE is in the
A - 40
Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08cv- 1744
business of selling the books as one package for the 18Ih SD and various SDs and would loose
revenue if only one book were sold from the respective package only for say $10 rather than $80."
58. Strunk was directed to go to the NYC BOE in Manhattan to obtain an electronic list.
59. Strunk went to the NYC BOE on June 5.2008 to obtain an electronic list of only the
18' SD voters. and was informed that it would cost $50, that Strunk does not yet have to expend.
60. That Defendants and or agents were duly notified of misapplication / administration
of the redistricting of the state political districts within Brooklyn before March 6,2006.
61. Defendants did not redistrict Brooklyn before March 6.2006.
62. That there are more than 1 Senate District shared by other Boroughs illegally
63. There is more than 1 U.S. House District shared by other Boroughs illegally.
64. That in Brooklyn there is no existing assembly district wholly within a senate district
as shown on Exhibit 3.
65. That there is only I assembly district shared with an adjoining borough.
66. Defendants maintain political districts that have voting power disproportionately
diminished diluted over the 10% deminimus differently in the NYC 26 SIIs and 18' SD in
Brooklyn different than for NYC, notwithstanding whether the ratio should be 22 SDs of 50 SDs or
26 SDs of 62 SDs statewide according to express State Constitution Article 111, and WMCA case.
67. Those Defendants promote incumbent status quo in the 18' SD and other political
Districts within Brooklyn for partisan togdown monocentrism to dissuade voter participation and
or expectation of success.
68. Defendants are subject to remedy under the Civil Rights Acr pursuant to Title 42
U.S.C. 1983 $ 1985, $1988, the VRA. and related law provisions of the US and Statc Constitutions.
A - 41
Strunk v. USPS et a]. EDNY 08-cv-1744
AS A N D FOR CAUSE ONE
USPS Non-profit Standard Mail Rule 703 is facially unconstitutional and its agents deny
equal protection for eligible voters and candidates seeking public office
69. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in
paragraphs 1-68 above as applies to Defendants the USPS and its Board of Directors and their
agents deny equal protection and treatment for suffrage and as to candidates seeking public office
with use of the Standard Mail rates devised by the USPS thereby effect election law of New York
and the various states provision of a republican form of government for the people sovereign within.
70. That Standard Mail service was restructured fiom Third-Class Mail and Fourth-Class
Mad in 1996, and used mainly for businesses, Standard Mail has these requirements:
a. Minimum 200 pieces per mailing
b. Must weigh less than 1 (454 g)
c. No return service unless requested (an additional fee is charged for return service)
d. Not for personal correspondence, letters, bills. or statements
e. Annual fee for Third- and fourth-class mail was restructured in 1996 into Standard Mail
(A) and Standard Mail (B):
f. Standard Mail (A) consists of three new mail subclasses: Automation, Enhanced Carrier
Route. and Regular. The minimum bulk mailing requirement of 200 addressed pieces or
50 punds of addressed pieces remains the same as under previous third-class maii rules,
but now requires mail list certification.
3. The Automation mail subclass must be 100-percent delivery point bar-coded (1 1 digits)
for letters. The Z1P+4 barcode is acceptable for flats. The carrier routes and coding
accuracy for bar-coded addresses must be certified quarterly and semi-annually.
respectively.
A - 42
h. The Enhanced Carrier Route mail subclass requires that the basic carrier route be in a
line of travel sequence and that the hi@ density and saturation rate mail be in walk
sequence to qualify for the respective rates.
i. The Regular mail subclass must be certified annually for five-digit ZIP Code.
j. Standard Mail (B) consists of the following mail subclasses: Parcel Post,Bound Printed
Matter. Special Standard Mail, Library Mail. and Non~rofit.The latter two subclasses
are not authorized for government use. The mailing requirements for this mail class
remain unchanged from fourth-class mail. However. the mail piece must bear the
sender's return address. and the delivery address must include the correct ZIP Code.
Special fourth-class mail was renamed Special Standard Mail and the basic requirements
for its use remains the same.
71. U.S. Postal lnspection Service has a law enforcement duty to enforce the laws
including violation of election law as applies to NVRA and HAVA:
a. The U.S. Postal lns~ectionService (USPIS) is one of the oldest law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. It was founded by Benjamin Franklin.
b. The mission of the USPIS is to proted the U.S. Postal Service, its employees and its
customers tiom criminal attack, and protect the nation's mail system from criminal
rn i su se.
c. U.S. law provides for the protection of mail. The USPIS is a major federal
enforcement agency.
d. The USPIS has the power to enforce the law by conducting search and seizure raids on
entities they suspect Of sending non-urgent mail through overnight delivery competitors.
For example: according to the American Entmrise Institute for Public Policv Research,
a private think tank, the USPlS raided E~uifaxoffices to ascertain if the mail they were
A - 43
Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08cv- 1744
sending thmugh Federal Exmess was truly nexWmely urgen~"It was found that thc mail
was not, and Equifax was fined $30,000.
e. USPS Office of inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Postal Service was authorized by law in
1996 to prevent, detect and report h u d waste and program abuse, and promote
efficiency in the operations of the Postal Service.
f. The OIG has "oversight" responsibility for all activities of the Postal lnsDection Service.
72.The USPS a d its agents have the authority over Interstate and foreign commerce, including
all trade matters within the jurisdiction of the full committee; Regulation of commercial practices
(the FTC), including sports-related matters; Consumer affairs and consumer protection, including
privacy matters generally; consumer product safety (the CPSC); product liability; and motor vehicle
safety;Regulation of travel, tourism, and time; and, Homeland security-related aspects of the
foregoing, including cyber security.
73. The United States Postal Service (USPS) in New York State uses EL 5 1-1 04(3) in this state
and every state nationwide to affect all U.S. Citizens nationwide as a continuous direct injury
infringing my d h g e along with those similariy situated, and in fact d e n anyone uses the
Standwd Mail full postage fees
74. That such rule is as if apoll tar maliciously imposed for unjust enrichment of incumbents by
the USPS as a patronage favor for the incumbent Democrat and Republican Parties whose State and
National candidates are afforded special treatment, not otherwise afforded challengers and
Independent Candidates.
75. The USPS Regulation Rules 703 Nomrofir Stumkud Mail use EL 4 1 - 104(3) for
State Parties ( ~ e e : h t m . .d . h n n w'~.b)
. ~ ~ ~ ~
h t t D ~ / b e = u s ~ s * c o ~ M M 3 0 0 n ~ 3 . h4t under
m # l section 1.0 Nonprofit Standard Mail for
A - 44
Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08cv-1744
1.3 Qualified Political Committees and State or local Voting Registration Oficials, 1.3.1
Political Committees and thet these political committees may be authorized to mail at the Nonprofit
Standard Mail rates without regard to their nonprofil status:
a A national committee of a political parly.

b. A state committee of a political party.
c. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
d. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
e. The National Republican Congressional Committee.
f. The National Republican Senatorial Committee.
76. The USPS Regulation imposes Rules 703 Nonprofit S t d r d Mail for State Parties
at cross purpose to the Hatch Act that maliciously uses Standmd Mdl as subsidy for select Parties:
Rules 1.3-2 Definitions For the standardw in 1-3.1:
a. A nu~iomlcommittee is the organization that, by virtue of the bylaws of a political party,
is responsible for the day-to-day o j x d o n s of such political party at the national level.
b. A state committee is the organization that, by virtue of the bylaws of a political party, is
responsible for the day-to-day operation of such political party at the state level.
77. The USPS special treatment under Nonprofit Standard Mail rules is unreasonably
afforded State and National Party structure however denied m y independent body or ballot
qualified independent candidate committee are unconstitutionally denied equal treatment by the
United States Postal Service under color of provision of regulation Rule 703 for provision of
Nonprofit St+d Mail privilege subject to Defendants' administration of EL 51-104(3);

78. Further, that Candidate Plaintiff and those similarly situated before and after granted
ballot access relief, as a result of the u n w n s t i ~ i burden

d placed upon them by the USPS
regulation 703 rules, is intended to absolutely deny equal treatment of speech, association petition
for redress has a fatal chilling effect on the perceived meaningfbess of suffrage, and is real
financial burden to the respective candidates and upon perception of eligible voters.
79. As a basic inequity the USPS S~ondardMail Rate for a one ounce letter was 39 cents
during the 2007 mailing, using the 2007 rate structure for example despite rate increase to 41 cents
and now 42 cents. the basic 39 cents cost when pre-sorted is 36.3 cents and by re-sorted Bulk is
34.1 cents. and compares significantly to the USPS Nonprofit Standard Mail for National and State
party subsidy for a presorted one ounce letter was 24.7 cents, presorted Bulk was 21.5 cents. a clear
and decisive advantage of the States parties infringes a Voter's right to speech at the mailbox
burdens candidate's speech.
80. That using the 2000 Census each Senate District in New York had an average of say
3 1 I k total persons of which about say 180k were eligible voters to average less than 25% of the
voters who turn out to vote or say 45,000 voters means incumbent needs 22.501 votes to win.
81. In the Brooklyn 18' SD the incumbent received an overwhelming landslide majority
of votes as a result of the injuries claimed in above 1180 for a 2006 total of say 42k against a
Republican candidate receiving merely 3k despite two republican mayors elected in a row, and
represents a burdened devised by NYC Defendants to limit a bottom-up Republican Pany
involvement: and
82. That gerrymandering of the 18' SD and in Brooklyn was and is intended to give any
incumbent Democrat easy re-election, by choosing the voters when drawing the district.
83. That the 18' SD incumbent ease of re-election means that beyond her official
finkingprivilege for maintaining her base created by gerrymandering, that she need only solicit
say 50% of 45k or 22.50 1 of those who do not vote to maintain an advantage over any opponent.
84. That on the basis of one letter each under Nonprofit Standurd Mail requires
incumbent need only spend say $4,837.72 on postage for 22,501 letters at say 2 1.5 cents each; but
an opponent, must expend much more without a subsidy for the same pool of nonparticipating
eligible voters plus building a 45k base, and thus the Candidate under Standard Mail must spend
$34.1 on postage for say 45k plus 22,501 = 67,501 x 34.1 cents or $23.01 7.79 for an equal result in
Amended Complaint Page 2 1 of 33

mailing: which is a significant burden that inhibits a major p t y challenger without funds or an
independent candidate-s speech and a voter's right to know at the mailbox as an eligible voter
85. That the USPS and their agents use the Standard Mail rate with specific standard
mail bulk qualificationsfor candidates challenging Major State Party candidates in Brooklyn,
Statewide and Nationwide.
86. That USPS and their agents use the non-profit standard mail rate to assist existing
two major state and national parties and the related incumbents to public office.
87. That the USPS and their agents use the standard mail rate to subsidize the non-profit
standard mail rate.
88. That non-profit Standard mail rules does not provide equal protection of Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for ballot access.
89. That non-profit Standard mail rule 703 does not provide equal access protection of
plaintiff and those similarly situated for competition against incumbents with ballot access.
90. That USPS method in Rule 703 is intended to discriminate.
91. Based upon information and belief members of the USPS Board of Directors are top
level Masons and associates of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) within the order and
rites of the Scottish and York rite freemasonry. depicted in the Emblematic Strucrrrre of
Freemasonry, see Exhibit 1 1.
92. That the SMOM and Black Pope of the Society of Jesus share their Vatican State
Headquarters occupy the top of the York and Scottish Rites to control Lhe conspiratorial Masonic
movement, that in New York came under challenge in 1828'" and referenced by Samuel F. Morse
The New York Anti-Masonic Party (also known as the Anti-Masonic Movement) was a 19th century minor
political party in the United Stales The Anti-Masonic Party was formed in upstate New York in
1828. It strongly opposed Freemasonry. and was founded as a single issue party. aspiring to become a major party. It
introduced important innovations to American politics. such as nominating conventions and the adoption o f party
platforms.
in Foreign Conspiracy Against The Liberties Of The United States: The Numbers Of Brutus, (1835).
93. That members of the orders who take un oath in the rites of freemasonry are thereby
agents of the reigning Pope of Vatican State whose business component the SMOM is located at the
Headquarters shared with the Society of Jesus and the Black Pope for conspiratorial control over the
Rites of the entire Masonic movement, notwithstanding Prince Hall Lodge without orders and rites.
94. That the York and Scottish Rite Freemasonry orders shown in Exhibit 11 are
intended to deny equal protection within and without.
95. That the York and Scottish Rites Freen~asonryrites are entered by the top order
levels by members that require an oath to the Pope and Vatican State.
96. That the required rites are unequal protection for exclusive membership.
97. By virtue of the Orders with oath of devotion to the rite hierarchy and control
structure with exclusive membership is not benevolent under law of the land.
98. That those members by virtue of the oath of devotion are agents of the top control of
the hierarchy.
99. That the Pope and Vatican State are a sovereign state power with no less than 170
concordant treaties some which are with the United States of America.
Opposition to Masonry was taken up by the churches as a sort of religious crusade. and it also became a local
political issue in western New York, where. early in 1827. the citizens in many mass meetings resolved to support no
mason for public office. In the elections of 1828 the new party proved unexpectedly strong and after this year it
practically superseded the National Republican party in New York.
In 1829 it broadened its issues base when it became a champion of internal improvements and of the protective
tariff.The pafy published 35 weekly newspapers in New York Soon one became preeminent, the Albany Jotvnd.
edited by Thurlow Weed,a Whig Party leader, opposed Manin Van B m . The party held a conference in September
1837 to discuss its situation: one delegate was former Pres. John Quincy Adams. The third Anti-Masonic National
nominating convention fiap://www.ourcampai~s.com/RaceDelail.h~l?Racel~32897) was held in Temperance
Hall. Philadelphia, on 1 1113-14/1838. By this time. the party had been almost entirely engulfed by the Whig Party.
In 1831. William A. Palmer was elected governor of Vermont on an Anti-Masonic ticket, an office he held
until 1835. The party conducted the first U.S. presidential nominating convention in the U.S. at Baltimore. in the 1832
elections. nominaring William Wirt (a former Mason) for President and Amos Ellmaker for Vice President Wirt won
7.78 percent of the popular vote. and the seven electoral voles from Vermont The highest elected office ever held by a
member of the party was that of a governor. besides Palmer in Vermont, Joseph Rimer was the governor of
Pennsylvania from 1835 to 1838.
A - 48
St.ru.ukv. USPS et al. EDNY 08-cv-1744
100. That the Pope before his trip to the USA in April stated that all handguns must be
confiscated internationally.
101. That during the Pope's trip to the USA at the United Nations in New York stated to
the general assembly that the USA must submit to the interests of the UN.
102. That the Pope during his visit to theUSA mandated that the Border of the USA with
Mexico and Canada remain open and unguarded for anyone desiring to entire.
103. That Mayor Bloomberg and Defendants of the City Council and Speaker Quinn use
the NYC BOE to aide and abetted sanctuary policy for illegal aliens in conspiracy with the SMOM
that has imposed unreasonable costs upon the residents and sovereign people of the outer Boroughs
and people of the State of New York as evidenced by the recent modest policy statement of the
American Legion and the statistics on which it is based, a copy of the report (see Exhibit 12 herein)
of no less than 30 million, the report only uses 20 million illegal aliens now in this country to show
that State Citizens are suffering a major crime wave with no less than 5% of that number or 1
million illegal alien criminals on the loose or incarcerated to the outrageously damaging financial
and social detriment of US Citizens and their families.
104. used in computing the figures shown on their website and include reports issued by
government agencies and private sector organizations follows:
a Number of Illegal Aliens in U.S. ...................................... 2 1,218,615

b. Money Wmd to Mexico Since Jan. 2006 ............... $42,363,149,000
c. Cost of Social Services for lllegals since 1996. ..... $397,480,946,017
d. Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools ...................... 4, 184,824
e. Cost of lllegals in K-12 Since 1996 .........................$ 14,828,106,397
f. I legal Aliens Incarcerated .................................................. 35 1.087
g. Cost of Incarceration since 2001. ............................ ...% 1,477,239,843
h. Illegal Alien Fugitives ............................................................. 663,347
i. Anchor Babies since 2002 .............................................. 2, 148,175
j. Skilled Jobs Taken by megal Immigrants .......................... 10,232,44 1
Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY O8cv- 1744
105. Based upon information belief Mayor Bloomberg is a Knight of Sovereign Military
Order of Malta (SMOM) by virtue of his marriage to Susan Brown of Yorkshire England.
106. That the Mayor and other Borough Presidents control the top-down appointment of
all 18 Brooklyn Community Boards (see Figure 5 on page 12 of 33 above); and
107. That Defendants act to conceal topdown control and circumvent scrutiny.
108. Those Defendants and their agents appoint Brooklyn Community Board members
that will represent the topdown interest associated with the interests of the SMOM.
109. That when appointees express opinion beneficial to their respective community are
dismissed from the topdown and replaced summarily by Mayor Bloomberg and other Borough
Presidents without a vote of the People, happened in Board 6 and others in Brooklyn.
110. Defendants are opposed to bottom-up plycentrism in Brooklyn as with elected
community boards or bottom-up competition within each political district in Brooklyn.
1 1 1. That NYC Defendants act to conceal topdown control and circumvent scrutiny.
1 12. Those NYC Defendant and their agents appoint Brooklyn Community Board
members that will represent the topdown interests associated with the interests of the SMOM.
1 13. On October 15.2007 Strunk testified at the N.Y. State Senate Committee on State's
Security and Transportation warning of sedition and treason involving aiding and abetting illegal
aliens, a copy of the Testimony with the letter see Exhibit 13, therein Candidate states:
... the People's sovereignty guaranteed in our State Bill of Rights Law in all matters is affected,
especiallyfor the sanciiiy of the vote under Article II would be undermined and stolen by
dilution andfiaud. My associate the Honorable Robert K Dornan has suffered since /he 1996
stolen election by the perfidy of Globalist Republicans and Democrats who in Califonia and
elsewhere use illegal aliens to vote as a weapon against our sovereignty....
1 14. The Honorable Robert K. Doman alleges that aliens vote with impunity at federal
elections effecting the House of Representatives, as done in July 2006 shown in Exhibit 13, wrote a
letter on September 12,2006 to U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE use of voters lists in conjunction

Strunk v. USPS et al. EDNY 08cv-1744
with its questionable involvement in Federal and State elections, see Exhibit 14.
1 15. ~a upon the recent modest policy Nnement of the A ~ ~ e r i cLegion

m and the
stadistics on which it is based, a copy of the report shown in Exhibit 12, of the 20 million or so
illegal diens now in this c o w we are suffering a major crime wave with ~ a no
y less than 5% of
that or co-atively 1 million illegal alien criminals on the loose or incarcerated to the
financial and social detriment of US Citizens and their families.
1 16. Those NYC Defendants and their agents fail to use mail notification requirements by
the USPS as provided pursuant to State and NVRA law for purpose of inflating voter lists.
117. That NYC Defendants use idlafed voter list using registered illegal aliens to secure
greater funds for the Federal government under the HAVA in violation of the False Claims Act.
AS AND FOR CAUSE TWO
Brrech of Fiduciary duty onder the NVRA and HAVA by the United States Postal Service
and its agents that deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public office
paragraphs 1-1 17 above as applies to Defendants the USPS and its Board of Directors and their
agents.
119. That USPS Defendants have a fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA to
safeguard voter mgislration and change of address detection and records for each State BOE.
120. USPS and its Board of Directors and their agents in the matter of denial of equal
w o n and treatment of candidates for public office despite mandates under the NVRA and
HAVA provisions to maintain accurate voter lists do not handle the mail in regards to verification
of voter r e g i s t d o n in a equal way fromzip code to zip code and fium single family residence to
multifamily residence.
A - 51
AS AND FOR CAUSE THREE
Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by NYC, NYC Board of Election
and its agents deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public office fail
to maintain accurate active enrolled voters don't enforce EL 55-213
paragraphs 1-120 above as applies to Defendants the New York City, NYC Board of Elections and
each of their agents (NYC Defendants).
122. That without an accurate Republican active voter list is extremely time consuming to
try to catch someone at home in order to get them to sign the designating petition.
123. That NYC Defendants have a fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA to
safeguard voter registration and change of address detection and records to the State BOE.
124. That NYC Defendants have no way to detect voter impersonation unless by
registered ID and photo.
125. That the NYC Defendants are unable to check other state data bases for duplicate
registration of individuals also living and voting in other states.
126. That the NYC Defendants are aware of decades of vote h u d transacted in Brooklyn
going back to the 1960s and have no way to prevent it.
127. That NYC Defendant has no way to guarantee that it is able to prevent fraud by
signature recognition only.
128. NYC Defendants deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public
office fail to maintain accurate active enrolled voters.
129. That NYC Defendants do not take inactive voters off of the active voter lists.
130. That NYC Defendants ordered Republican Party employees of the Brooklyn BOE
not to pam'cipate or promote bi-partisan competition of the major state parties in Brooklyn.
A - 52
131. Those NYC Defendants seek to promulgate lack of enforcement of the AEV.
132. Those NYC Defendants have inflated party membership to inflate ballot access
requirements by requiriny increased number of signatures by candidate in the 18' SD in the service
of SMOM business and real property interests to eliminate competition to the Senator.
133. Those NYC Defendants and their agents prevented ballot access for viable
Republican candidates to run against Democrats incumbents reelected without challenge in 2006.
134. That NYC Defendants and their agents inflate major party membership maintain
ghost AEV to obtain greater campaign funding from the government.
135. Tkat NYC Defendants for the 2006 Election in NYC created no special safeguards to
prevent illegal aliens and or aliens to vote with impunity.
136. Those NYC Defendants and their agents lack compliance with the NVRA and
HAVA enforcement in New York State, and New York City for certifying accuracy of the active
eligible voter lists maintained by the NYC BOE and NYS BOE.
137. That NYC Defendants in NYC and the 1 8' SD the NYC BOE applied for HAVA
fbnds using all persons 18 years or older as if aliens were citizens eligible to vote against State and
Federal law.
138. Mayor Bloomberg. notwithstanding the requirements of the NYS Constitution
Article 2, favors non-partisan elections invested in the 2003 NYC Charter Revision referendum.
139. Mayor Bloomberg works with the SMOM to promote sanctuary by aiding and
abetting illegal aliens
140. That Mayor Bloomberg promotes open participation of everyone 18 years or older to
vote in NYC that would include illegal aliens and aliens in general.
141. Mayor Bloomberg has testified to knowing and promoting the presence of no less
than 500,000 illegal aliens in NYC and has admitted to aiding and abetting them.
A - 53
142. That Mayor Bloomberg along with the Knight Rudolf Giuliani. and other former
Mayors who are SMOM members, promotes a monocentric corporate smcture against the citizen
right to bottom-up home rule.
143. That NYC Defendants and their agents intend to allocate election resources and poll
placement to favor suffrage participation at the elections to assist incumbents.
AS AND FOR CAUSE FOUR
Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by the NYC, the NYC Board of
Election and its agents deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public
office use unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party
candidate under EL $5-304(3) (Lockbox provision)
paragraphs 1-1 43 above as applies to NYC Defendants.
145. NYC Defendants prevent voters enrolled in one party From changing enrollment into
another party to sign a designating petition of the newly enrolled party during the 13 month lock
box period before the General Election and prevent said enrollee to vote in the primary of the new
enrolled party.
146. NYC Defendants prevent voters non-enrolled or blank from enrolling into a state
party to sign a designating petition of the newly enrolled party during the 13 month lock box period
before the General Election, however continue to bar new enrollee fiom the primary voting.
147. NYC Defendants allow first time voters to enroll into a state party to sign a
designating petition of the newly enrolled party during the 13 month lockbox period before the
General Election. and allow said enrollee to vote in the primary of the newly enrolled party.
148. That due to the effects of gerrymandering the Republican Party membership has
dwindled to such a degree that it is difficult to find a republican to carry a petition as a witness.
A - 54
AS A N D FOR CAUSE FIVE
Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by the NYC,the NYC Board of
oflice use unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party
candidate under EL $5404
paragraphs 1 - 148 above as applies to NYC Defendants.
150. NYC Defendants prevent voters enrolled in one party from inspecting the active
voter lists without having to spend money to do so.
151. Without ready access in a useable form for a candidate with limited knds to at least
make copies of portions of the voters' lists on a copy machine is a burden placed upon Strunk
without a compelling state interest to prevent him from doing so.
A S A N D FOR CAUSE SIX
Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by the NYC, the NYC Board of
office use ur~constitutionalredistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party
candidate under EL 85-606
152. Plaintiffrepeats and realleges each and every fact and allegation contained in
paragraphs 1- 15 1 above as applies to NYC Defendants.
153. NYC Defendants unreasonably bar candidates from obtaining a certified voters list
without having to spend money to do so.
154. NYC Defendants prevent ready access in a certified voter lists without a compelling
state interest to prevent him From doing so.
A - 55
AS AND FOR CAUSE SEVEN
Breech of Fiduciary duty under the NVRA and HAVA by the NYC, The NYC Board of
off~ceuse unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party
candidate renders EL $6-136(1) facially unconstitutional
paragraphs 1-154 above as applies to NYC Defendants.
156. NYC Defendants deny candidates h m parties with small total membership equal
protection of eligible voters and candidates for public oflice with the Democratic Party in the NY
18' SD and as similarly situated in other districts under color of the formula for total signature
defined pursuant to EL $6-136.
157. That according to the requirement of the Democrat candidacy in the NY 18' SD to
compete in the primary on September 9,2008 the candidate needs only 1200 valid Democratic
Party enrolled voters of 139864 enrolled Democrats within to sign the designating petition for ballot
access at the Democratic Primary.
158. That according to the requirement of the Republican candidacy in the NY 181hSD to
compete in the primary on September 9,2008 the candidate needs 446 valid Republican Party
enrolled voters of 8710 enrolled Republicans within to sign the designating petition for ballot access
at the Republican Primary.
159. NYC BOE affords the arbitrary minimum signatures set by law for the Party with
more members whose candidates are afforded an easier access to the ballot because of greater
availability of party signers.
160. NYC BOE law is facially unconstitutiond and denies equal treatment with the larger
party. especially so under the condition of gerrymandering injury in the NY 18' SD.
Amended Complaint I'age 3 1 of 33
A - 56
16I. Based upon the ratio 1200 signatures to 139864 members of the Democratic Party in
the NY 18" SD, equity would require only say 71 signatures for the alleged 87 10 Republicans lists
I f o r the NY I 8" SD.
162. The EL $6-136(2)@) is facially unconstitutional as applied by the NYC, the NYC
Board of Election and its agents that do not use equal protection of eligible voters and candidates
for public ofice under use of unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican
Party candidate
AS AND FOR CAUSE EIGHT
Under the condition of gerrymandering of the 57" AD, the EL $6-136(3) signature
requirement is facially uoconstitutional in use by the NYC,the NYC Board of Election and
its agents used deny equal protection of eligible voters and candidates for public office
under use of unconstitutional redistricting to burden ballot access for Republican Party
candidate for the 57IhAD Republican Judicial Delegate.
163. Plaintiffrepeats and realleges eachand every fact and allegation contained in
paragraphs 1-162 above as applies to NYC Defendants.
16. NYC Defendants place an unreasonable burden for candidates to obtain ballot
access for the 57" AD Republican party Judicial Delegate because the AD is divided and requires
more effort to be expended to gain ballot access with different type of designating petitions separate
for that of the NY 18Ih SD
165. That NYC Defendants' activities mount to an unlawful prima facie tort.
Wherefore, plaintiff demands the relief as follows:
A. On the first cause of action an Order that a TRO be granted prohibiting any M h e r use of non-
profit standard mail by any political organization under USPS Rule 703 until prcl iminary
hearing and determination.

B. On the second cause of action an order of the USPS standardize handling of residence
verification requirement set by the NVRA and HAVA for the NYC BOE.
C. On the third cause of action an order of the NYC BOE to certify an active voters list.
D. An order of NYC BOE and NYC to certify that there are no illegal aliens registered to vote.
E. On the fourth cause of action order NYC and NYC BOE under the condition of genymandering
injury to allow candidates to build party membership by convincing non-enrolled or blanks to
join the Republican Party during petitioning by filling out a new enrollment form to be filed
with the NYC BOE and thereby allow the new enrollee to sign the designating petition as a
matter of association rights to build a new party and confidence in the good efforts of candidate
for the State Committee, with the proviso that such enrollee not also vote in the Primary.
F. An order to allow a dcsignating petition signer witness to cany a petition and witness a party
member signing without being a party member under the condition of gerrymandering injury.
G. On the Fifth and Sixth cause of action an order of NYC and NYC ROE to allow candidates with
limited funds or otherwise to inspect the records of certified enrollment lists and to make a copy
there at the BOE by methods costing no money to the BOE.
H. On the Seventh and Eighth cause of action declaration EL 56-136(1) as to a lower signature
amount facially unconstitutional and at least allow a proportional lower number based upon the
same proportion to be used for the small parties.
I. On the declaratoryjudgment on equal protection under non-profit standard mail that there must
be adequate USPS notice as to the efforts completed herein with a public recognition and
apology to Strunk to notify voters of political district changes and of declared candidates gratis.
J. Order that plaintiff bc awardcd one mailing of his campaign statement in the Brooklyn 18' SD
for 67,501 mailings using the certified active eligible voter mailing list gratis.
K. Punitive damages in the sum of $x or such higher amount as may be determined by trier of fact.
L. The costs and disbursements of this action.
M. Attorneys foes where appropriate.
N. Such other and fbrther relief that this Court may deem just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted by:
Dated: June 8". 2008 (3hY.b-h &. stud

Brooklyn. New York
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
,_Z
Strunk Campaign Card - Frorit
CHRIS STRUNK
vdww.strunk.ws
Brooklyn Republican con~petitio~~ --

for the New York IYlts Senate District - --
FREE BROOKLYN for citiwn b a t t o m u p homerule 2008

Chris Strunk Republ~canCampaign for the NY 18th SD
593 Va~lderbiltAverlue - $102 Brooklyrl New Yorh 11238
Stn~nkCampaisn Card - Back
/ ' NYS Energy lnclepencisnce for all NY by vehicle Flex Fuel

Isgrslation for kit rebaie5 and local mr?tiar:ul. ethanol aricl
HHO gas (,iodiiction coinpsririon to fight OPEC price fixing
* Statewide real prollerty tax reforni equity for ebecone iC

fund the levy basetl ilpon volume not capital improvenlsnr
' Rett~rnCo~~ct~ttirionalBlooKl!n Local Botto~nup Ilorns r i ~ l e I

' Bottom-up electro~isf Delegarec t o 18 Corni~iuniqBoards 1
, ' Lctwl Home-~iilsfinancing connol oci.1 z l l j ~ r t l i c ~lal lla n i r s
I
* Facrllcste good jobs io s o h problems lrtsteatl of handoirrs ,
' K-12 CIVICS education teaching State laws ant1 Constitution
' Reksrse gorr\mancler ing daniage and Albany i~ialf?asance
I
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBlT 2
EXHIBIT 2-1
Senate District I8
Total Population : 311,260
Deviation : 5,188
Dev. Percentage : 1.70
I NE Wt_e I NE Black -- - I NE Other I

I Eispanicl NH-Amer Ind I NH Asian I NE Multi
Total 1 39,6351 177,5961 76,0881 870 1 7,874 1 7,7491 1,448 I
Total % I 12.73 1 57.061 24 .a51 0.281 2.531 2.491 0.47 1
Totall8+ 1 34,776 I 125,458 1 52,119 1 607 1 6,526 1 5,7651 1,032 1
Totall8% I 15.37 1 55.44 1 23.031 0.271 2.881 2.551 0.461
NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
SENATE DISTRICT SUMMARY REPORT
AS OF 10/31/2007
Kings County
Democrat
Senate: 17
AD: 40 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 50 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 53 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 54 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 55 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 56 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 57 Male:
Female:
Total:
AS OF 10131/2007
Kings County
Senate: 18
AD: 44 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 50 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 51 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 52 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 54 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 55 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 56 Male:
Female:
Total:
NEW YORK cm BOARD OF ELECTIONS
AS OF 1013112007
Kings County
Senate: 18
AD: 57 Male:
Female:
Total:
AS OF 10131/2007
Kings County
Senate: 19
AD: 40 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 41 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 42 Male:
Female:
Total:
(3 AD: 43 Male:
a
Female:
Total:
Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 56 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 58 Male:
Female:
Total:
AS OF 10/31/2007
Kings County
Democrat
Senate: 20
AD: 42 Male: 94
Female: 84
Total: 178
AD: 43 Male: 479
Female: 393
Total: 872
AD: 44 Male: 269
>
I Female: 327
rn Total: 586
AD: 48 Male: 3
Female: 2
Total: 5
AD: 51 Male: Ill
Female: 90
Total: 201
AD: 52 Male: 85
Female: 122
Total: 207
AD: 55 Male: 26
Female: 31
Total: 57
AS OF 10/31/2007
Kings County
Senate: 20
AD: 56 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 57 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 58 Male:
Female:
Total:
AS OF 1013112007
Kings County
ReDubllcan lndeDendence Conservative Workina

Families
Senate: 2 1
AD: 41 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 42 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 43 Male:
Female:
Total:
9
I AD: 44 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 48 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 49 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 51 Male:
Female:
Total:
NEW YORK CtTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
AS OF 1013112007
Kings County
Democrat ReDublican IndeDendence Warkina Pthar Blank
Families
Senate: 21
AD: 58 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 59 Male:
Female:
Total:
NEW YORK CrrY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
AS OF 10/3112007
Kings County
Democrat ReDublican lndewndence Conservative Worklna
Emilia
Senate: 22
AD: 41 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 45 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 46 Male:
% Female:
I
Total:
w
4 AD: 47 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 48 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 49 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 51 Male:
Female:
NEW YORK C I N BOARD OF ELECTIONS
AS OF 10/31/2007
Kings County
Democrat ReDublican lndeoendence Worltina Blank md
Families
Senate: 22
AD: 59 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 60 Male:
Female:
Total:
NEW YORK C I N BOARD OF ELECTIONS
AS OF 10131/2007
Kings Counly
Blank
Senate: 23
AD: 46 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 47 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 48 Male:
Female:
3 Total:
I
AD: 49 Male:
-l
0 Female:
Total:
AD: 51 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 60 Male:
Female:
Total:
AS OF '10/31/2007
Kings Coirnly
Senale: 25
AD. 50 blale:
I=onlnle.
Total:
AD. !il hl;~lc:;
Female.
Total:
AD. 52 blale:
Fornale
Total:
AD: 57 h.lale:
3
I Female:
Total:
AS OF 10/31/2007
Kings County
Reoublican lndeDendence Wortcna

Families
Senate: 27
AD: 41 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 42 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 44 Male:
Female:
Total:
Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 46 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 47 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 48 Male:
Female:
Total:
AS OF 1013112007
Kings County
Senate: 27
AD: 49 Male:
Female:
Total:
AD: 59 Male:
Female:
Total:
IF I ~ A T ~ V E
fl %ip46-4.
DIRECTORY- o
. . .. BC
a,
T
ED ,.. -<, .-.Nkcm.. -.
FALL 2007 EDITION: NEW YORK CITY DlSTRlCT LEADERS & STATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
EXHIBIT 4
A - 77
.
liim
llam
11105
1 lam
112m
11%
llam
llam
11203
11205
1 lam
11%
llan
1j105
Iti%
11m
1lam
11106
llan
11aM
llam
llam
11XIS
ltps
llam
11106
11205
1lam
11206
1 lam
11295
112M
11Pg
11206
llam
11106
ltaa
11206
11mS
1lPg
11x6
1120
11106
11106
1iia
llaos
1 1213
inn
11213
11213
11213
11215
11215
11215
1121s
1
1M
11215
11216
EXHIBIT 5 -page 1
A - 78
Strunk Committee mailing1As
EXHIBIT 5 -page 2
A - 79
Strunk Committee mailing1 As
11221
11221
11m
iim
-.
iim
11233
iim
tim
iim
EXHIBIT 5 -page 3
A - 80
Strunk Committee mailing1xls
EXHIBIT 5 -page 4
Strurik Committee mailing1 xls
EXHIBIT 5 -page 5
A - 82
CHRIS STRl!\lk: REPUBLI('.\N ('AMPAIGIU COMMITTEE
ior Elcrt~onrcr \he 18"' State Senate Ilistrict in 2008
;03 Vanderbill Avenue - a28 I
Rrooklvn New York 1 1238
February 18. 2008
Re Uv mission is to build a bottom-up 1 home-rule competitive party system,

and responsive State Legislature by my 18* Senate District Candidacy
Dear Ms. my Fellow Republican in CDJAD01 4/54 .
I made the attached testimony to the Senate's State Security Committee on October 15. 2007
that gives a brief personal backyound with a sense of my mission to run for the ~epublicanPmy
nomination and candidate for the 1 gLhSenate District to unseat incumbent Senator Montgomery - who
I contend has no mission. is merelv using the Senate as a job and promotes a topdown nanny state
solution to everything including the limp opposition to the Congestion Pricing fraud which 1 oppose -
-
government employees musi take public transponation and park outside of the alleged crowded area
and that an incentive to private delivery of trucking yoods must include Free ently and exit after 9PM
in the evening until bAm each momins during the week would solve congestion). In comparison to
Senator Montgomery my mission in the 2008 election is a matter of State's statewide security. social
and economic interests I pledge to build Republican - Democrat Party competition as a check upon
substantive due process and equal protection for every citizen opposed to arbitrary autocratic whim.
That arbitrary whim for too long oppresses our daily lives with layers of duties imposed without
government reciprocity to protect our rights and fieedoms That we here in Brooklyn live under
oppressive circumnances in which NYC government and State neglect circumvents fundamental
bottom-up / home-rule law that must be done in the sunshine by citizens locally as a State
Constitution mandate that is now ignored
I have invested my talents and efforts in Brooklyn since 1977. and for too long seen Brooklyn
real property and labor exploitation excess. as ifwe were living on a plantation for Manhattan / New
York City's elites who dictate an eyregious topdown corporate structure by backroom deals Ibr
special interest that circumvent the Farantee of a republican form of governmen[ with home-rule
authority here. 1 contend in Federal coun that the actual population home-rule size proponionally to
the rest of the State subdivisions by State Constitution in fact shows NYC exceeds the population size
allowed as an ongoing injury that wrongly thwarts every citizen's sovereign right to bottom-up
governance over the hture of our posterity in all policy matters.
I contend the State Legislature must provide for Brooklyn home-rule. despite my action in
Albany Federal Coun slnce 2004 before the Honorable Lawrence E. Kahn for a three judge panel on
redistricting there. hy my candidacy I desire debate on the Senate floor as I will do when elected
instead of courtroom floor. My candidacy contends that there is injury to Brooklyn communities tha~
starts 4 t h the numerous local community boards [hat must have duly elected representation in each
local board. and that such elected Brooklyn-wide I.ocal community board as a lgislative body must
provide governance to facilitate a new policy direction in the 719Century with reinvigorated home-
EXHIBIT 6
qlje that !\ill Includea Borough Preqdent empouercd as it war. before the Wagner Adnlinis~~ali*~
consol~dationiu the I ')bOs..
Broo)tlyn Ile& t c t develop industries for 2 I" century needs both under a ditfererlt state
la-; slrucrure separate fronl burdens piaced upon us hv a criminally profli~areFederal Yovernment
\\hose cornrptioll interferenceand lack ofenforcement saps life blood and capital f ~ r n l a t ~ ~ n .
WE Fust not transpon expensive electric tiom Buffalo. Braoklvn needs 10 develop offshore
ridal power electric outside the pon that drastically lowers enersy cons for ower ring a
new otfshore carso handliny and barge ivessel production facilitv here. so that when up and down the
east coast we would link Buffaloand upstate New York by wav of the Hudson River and Erie Canal
that once again would brins efficient Great Lakes transportarion regionally right down the hlississippi
River to the (iult'of 3.lexico. That renewing local and international commerce will pro\.ide a n
increased family based living wage standard statewide that with our new 21'' c e n t u ~rapid transit
reconnect the Empire State wonhy of the slogan where no one is left behind as nou
M y mission needs your assistance for ballot access i n the 2008 Elecrion process. and your help
for success over the next four years in the State Senate, in which my mission will prepare for the 2010
Federal Census redismcting after reapportionment and an age of artificial shonase and market
manipulation and obscene rush to creation of the North American Union under the shadow Security
Prosperity Partnership to hnher eliminate the State - Federal constitution that does not r e ~ n i z e
regional governance nor the proposed dismantlement of the USA unspoken of. To the contra? of top-
down governance I desire to resurrect the State Constitution social contract in redistricting, overhaul
the i f Century real propeny tar system ibr statewide equity t l believe all land without capital
improvement including that held by non-profits and churches must be taxed equal with land owned by
private citizens).
That unlike Senator Montgomery who wants to just hand out condoms. teach safe sex in
prison and let every felon out with a non-judgmental return of suffrase, I will sponsor legislation and
litigation for a home-rule hnded judicial system with bottom-up accountability that must combine
local financing for all law enforcement and imprisonmenr that results I contend the Srate and every
local government must be held accountable to individual rishts balanced ayainst the all too numerous
imposed duties. so that the home rule provision of governance under State Constitution letter law that
mandates bottom-up home-rule equity done by bi-partisan competition between two major state
parties now missing in NYC and by corruption statewide. in that we desperately need candidate
election choice and true debate for policv equity under State Legislative rules to maintain each state
subdivision's viability for citizens and residents equity within and between such entities.
My philosophy for campaignins is that anyone seeking public ofice who would spend more
that f 10.000 for public otfice in a district with say 100.000 eligible voters must be absent public
financial support other than government promotion in the non-print media of campaign coverage with
equal time fbr all candidate positions on the issues. [hereby to promote reading in the print media it'a
candidate desires to write position papers and publish with their own finds with no limit to spending
.
Please feel t'ree to contact me throu_ghmy website www-stmnkws which is no holds bamd
and if you would like to serve on my campaign committee or proride me with an opportunity to speak
to your community group let me know; and if you are interested in sending me some stamps so that I
may continue to send mailers ro potential party members and supponers don't hesitate to send some
stamps at the above address.
Best regards to you.
Attachment: 10- 15-07 State Senate Testimon~

REPUBLICAN PARTY DESIGNATING PETITION
I. the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly enrolled voter of the Republican party and entitled to vote at the
next primary election of such party. to be held on September 9,2008: that my place of residence is truly stated
opposite my signature hereto. and I do hereby designate the following named person as a candidate for the nomination
of such party for public office or for election to a party position of such party.
E(arne of Candidate Public Office or Pam Position Place of Residence
CHRISTOPHER E. STRUNK - NY Senator from the 18" SD - 593 Vanderbilt Ave. #28 1 - 1 1238
I do hereby appoint any three enrolled members of the Republican Party of the ~7~ AD as approved by the candidate
hereaflcr as a committee to fill vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the election law.
In witness whereof. I have hereunto set my hand, the day and year placed opposite my signature.
Date Prinr Name of Si~ner Siener Sirnature Residence of Simer CoanQ
..I 12008 .... . King
..J I2008 .... . Kings
..J 12008 .-.. . Kings
STATEMENT OF WITNESS TO SIGNER: I. (name of witness) state: I am a duly

qualified voter of the State of New York and am an enrolled voter of the Republican party. I now reside
at................................................................................................. (address of witness residence)
Each of the individuals whose names arc subscribed to this petition sheet containing s i g n a t u r e s , subscribed
the same in my presence on the dates above indicated and identified himself to be the individual who signed this sheet.
1 understand that this statement will be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an affidavit and, if it
contains a material false statemenq shall subject me to the same penalties as if I had been duly sworn.
KINGS
Date: 1 I 2008
Signature of Wimess County
OR
In lieu of the signed statement o f a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state qualified to sign the petition, the
following statement signed by a notary public or commissioner of deeds shall be accepted:
On the dates above indicated before me personally came each of the voters whose signatures appear on this
petition sheet containing signatures. who signed same in my presence and who, being by me duly sworn. each
for himself. said that the foregoing statement made and subscribed by him. was true.
Date: 1 12008 .
Signature and official title of officer administering oath of Signer
EXHIBIT 7
I. the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly enrolled votcr of the Republican party and entitled to vote at the
next primary election of such party, to he held on September 9,2008; that my place of residence is truly stated
opposite my signature hereto. and I do hereby designate the following named person as a candidate for the nomination
of such party for public ofice or for election to a party position of such party.
Name of Candidate Public Office or Par& Position Place of Residence
CHRlSTOPHER E. STHUNK - NY Senator From the 18" SD - 593 Vanderbilt Ave. #28 1 - 1 1238
CHRISTOPHER E. STRUNK - Judicial Delegate from the 57' AD - 593 Vanderbilt Ave. #28 1 - 1 1238
1 do hereby appoint any three enrolled nlembers of tlie Republican Party of the 57' AD as approved by the candidate
hereafter as a committee to fill vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the election law.
In witness whereof. I have hereunto set my hand, the day and year placed opposite my signature.
Date Print Name of Simer Simer Sirnature Residence of Siener County
..1 12008 .... . Kings
..1 12008 .... . Kings
..J I2008 .... . Kings
STATEMENT OF WlTNESS TO SIGNER: I, (name of witness) state: I am a duly

qualified voter of the State of New York and am an enrolled voter of the Republican party. 1 now reside
at ................................................................................................ (address of witness residence)
Each of the individuals whose names are subscribed to this petition sheet containing s i g n a t u r e s . subscribed
1 understand that this statement will be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an affidavit and if it
contains a material false statement, shall subject me to the same pcnalties as if 1 had been duly sworn.
KlNGS
Date: I I 2008
Signature of Witness County
OR
In lieu of the signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state qualified to sign the petition. the
petition sheet containing signatures. who signed same in my presence and who, being by me duly sworn. each
for himself, said that the foregoing statement made and subscribed by him, was me.
Date: 1 I 2008 .
Signature and official title of officer administering oalh of Signer
EXHIBIT 8
I. the undersigned. do hereby state that I am a duly enrolled voter ofthe Republican party and entitled to vote at the
next primary election of such party, to be held on September 9,2008: that my place of residence is truly stated
opposite my signature hereto. and 1 do hereby designate the following named person as a candidate for the nomination
of such party for public ofice or for election to a party position of such party.
Name of Candidate Public Office or Parhr Position Place of Residence
CIIRTSTOPHER E. STRUNK - Judicial Dclegate from the 57' AD - 593 Vandcrbilt Ave. #281 - 1 1238
I do hereby appoint any three enrolled members of the Republican P m of the 57' AD as approved by the candidate
hereafter as a committee to fill vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the election law.
In wimess whereof. I have hereunto set my hand. the day and year placed opposite my signature.
Date Print Name of Signer Signer Sirnature Residence of Sinner Countv
..J I2008 .... . Kings
..J I2008 .... . Kings
..J 12008 ...- . Kings
STATEMENT OF WITNESS TO SIGNER: I, (name of wimcss) state: I am a duly

qualified voter of the State of New York and am an enrolled voter of the Republican party. I now reside
at .....................
................,.......................................................... (address of witness residence)
Each of the individuals whose names are subscribed lo this petition sheet containing signatures. subscribed
I understand that this statement will be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an affidavit and. if it
contains a material false statement, shall subject me to the same penalties as if I had been duly sworn.
KINGS
Date: 1 I 2008
Signature of Wimes County
OR
In lieu of the signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state qualified to sign the petition, the
petition sheet containing signatures, who signed same in my presence and who. being by me duly sworn. each
for himself. said that the fmgoing statement made and subscribed by him. was true.
Date: 1 12008 -
Signature and official title of ofticer administering oath of Signer
EXHIBIT 9
A - 88
Chris Strunk Republican Candidate
for the New York Senate From the Brooklyn 18* Senate District
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #I02 Brooklyn New York 11238
www.STRUNK.WS
My Fellow Republican
Please sign my petition. I am Christopher Earl Strunk (Chris Strunk works just fine).
Republican Candidate for the New York Senate fiom the Brooklyn 18' Senate District seeking ballot
access to the September 9, 2008 Republican Party Primary Election, and thereby ballot access to the
November 4, 2008 General Election; and also as applies to the Republican Party Judicial ~ominating
Convention, seek to be a Judicial Delegate From the 571hAssembly District. worthy of public trust.
In May 2006 I intervened pro se against the members of the "Librratio~iTheology" wing of the
Democratic Party who questionably used a Federal Judge to rewrite the State Law for State party
selection ofjudicial candidates by the Judicial Nominating Convention under Election Law 6-124 in
the Eastern District Case Lopez- Torres v NYC' Board ofElectiotrs et al. Subsequent to my support of
law therein, I enrolled in the Republican Party not only to support Freedom of association to select
Judges in Convention, and as upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Although not an attorney, I am qualified to be both a Senator and Convention delegate by
virtue of my personal experience and Judicial background both as a pro se plaintiff in no less than 25
State and Federal cases since 1995, filed to keep government on the right page with the People for
. .
whom it should serve much too often don't. Mv published t w i m p _ n ) t _ w i t h r h e Puhbr
Cot$detlce with the Jlrdiciary since October 2003 as well as in the Senate: accompanies my ongoing
effort with the Commission otr Jirdicial Cotlhcr in support of State Constitutional process to safeguard
the People of the State of New York gratehl to Almighty God for our Freedom, to secure its blessing.
Notwithstanding the fact that 1 work with an attorney, I participated in many cases challenging the
conduct of the members of the Judiciary including attorneys thereto in the interest of the people of NY.
As a matter of respect and deference to long time Party members, I spoke with Brooklyn
Republican Party Attorney Aaron Maslow to discuss my intent herein and of my interest to build
enrollment in the Brooklyn Republican Party, so that we may compete with the Democratic Party for
the good of all New Yorkers; and that I contend the problem with governance as we now experience
derives fiom the mischaracterization of Left versus Right or Corporatist versus Sociaiist, must be
properly analyzed from the standpoint ofplyceniric local bottom-rrp home-nile with lintired
goblenlcnice thaf senles the Imul citizen versus morwce)ltric topiiclwr~ryrarny that collectively i t n p e
etfircitg otrr rights with itnptrtrity - tyranny must fear the people.
drrties upotr citizeta ~c~ithorrt
Along with my campaign card and return envelope provided herewith, on the other side of this
page is my Designating Petition offered with my humble request for support to have my fellow party
mPmhPrrwi**mee- signing-na norary or
commissioner of deeds. The self addressed envelope has my Senate Election Campaign return address
for this signed petition. The Petitioning period is short and the efort to tile with the Elections Board
tedious and time limited. I look forward to speak during the campaign and if you seek hrther petitions
please check on my website referenced above, and fbrther information or communication with me.
CHRIS STRUNK
EXHIBIT 10
/EMATIC STRUCTURE OF FREEMASONRY !
I ENTERED APPRENTICE
I I.
1 EXHIBIT 11
A - 90
THE AMERICAN LEGION POLICY
ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Extracted from the full document to be found at:

Tnr m 8 4 iqlon org~docurnents~leqto~~dflrlleqai~mmgratlon
Dd'
RESOLVED. That The American Legion seize every opportunity to request an accountability of
our elected officials in implementing and enforcing federal and international laws and treaties to
eliminate the large numbers of individuals from foreign countries entering the United States
illegally and that all candidates for public office and the Democratic and Republican National
Committees express publicly to the American people their positions and solutions to this grave
danger to our country's stability.
RESOLVED by the National Executive Commrnee. The American Leg~on.in regular meeting
assembled in Indianapolis. Indiana. May 9-10. 2007. That The American Legion. on behalf of all
Amencans and future generations of Americans. urge the Congress and the federal government
to authorize and fund the followng strategy in addressing the Issue of illegal aliens in the Unrted
States:
1. Secure the borders and other pornts of entry In the United States
a) Construct physical banters. as appropriate.

b) Acqurre and utilize latest technology to monitor border activlty
c) Employ and train a sufficient number of U.S Border Patrol Agents to effectively patrol
border regions with employment preference given to former members of the U.S
Armed Forces
d) Utilize National Guard troops to asslst in providing border security.
e l Insure all vessels and their cargo arrlving at our seaports are thoroughly searched:
2. Eliminate the jobs magnet and soc~alservices benefits
a) Mandate verification of employment eligibility.

b) Enforce employer sanctions
c) Make illegal residents lnel~g~ble
for Social Security and other government-sponsored
public services.
dl Eliminate governmental financial aid for illegal allen students:
3. Enforce exlstrng laws and pass new laws to reduce U.S illegal populatron:
a1 Reject amnesty or -legalization- programs for illegal aliens.

b) Enforce immtgration laws and promote cooperallon between federal. state and local
law enforcement off~cralswith emphasis on interlor enforcement
c i Establish parameters for non-criminal deportations.
d) Proh~biteligibility to servrces offered by financral ~nstitutronsIn the Un~tedStates.
EXHIBIT 12
e) Issue no drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
f) Designate English as the official language of the U.S. government and print all
documents. including election ballots, in the English language only.
g) Work with state and local governments to discourage illegal settlement:
4. Revise legal immigration procedures: screen and track foreign visitors legally entering the
U.S.:
a) Eliminate the Visa Lottery Program.
b) Restrid the number of countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program,
c) Create new visa categories or expand the H-2A and H-2B Visa Categories for
temporary agricultural and temporary and seasonal workers as necessary to replace
illegal workers eliminated from employment opportunities in the U.S.,
d) Create and enforce a reporting system to track the whereabouts of foreign visitors to
include students at academic institutions, members of a country's diplomatic corps.
aircraft and vessel crews. foreign press representatives, exchange visitors. H-1B
Workers. L-1 lntracompany Transferees and those individuals categorized as
humanitarian entrants
Number of Illegal Aliens in U.S. ....................................21,218,615

Money Wired to Mexico Since Jan. 2006 ................ $42,363,149,000
Cost of Social Services for lilegais Since 1996.. .... $397,480,946,017
Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools .........................4,184,824
Cost of lllegals in K-12 Since 1996 .........................$14,828,106,397

Illegal Aliens Incarcerated ...............................................351,087
Cost of Incarceration Since 2001...........................$1,477,239,843
Illegal Alien Fugitives ....................................................

,663,347
Anchor Babies Since 2002 ...........................................2,14,175
Skiiied Jobs Taken by Illegal Immigrants ......................10,232,441
www.lrnmigrationcounters.com sources and the formulas used in computing the figures

are shown on their website and include reports issued by both government agencies and private
sector organizations.
Oct 15 2007 Joint - Senate Standing Committee on Veterans. Homeland Secutity and Military Affairs
Chair: Senator Vincent L. Leibell Ill and Senate Standing Committee on Transportation
Chair. Senator Thanas W. Libous P u b k Hearing: Protecting our State's Security
Place: Van Buren Hearing Room A. Legislative Office Building, 2 d Floor, Albany. New York
Time: 10:OO AM. Contact: Robert T. Fariey I Marianne Reilly - fax (518)426-6977
In appreciation ofthe opportunity to speaA on Prorecring our Srare 's Securify as a rnatler of
national security \kith global significance. I Chris~opherEari Slrunk am a Vietnam Era Veteran.
born in Manhattan, resident in Brooklyn, devoted to God and Counw. have taken the oath to
defend and protect the USA and h e constitutions on which the Federal republic is based against
any enemy foreign or domestic; as such give warning of Governor Eliot Spitzar's sedition as an
enemy whose treachery is in conspiracy with others aiding and abetting with sanctuw for illegal
aliens in New York against federal law must be impeached pursuant to NYS Articles IV and VI.
Warning herein is done in good faith w\ith the May 1985 adoption of Senate 1073 and Assembly
1249 commitment to tlle consummate emorescence of human dignity with \\hich they did praise
my "unsefih cledimfinn and competent discharge of duty... above and beyond the
responsibiliries ofjob and duty...perceprion of rhe value and worrh of orhers.for his Innate and
ingenious concernfor rhe preserwtion anri en)ranceme~ofhwnan dignity".
That beyond the honor and praise of 22 years ago, I am vigdant to maintain individual
inalienable freedoms given by Almighty God urge h i s Committee to support m). action with
Attorney Carl E.Person for an independent investigation of the perfidy unleashed on 9-1 1-01
against the sovereign People of the state New York: we urge the State Legislature to bring
sunlight upon treason and sedition as a matter of protecting o w State's Security.
That as a matter of security and justice denied after 9- 1 1-01 involves the matter of providing
sanctuary for illegal aliens with impunity in violation of federal and state la\wr, that then Attorney
General Spitzer by seamless acts ofsedition no\v as Governor reaches the level of treason subject
to impeachment under NYS Article VI section 24. and that pursuant to Article IV must be
removed: Mr. Spitzer shall give testimony \tithou immunity pursuant to Article I section 6.
That nohwilhstanding !he majority vole of our Assembly controlled by a topdown corporatist
elite. \kith political districts gerrymandered beyond h e letter and intent of State Conslitution
Article IX H o m d e . this committee nevertheless must act as a matter of our State's Securie 10
review the population size of the city of Ne\vYorb;, which as a Home-rule entity has 26 of 62
Senators violative of NYSC Article 111 Section 4: and as a home-rule entity exceeds the
maximum size of persons determined by the census allowable by the NYS Constitution: and as
such Brooklyn must have Homerule again for our Stale's Security.
A review of the facts will show that Governor Eliot Spitzer is a globalist driven by osymoronic
Liberation Thcolog)' in conspiraq with the Cuomo and Clinton dynasty. whose modernist-
progressive p m i s is hat of Fr. George Tyrell, S.J. (1861-1909) and Fr. Pierre Teilhard De
Chardin, S.J. ( 1 88 1 - 1955).
That by using the God and Country principle as our inalienable foundation for continuation of
o w federal republic with 50 so\.ereign states is apposed the Govemor. as iTNewv York were a
EXHIBIT 13
pravincc o i ; a ~o\.inces.merriy as a subset among 83 provinces globally, and the multicultural
cc-qAi!v ir sipl?i'~xrather
s I fiercely independent Country under an Almighty Gad
L ~ Lthe
witose sirrAns of ow State are sovereign arnclns the filly Federal members with borders
i;~?gagemud t culture Zisrinct h m the whole worId.
f w&r. un!y our Congress sets the agenda under Article 1 Section 8 clause 4 for the
~a~auabarion of citizens per se, not the governor or legislahm$as if once under the Artides of
Csnfeciers:ioc. .% such goes tc, Mr. Spitzeis violation of the Logan Act by offering residency
*atwdermines each citizen's vote and right to have each vote counted in the sunshine.
Funhermore. \\,ere illegal aliens or aliens &ranted drivers licenses by the Governor's sedition
and ireson, (1 contend chaf oniy the Federal govenunent may issue a licema? to m alien whether
tire legally or noti the People's sovereignty guaranteed in our State Bill of Rights Law in all
matters is att'ited. especially for the sanctity of the votc under ArticIe II would be undermined
and stolen by Alution and fraud Mv associatr the Honorable Robert K. Dornan has suffered
since the 19% stolen election by the p e w of globalist Republicans and Democrats who in
Califomiil uod elsewfiere use illegal aliens to vote as a weapon against our sovereignty, a copy of
Mr. Doman's lcttcr to the Court in the Federal case in Western District of New York WDNY 06-
cv-0080 c u e Fojone v. California et al. is herewith attacbed (now transfened to NDNY 06-cv-
1002 assigned to Judgc Lawrcncc E. Kahn).
Like me. Slr. Doman puts God and Country before party politics dedicated to the sanctity of our
individual vote demands that the laws of each state be enforced and the right to vote by each
citizen he accompanied by the right of knowing tbat each vote is duly counted in the snnshine as
a maner ~inationalsecurity. Alive on the public record se- perfidy exists in Xew York that
dluws alie~~s to votc. Here in Albany, were Mr. S o a s to compare the gaveyards of Albany that
rise as if by command of Mayor Corning's gbost on election day with those who do vote.
likewise Mr. H p e s comparing voting roles census in NYC gmws accordingly each election day
with votes h r n all o v a thc world. That elections in New Yo& proceed as if by remote control at
a distance and brings inlo question the use of XVRA ('%notor-voter act") and HAVA ("help
anyone to vote act"): and as such the standard for review by this Committee shall be strict and
thorough as a State and national sxurity matter.
In deference for the rime of the Committee I am not going to burden the reader with copious and
readily available facts about the danger the sanctuary policy for illegal aliens imposes upon the
citizens, states and nation. I am at the beck and call ofthis Committee for providing supporting
evidence for what 1 contend, and am available for
Dated: October 15.2007

Brooklyn. New York
TOPH HER EARL STRUNK
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - k28 1
Brooklyn. New York 1 1238
63 1-745-6402
email: fieebmoklvrue~ub!ic:Z\.ahoo.corn
.4nachenr: RKD letter to the Court
cc: &e Honorable Rokn K. Doman

Carl E. Person. Esq.
Fojont v. EAC - WDNY 06cv-80
EXHIBIT 0-2
I The Honnmbk Robert L;. Chma (U.S. CCM-W-\ 1077 - 1')971
3 134 I .-\nJrt* Pic&>R o d
! 'in Juan C'ap~slr~un. C;ll~lblnlaW175
July S./IW)h
Tlk: Hontinblc i'hicf Jtdge R ~ c h i ~Jr. dArcan
I For h -L'11itrzi SIXLX Di3trrct Cat111
; \!'e.t.m Di\rric~oI'Sc?\ Y ~ w k
! ZlY l'.S. l'our~housi
I 1.R C.wn Stnrr
; B u l f ~ l Sc.\r
~ . Surk 14202
Re: [ . . M ~ , J I%-l.d/.
~ r. f: fc'
1.1 UL \vD%Y ~&cv-%)(it.t;\)
i Sobjtd: a
Thc Hmcinblc Clucf J u l y . R~L-hard
J. .%a-arr
1,171 f o m x [I:. S. ttourc Rqmscnraivc. Robm K.
Llornan pro sc uitfiout bcing an a t t ~ r w y u. h o w-as wlr~gcmuslyAfcatcd ilkplly by Dcmocnr
Lar~qtrSuichcz by a n~ininiumof 2.360 alien \&s. and accordiug to I.C.E. (I.N.S.) rru\rJs 4.UIZ
~ l i r \a~-
n ~lh.~/rrlly r-~LI in he I W ~California
I Ccnc~rrlELxtion: a d that by consensus of both t l r
Rcpuhlica~lenJ Denlocritic p w ~ c bchind s t k scenes ill violarim o f thc majority of votm' righs
cornpired then and ~ m w for contml ovcr 11lryaI~ l i c voting
n ~ \ \ L T in C~liforniaildu m l n g l y
ition ion\\ lde. .-\liensill~gal.voting with impunh) and ~ v h c r mucrt a single indi\.iduI \W chugal
w tth h11d of ic.I,l~lic?. ha\ 1ng hcc11~vnunittd,tu dirrk11~bring a b u t my I- by ltinc \ot= -
thc I.C.E. r ~ ~ o r to
ntit~\~itl~~tst;rnJ111b:nd11 d -the colitnrp. I dc\irc rn tchtify a n d ir~rcrvaicill\uppon of ~ h c
cnitunkrl pro u: PlintifKs herein. both in m! own wlf-iritcrc~and for thc suwival d o u r nation as
;l c v ~ ~ ~ ~ i r u rrcpuhlic.
ianrl
\Ig dlwct injur). in IIPW J I I ~afternard lithe vr~bjsctoiPIaintiffi' .41lxn&d Co~llplaint
p ~ r a g r ~ 92.p l i ~I17 IIIN I Ili 2nd 147. .4s w h 111)' intcnnrtion is rcquircd to ~qablishaccuracy In
tjw wmrJ of thc u~dcrlying p m r 4 i n p dattrig back ~iu>rr t b n ten yrgn;. and that I aha ~xintcnJ
\~III w p p n ~ r *i i ~ the m blh fix proving the pancm and wnduct a l ~ ~ ~ ~ iwith d harboring
a t cboth
of illegml alien\ a d \iolat~onof U.S. Citircn proprict;lry toting rlglits cuinphinxl o f by PL?i11titT*
unJr~ si\ il RlCO provisions.
\vith Ir3tc of rhc Coun aftcr dispozlt~onollbz currcnt June J.,Wb teqt onkr o f Dcfcmlant
t o rr.\pnJ to the "Rrnark- h k c t *73 (themin requc~tiuga ywrrial martcr 10 axcrtrin authority
~ n jurivliclion
d o w r Jcfc~idant, svithin t k \talc o f New York \ p c c i f i ~ ~ lprior l y to Plainriffir
r ' ~ ~ l & trcsparucd in opposition ta thc \.arkla motion\ l o diwniss). $Plaintif6 survive 1 dcsirc
la lntzmcnc f i w ~ ~ ~ a l l y ptuvkions o f FRCvP Rtllr. 2 4 0 ) and ur tw gvcn gutding to tcsilfy
u11Jcr
h ~ on tIw rtcurd o f thc pnxh-ding xwnlrngly. Thar by I x a l r u b I have causcd this
~ 1 1 t(lath
c ~ ~ % p f l r k ro n rk d111ywncd trpon plrtim hrrcin and that a duplicate and ccrtifir~tc o f u m icc
I* Iicrs\\ 1111~tlik'hcd. R ~ - p c ~ t t i ~,ublnittul
lly fix r r i o n by:
I
iI c ~ c n ~ f t c.xi
~ t\;~n
: ( c: PlalnrltK pro cc.
'~.':~.!rnh
c ice
rcnn-rl,
EXHIBIT D-2
Strunk's Reply to Defendants' Response to Remark Page 40 of 42 -

12 ScpLwnkr 2W.b
. I 2 )k a r ~ ~ I b~ rI ~tC ' r ~ c ~
L hutb SWe- / i m h & r tu r)u
tr;*-y;ujorr ~ G w p ~ hktm
for S w u i SLJ ~
;.b. G-~.trri 02 SDIC
22Ul 5 Suc;l S W
W-ua UC 2052b
.
Kc: ? h'ovemba 20Ub - O.S. Con(lrtuiand Elwwnc
.;l.hjrrl-f W'F/;/OnlHR Ncqt 4-1 Mi& Rcmn
1 have I;J;MUw o y p w u n i ~ yUI r w v h 3*: &OVC subjd~r<4S4

tcpon i d 19 July 2Me in I i k ' p h d h g U M ~ dc k~r i o
D "u . A ywm y
b:a w u my ~ r c 4 a ~ i o c ri4? I Y9b wrt f,-&ddy iatmfa-4 ~ i t by b ua suk: of
~.'J~lbT.)iain n,y bw a d U.m,r.~ . & it -;.02) 2iia1w.-
c i u r u a bou rcxoro WLh thc In~m;yatiao.PO N & m d k ~ * * i s , m3 in btikh rr, I c y
h n 1.363 or rlww vurd tbr D I y~. p a ~ u rmtb irmpumty; urd bpiu my e tTw
out pvcru t k ?inudule?tel&ar d 3 IMW 01 puo;+c r ~ ~ a rwdu m ~ d 3)'d
i . ~ r dt c i ~t k Rzprbticand l k x n w r ~
~ o n l p c ~ i tof h ~ ~ w w.
1 cling & k w to e m s mj c u n ~ r nw~ i u&~ ul')our Hobor ior
i~phml~o n
of:
1. u r c o n r i s u a S-I ef 3K NASA r..pM.
2. LlW the pi- wg&tOa
o l ' 3 (S-) ~
~ f t h e ? C l ~ ~.Uwccarion
bk M o d f ~ ~03-a
ya:n vriwut a h o n r y w cW ro:
t p
ws~ o!'k~wl-?
& LSJO~B i'u ef-c'Lw)m -
3. wby mc OSCk has b a n p ~ v j d asi ~unml
naljaiwi& ~ 1 x 1voter
1
dalrbudwbUuthcp.lrout'mtup~~;
4. w h r it'rrayrhiog is W O J ~ R Q t to d3 &our %A u i
dtbquatc r r Hdp b d c a lo Vote Act I I LAVA) 10
~ J rU
PztvQIt iUc& Jlicns m J ~Siricm &cm in m r
a ldorn voting ~1 Lht
ddcr-onipdK~zu(c1:3Rd
5. Wbrt proq0ltid ~ ~ ' p ; a z . & t i v&
t i h i t o#J
~ in
rbe IJSA h%t
cunjurution 4 r b Urutbrr 9 mmhv m n in thr. Wf;and whu A'
.
u r v OSCE ODlHk
& t k Yvb.l rb-7
rc b d m g upaa me GSA i u d uch urc
EXHIBIT 14
A - 96
1 h l ~ ~ : b b d l ~ y i n j d b y b i l ~ o p c r & d J e a i o m dw
u . u wrn" o v s LhL' o o n f i k e thnt dl U.S. C i l k a r have in th:clcclioa poaw;cuul
~ ~ u c h ~ r a ; l ~ e r ~ r ; r ~ ~ + r ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~
CI lI<ISTC)P! t ER EARL STKCINK
503 Vanderhilt .4\rcnur -128 1
Drooklyn, New York 1 1238
(631 1 745-0402 1 Ernail u1icasvotes2~~~~j!yuli~~o.~i~rn
Clerk of the Court of the

Unitcd States Cour~of the
Eastern District of Ncw York
225 Cadman Plaza East
L3ronklyn. New York 1 1201
Re: Struuk v. CISI'S rt al. 0 8 cir 1744 (.4RR) f LB)
Suhi: .Amended C'on~plaint
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I an1 Christopher Earl Strunk, pro sc plain~iff'ivithouthzing an attorney in the

above referenced case. I'ursuanr to h e hiemorandurn and Order clt'illay 9.2008 I am to
submit rn amended Complaint by June 9.2008. and as such the original and a courtesy
\
-
p-
The deadline for the SIXI of petitioning 1i)r ballot acccss has begun as of .lune 3.
2008 snd hccaue no action &as takcn by the Court to adtlrcss the ongoing gerrymandering
c h scope oi' relief has hcen prentlq narrowed \sith time
issues previously prescntcd as s ~ ~ the
a3 the essence for ballot acccss going into the Rcpuhlicm I ' r i m ~Election on Septcmkr
9.2008.
To the extent that this complaint h a not as yet h c n senfedthis is an espartr actiun.
Ho\\evc.r. JS 2 matter of heads-up thc pdf has bee11
p~pruarionfor tinher action by the Cow.
Sincere1y yom.
L.\ttachments:
Original Amended Complaint with 14 Exhibits tinnrsed

Councsj Copy >lagistrate .lutIgc. Lois Bloom -- -
- M ~ n t ~ t o ~ d tirand
g e Master Leo Zaganlq. Order o i Knights Teniplar and Propagnnd3 Duo
Ihe I lonorable Rohen K. Ilornau~
c
Email ser\.icct lo: Thomas C m c - [crane 2 'ilali . l i t i . ~ o \ J. o ~ i q h n- jpines Z Ia\\.n\ c.i?o\.

,CZdrilyn Richter - 111rich1c.r;lIa~\.nvc.co\.~ \ . ' u I L ' ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ c ~ T ~ c ~ u c L.~ ~ ~ ~ s . s I ~ ~ I ~ . ~ \ . u s
Chris.hc.rrrn;iiusdoi.eo\ ,and
NYS .AAG Joel (inher Jocl.(.iraber+ii-oa~.s~tc.ne.i~s
3
.. . .
USPS wVbterD
e R.mr( -P
~ i n ps
d M p LaA s Iwith
AD I ED Firsta
e th AD 1 18th 1
85 Leffelts Avenue 11225
1 m 6612008 57 21 McTilhan Martha W
Classon Avenue 11205
2 61612008 57 59 R i c h a m Derrick 343
3 IA 6m2008 57 89 Medina Vm& 279 Classon Avenw 11205
6/812008 n 98 att ten Kalhleer 30 F M Walk 11201
4 IA
5 ANK 6mooa 282182 57 62 TiIlona Luke J 201 2 Gates Avenue 11238
6 AM 6 / 6 1 ~ ~ ) ( 1283738 57 73 wtlllams A#wyn J
SI 110 Herkimer Street 11216
325 8 E Classon Avenue 11205
7 IA 6/6nM]8 285422 57 86 CW Wknenia
4% l o t i Dc Kalb Avenue 11205
8 LA m 00 8 285516 57 86 Smilh Amhue B
9 6mR008 285434 57 86 Fanior AN= 45619G DeKabAvanue 11205
10 IA W O O 8 285796 57 89 Smith Ahmd M m 2~ SandsStreet 11201
11 lA 6/6/2008 286859 57 100 hl Camen E 190 1 3 ~ York Street 1lull
12 IA 616R008 287168 57 102 Lucero Btanca 38 6E F M I Walk 11201
13 NDM 6 / 1 6 / ~ 0 8 279886 57 44 Molina Florer Mare 549 IR Bergen Street 11217
14 AUK 6/16/2008 280041 57 45 Martiw Ruben 78 CR 5Avenue 11217
15 FrE 611M008 280133 57 46 Rendds K 359 Bergen StreeI 11217
16 NDAA 6/16/2008 280172 57 47Dahlie Sco# 447 2 F Bergen Street 11217
17ANK 6/16/2008 280219 57 47Roman Gladys 433 6 Dean Street 11217
18 ANK ff161XXM 280200 57 47 Mondon F& A 433 9 Dean Street 11217
19 ANK ff1612008 280234 57 47 Williams Tecry L 568 4~ PatScSBeat 11217
20 ANK 6/1M008 280394 57 48Tavlo1 Vanessa A 416 2 Cumberhnd S!ree! 11238
21 NDAA 6nM008 280327 57 48 Kltchin Mi R 172 2 South Oxford Street 11217
22 m 6/1&2008 280279 57 48 Connon Shannon E 184 2 South Oxford Street 11217
23 NDAA 6116t2008 280244 57 48 Allen Gabriel P 164 South Portland Aven 11217
24 NDAA 6lls/2008 280323 57 48 Kill BFian P 164 South Poitland Aven 11217
25 NDAA SnGROOB 280242 57 48Alford Darnell N 17015H SouthPortlandAven 11217
26 NDM 6/16/2008 280498 57 49 Maquez Maria 67 12E Hanson Placa 11217
27 NDAA 611W008 280481 57 49 Jones J M 67 140 Han~onPiace 11217
28 ANK 6HM008 280412 57 49Arizrnend1 Ganvillc 67 4E Hanson Piace 11217
29 NDAA 6/16/2008 280413 57 49 Armhi Steven J 67 9 B Hanson Place 11217
30 NDM W6RoOa 283322 !TI 7OSmitzo Grace 301 PUT De KaIb Avenue 11205
31 ANK 6/1@2008 285372 57 85Tornec Elbabelh 151 2FL Clinon Place 11238
32 ANK 6/16/2006 285303 57 85Gknn Eikn 85 Lexing!on Avenue 11238
33 NDAA 611M008 285510 57 86 Rudrer Chew A 456 15 C De Kalb Avenue 11205
34 ANK 6/16/2008 285538 57 86 Wltiams Janette 456 5 0 De Kalb Avenus 11205
35 ANK 6/16/2008 286051 57 92 Smith Richard M 244 Cumberland Strret 11205
36 m 6/1&2006 286827 57 1M1 Blackwe1 Kenneth L 111 2D Bridpa Street 11201
37 ANK 6/l6R008 287905 57 109 Brown Krystal J 215 1212 WlkwghbyAvenw 11205
38 ANK 6/1(3/2008 287911 57 109 Bums Em& M 215 3158 Wlbuphbv Avenue 11205
39 VAC 6 / 1 6 / m285865 57 91 Martinez Manna B 406 26 AIbeeSquarc 11201
40 ANK 6/16%Jo8 280358 57 48 Oliver Llis 62 9C Hanson PbcE 11217
41 NDAA 6/17/2008 287190 57 102 Smith Sariba E 8 Fleet Walk 11201
42 NOAA 6/17/2008 287161 57 102 Jones Dolores 200 Tillary Street 11201
43 NDAA 6/17/2008 287166 57 102 Lennon Wanda D 200 lillary Street 11201
44 NDAA 6/17/2008 287173 57 102 Mudrick Barbara 200 503A Tillary Street 11201
45 NDAA 6/17/2008 287169 57 102 Mcgrory Ann 200 703D Tillary Street 11201
46 MAA 6/17/2008 287204 57 102 wid Janine B 200 7W Tilhly Street 11201
47 IA 6/17/2008 287182 SI 102 Riven Darnark E 200 RMBOl lilhry Street 11201
48 ANK 6/17/2008 287230 57 103 Eriaon &ven 2027E York Sheet 11201
49 ANK 6/17I"008 287272 57 1W Ramos lsrnet 22411H YorkSfreet 11201
50 ANK 6/17/2008 287232 57 103 Fan Hui X 224 1% York Street 11201
51 ANK 6/17/2008 287298 57 103 Tirado Mario A 224 8 C York Street 11201
52 UR 6/17/2008 287359 57 104Mcdonald Nyrobhie E 107 2-E Navy WaU( 11201
53 NDAA 6H7R008 287414 57 104 Mlliams Janie 151 1E NavyWalk 11201
54 IA 6/17/2008 287680 57 106 Santos Anqelina 345 Cbsson Avenue 11205
55 m 6/17/2008 28nOl 57 l C 6 Washington T a b K 415 2 6 LafayelieAvenue 11238
56 NSS 6/17/2008 287632 57 106 Monsanlc Sean 433 15E Lafayatte Avenue 11238
57 UNK 6/17/2008 287803 57 107 Saochu Lincoln M 272 50 Wlbugtby Avenue 11205
58 ANK 6/17/2008 288070 57 109 Schoheld Amy L 215 1202 Wlbughby Avenue 11205
59 ANK 6/17/2008 288046 57 109 Raqdab Julie M 2152088 WlbughbyAvenue 11205
60 ANK 6/17/M08 287922 57 109 Chrislip Nathan R 215 218 Wilbughby Awnue 11205
61 NDAA 6/17/2008 L O I O N 31 1UI U V I I I I ~ ~ I I w r y n LI* 'I 1LU3
*U Wlbughby Avenue
62 N D M 6JlW008 280319 57 48 Jones Samuel L 147 18 South Oxford Street 11217
63 NDAA W1812008 287591 57 106 Hudson Shekeam; K 433 9G Lafayeme Avenue 11238
64 NSN @1812008 287867 SI 108 SCMITZ ford J 475 Dean Stnet 11217
65 A m 6/~8R008 287964 57 109 Hahawar Rares M 215 WUoughby Avenue 11205
66 ANK 611tH008 288063 57 109 Ru!hwbd Ryan S 215 908 WliougMy Avenue 11205
EXHIBIT E
NYC BOE - June 9, 2007 Active Voter List extract within the 57th AD I18th SD
Line Postmark Last Fint Street Name Zip Born
Bergen Street
45 Vanelsen Luclen Bergen Street
48 Chrlstk J Travis Hanson Place
Lef'ferts Plaw
74 Atlba
~~* Lafferts Place
75 J o m Demk Halsey S t m l
75 Jonas Derek Halsey Shssl
75 Fitts Jakaya Spencer Plaw

75 Fms Jakenna Spencer Place
84 Guley David Lalayette Avenue
84 Oulley DavM Lalayette Avenue
96 Agohe Adaku Wllbughby Street
96 Agohha Adaku Wilbughby Street
REPUBLICAN PARTY DESIGNATWG PETITION
I, the undersigned. do herchy statc that I atn a duly enrolled volcr ofthe Rcpublican parry and cntilled 10 vole at the
next primary election o f n s h party. to bc held on September 9,2008: that my place of residence is truly stared
opposite my signature hercto. alirl I do licreby designate the following named pcrson as a ca~tdidatcfor thc nomiltation
of such party for public office or Tor clcction to a party position of such party.
Name of Candidarc Public Ofice or Pam Posttloa

.. place of Residcrice
CHRISTOPIIER E. STHUNK - NY Senator from the 18'SD - 593 Vnndcrbilt Avc. #a81 - 1 1238
CHRISTOPHER E. STRUNK - Judicial Dclcgate from the 57J AD - 593 Vanderbill Ave. #28 1 - 11238
I do hereby appoint any thrcc cnrolled mcrnbcrs of the Rcpublican Part).of the 57* AD as approved by the candidate
hereafter 6s a cornrni~rceto iiii vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the clcction law.
In witness whereof. I havc hcrcunto set my hand. the day and year placed opposite my signarure.
Dare Print Name of S i ~ n e r Simer S i m a w e Residence of Sinner Counrv
f~fl~'.
,Q.I,(L 17
.&, I ZOOS T-~fmji
C;(d t 7 L . - - 6~ Y P N G L O O Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..1 / 2008 .... . Kings

..I 12008 .... . Kings
STATEMENT OF WITNESS TO SIGNER: I. (narnc of witncss) state; I am a duly

enrolled voter of the Republican party. I now reside
at... (address of w i ~ c s rcsidcncc)
s
Each of the individ~~sls whose names arc subscribed to this petition shcet conmining j s i g n a r u r c s . subscribed
the same in my presence on the dates above indicated and identified himxlf to be du individual who signed this sheet.
I understand that this slatcincnt will be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an afidavit and. if i t
w n u i n s a materialfalse Zstatement.
F s as if 1- had been d t y sworn.
Date: 6I& 2008

J Signature of Winrss
OR
In lieu of the signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualilicd voter of the starc qualified 10 sign the petitio~~.
the
of the vo!crs whosc sig1laturc.s appcar on h i s
petition sheet conmill prescncc and who. hcing by rnc duly sworn. each
for himself. wid that
EXHIBIT G
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
THlS SUMMARY ORDER WLLL NOT RE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL

REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THlS
OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS
OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUEYT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A
RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
OR RES JUDICATA.
4 t a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square. in the City of New York. on the 1 Sh
day of August. two thousand and five.
Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR,
Circuit Juckes.
EDWARD R. KORMAN.
Chief District Judge.'
RONALD G. LOEBER. WILLIAM E. BOMBARD, WIULAM

A. GAGE, JOHN-JOSEPH FORJONE. FAIRLENE G.
RABENDA. ROY-PIERRE DETEGE-CORMIER, RONALD E.
SACOFF, GABRIEL RASSANO, EDWARD M PERSON JR.,
AD HOC NEW YORK STATE CITEENS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING.
Plaintiffs,
H. WILLIAM VAN ALLEN. CHRlSTOPHER EARL STRUNK.
THOMAS J. SPAKGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS

Supreme Court, 61 JOHN AND JANE DOE NYS SENATORS.
all individually and as state senators past and present. 149 JOHN
Thc Honorable Edward R. Korman. Chief Judge of the United Statcs District Court for
the Eastern District of New York sitting by designation.
EXHIBIT
AND JANE DOE NYS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. all
individually and as past and present GEORGE E. PATAKI.
individually and as h'YS Govcmor. RANDY A. DANIELS. NYS
Secretary of State with authority and repository for corporations
and unincorporakd associations service, ELIOT L. SPITZER,
New York State Attorney General. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF SECRETARIES OF STATE, "NASS'. PETER KOSINSKI.
individually and in his official capacity at the NASS, ALBERT0
GONZALES. United States Attomey GeneraL
JOSEPH BRUNO, SHELDON SILVER, LESLIE REYNOLDS,

Executive Director for the Executive Committee.
Defendants."
Appearing for Appellants: H. William Van Allen. Christopher Earl Strunk. Hurley. NY. pro se
Appearing for Appellee: Jennifer Grace Miller. Assistant Solicitor General (Eliot Spilzer.
Attorney General of the State of New York, Daniel Smirlock, Deputy
Solicitor General, on the brief). Albany, NY
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn. L.).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the appeal be and it hereby is DlSMlSSED in part, the judgment of said
District Court be and it hereby is VACATED in part and REMANDED, and that the several
motions of plaintiffs-appellants be and hereby are DENIED.
Plaintiffs-appellants H. William Van Allen and Christopher Earl Strunk appeal f ~ o man
order of the district court dismissing sua sponte plaintiffs' claims regarding the conduct of the
November 2004 national election and legislative redistricting. We assume the parties' familiarity
with the hcts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.
While not so specified, the dismissal of the election-based claims appears to have been
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l). In the absence of any discussion by the
district court, we presume that the redistricting claims were dismissed under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We review dismissal under either Rule de novo, accepting all factual
allegations of the complaint and drawing all inferences in favor of plaintiffs. Western Mohegan
" The Clerk of this Court is instructed to alter the caption ofthis case as shown here to
correct minor errors, conform to conventions, and reflect the replacement of John Ashcroft by
Alberto Gonzales as United States Attorney General.
Tribe and Nation v. Orange County, 395 F.3d 18.20 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiarn).
The appellants dispute the district court's conclusion t h a ~the claims based on the
Novembcr 2004 election were not, at that time. ripe for review. We do not, and cannot, exprcss
any opinion on thc corrcctncss of this dccision. Bccausc wc can no longcr altcr thc conduct of
the November 2004 election, and appellants requested only injunctive relief. these claims are
now moot and we are therefore without jurisdiction. Church of Scientologv v. United States,
506 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1992). Of course. an exception to the mootncss doctrine exists whcre the
claim is capable of repetition, yet evading review. Lerman v. Board of Elections. 232 F.3d 135.
141 (2d Cir. 2000). Hcre, the appellants election claims have obviously evaded review, but
appellants have made no showing that the issue is capable of repetition. We therefore dismiss
the appeal as to the election claims.
Turning to the redistricting claims. we note that the district court hiled to present any
discussion as to its decision to dismiss. Appellees suggest that the order of dismissal was
predicated on the failure of the complaint to set forth a "short and plain statement ofthe claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint here, while
prolix and burdensome both for the court and for appellees, can nonetheless be read and
comprehended to plead at least some claims that are not frivolous on their face. We therefore
vacate the district court's order as to the redistricting claims and remand with instructions to
permit the filing of an amended complaint that omits imnccessary detail. Cf.Salahuddin v.
Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42-43 (2d Cir. 1988). In rcvicwing any amcndcd complaint, thc district
court should be mindfil of our well-established principle that pro se complaints are to be
construed liberally. Philli~sv. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2005). Furthermore. if a
complaint satisfies the "short and plain statement" requirement, it otherwise need only "give the
dcfcndant fair noticc of what thc plaintiffs claim is and thc grounds upon which it rcsts."
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506.5 12-13 (2002).
The district court should also be mindful of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 3 2284. and
that its inquiry regarding whethcr to refer the matter to a three-judge pancl is limited to 1)
-'whether the constitutional question raised is substantial": 2) "whether the complaint at least
formally alleges a basis for equitable relief'; and 3) "whether the case presented otherwise comes
within the requirements of the three-judge statute." ldlewild Bon Vovarze Liauor Cop. v.
E~stein.370 U.S. 713, 71 5 (1 962). A constitutional question is insubstantial only if prior
decisions render the issue inescapably frivolous and leave no room for any inference of
controversy. Goosbv v. Osser, 409 U.S. 5 12,5 18 (1 973).
We have reviewed appellants' additional arguments concerning judicial bias and lack of
notice ofthe October 2004 order to show cause hearing, and find them to be without merit.
Appellants have also made numerous motions before this court. all of which we deny.
The motion to supplement the complaint should be made before the district court on remand, and
we leave it to the district court to decide whether to permit such amendment. The motions to
enjoin thc New York Secretary of State to enforce civil rights law protection and to restrain
pcrsons clcctcd to thc statc lcgislaturc from taking officc arc bascd on thc Novcmbcr 2004
election and are now moot. The motion to remand to a three-judge panel is disposed of above by
remanding to thc district court for consideration of thc rcquircmcnts of Scction 2284. Thc
motion for in banc review is denied as it is not clear at this stage that the case implicates the
uniformity of our precedent or is of exceptional importance. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a).
For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal as to the claims based on the conduct of the
November 2004 election. We vacate the order ofthe district court as to the dismissal of the
redistricting claims and remand for the district court to permit amendment of the complaint and
for consideration of whether to refer the claims to a three-judge panel in accordance with 28
U.S.C. 5 2284. We deny the motions filed in this Court on November 12,2004, and July 1,
2005.
FOR THE COURT:

ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE. Clerk
By:
Oliva M. George, Deputy Clerk

United States Court of Appeals
FOR TWE
SECOND CIRCL!
At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse at Foley Square,
in the City of New Yo* on the a*
day of a n U a r y two thousand six,
Present:
Hon. Jon 0.Newman,
Hon. Robert A. ~ a & m ,
Circuit Judges.
Hon. Jed S. Rakoe
District Judge.'
In re: H.William Van Allen,

Christopher Earl S m &
Petitioners. 05-6536-op
o have filed a motion to procetd informa pauperis and a jxtition for a writ of
P e t i t i o ~ p r se,
rfadamu. Upon due considerario~, it is ORDERED that petitioners' motion to p r o d in
forma pauperis is GRANTED for the prnpose of allowing the mandamus petition to be filed It
is further ORDERED I . . petitioners' mandamus petition is DENIED,as the petitionas have
failed u, demonstzatc tha~their righ to the issuance of a writ is clear and indisputable or that
al-e remedies are nor available. See In re Steinhard Partners LP.,9 F.3d 230,233 (2d
Cir. 1993).
FOR THE COURT:
'Hon Jed S. Rakoff, of rhe U.S.District Court for the So- D i i of New York,
siuing by designation.
EXHIBIT I
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 5

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOHN JOSEPH FORJONE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
DECISION AND ORDER

06-CV-080A
UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE

COMMISSION BY THOMAS R. WILKE, et al.,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs John Joseph Fojone, Wayne Mack, Dan Delplato, Jr., Gabriel
Rauano, Edward M. Person, Jr., and Christopher Earl Strunk, all appearing pro se,
commenced the instant action on February 6, 2006. The original complaint named
approximately 70 defendants, including the United States Election Assistance
Commission, the United States Department of Justice, the States of New York,
California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the New York State
Secretary of State, the New York State Attorney General, the New York State Board of
Elections, 57 counties in the State of New York and their respective boards of elections,
the City of New York, and the Borough President of Brooklyn.
Although unintelligible, the original complaint appeared to complain about
the manner in which New York and other states are implementing the Help America to
Vote Act ("HAVA), Pub. L. No. 107-252, Title Ill, 5 302, 116 Stat. 1706 (codified at 42
U.S.C. § 15301). The complaint also appeared to allege that New York and its counties
have failed to meet the mandates of HAVA, and have unlawfully apportioned their
congressional, legislative and judicial districts.
In response to the complaint, various defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint or, in the alternative, for transfer of venue to the Northern District of New
York, where there is pending a similar action previously filed by some of the same
plaintiffs in this case. See Loeber v. Spargo, 04-CV-1193 (N.D.N.Y.).

The Northern District initially granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
Loeber action and plaintiffs appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated
part of plaintiffs' claims and remanded the action to the Northern District with the
direction that plaintiffs be allowed to file an amended complaint. The amended
complaint was filed on November 21, 2005, and to the Court's knowledge, is presently
pending.
On February 27, 2006, almost immediately after commencement of the
instant action, the Loeber plaintiffs moved in the Norther District for a change of venue
to this District. Plaintiffs' motion was based, at least in part, on their dissatisfaction with
the progress in the Loeber action.
On March 28, 2006, this Court issued a Decision and Order which, inter
alia, ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed or, in the alternative, transferred to the Northern District of New
York. On May 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed their response to the Court's March 28'" Order,
which included a proposed amended complaint.' Thereafter, various defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, for transfer of venue.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court hereby grants
defendants' motion to transfer the instant action to the Northern District of New York.
DISCUSSION
The Second Circuit has held that where two competing lawsuits have
been filed in different jurisdictions, the first action filed is given priority and the second
action may be suspended or transferred in the interests of judicial economy. First City
Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Simmons, 878 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1989). The Supreme Court
has articulated the test to be "wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation
of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation . . . ." Kerotest Mfg. Co.
v. C-0-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952).
Although the original complaint and the amended complaint in the instant
action, and the complaint in the Loeber action, are all difficult if not impossible to
understand, it appears that the two actions are substantially similar, if not identical.
Four of the plaintiffs in the Loeber case are plaintiffs in this case. The claims asserted
in the Loeber action, like the claims in this action, involve voting in New York and
HAVA. In fact, the twelve claims of injury contained in the complaint in this case are
identical to the twelve claims of injury in the Loeber amended complaint. Further,
1
The proposed amended complaint appears to assert the same or similar claims
as those asserted in the original complaint, and names the same defendants. The amended
complaint did, however, drop Wayne Mack as a plaintiff.
A - 109
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 0811412006 Page 4 of 5
although denominated differently in some instances, the defendants in the two actions
are virtually identical. The plaintiffs, at least impliedly, recognized the substantial
similarity between the two actions when they moved to transfer the Loeber case to this
District.
Because the two actions are basically the same. under the Second
Circuit's "first-to-file" rule, the Loeber action, which was the first action filed, should be
given priority. The Loeber case has been pending significantly longer and has already
been appealed to and remanded by the Second Circuit. The transfer of the instant
case to the Northern District will conserve judicial resources and reduce, if not
eliminate, the risk of inconsistent results. In addition, in their motion to transfer the
Loeber case to this District, the Loeber plaintiffs indicated that the instant action was
filed because they were dissatisfied with the progress of the Loeber case. Such an
attempt to forum shop cannot be countenanced. Plaintiffs chose the Northern District
as the venue in which to file their lawsuit. They cannot now seek a new venue simply
because they are unhappy with their first choice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court grants defendants' motion to transfer
the instant action to the Northern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is hereby
ordered to take all steps necessary to transfer the case to the Northern District.
Case 1:06-cv-00080-RJA Document 100 Filed 0811412006 Page 5 of 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 d . L
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
CHIEF JUDGE
DATED: August 14 ,2006

F A MaNJO &JUMO !$ddSMXl
ar(l JO no saum pneg uogeumadlll! lo hpwp!
* W U ( ~ pm pear* Jo =
s,=1 vlo!
-
- w mq - l =Is 'Jyuaq s! wF@d
q q n~ S,-huncx, q 1
G o- 8-q u! pntq
fD PUP1 W JOJ
P T W d U7aq Sey O\Ul- 1V
s~pmr w PIW wsTI p~ed*- =PI
'myp q uoddm 01*-arm Apmama s! pnuj J ~ A
"Uad-ul!lmq mase 'uaqzo %uoure '-1 q q
M N nU JO WolTpa w 'rcrlod ?w ~ ~ I ~ J O ~ I
14J)f!lu"
e s!q ~ 'awn q sum~ 3ql le s ~ o dxp le a t q m @ulr\q
fl) pampneuosladur! %q WA
-
a.p pue ~ o r e u o u d w ~
a q ~q u n .~4euouadur! J a w e Buypuaqudde
~o~-ar~pnonqru43iltuuu~~
nram;l~!nbuo~re~g~mqn UP-n xwap 01 pzpm
,OW &;IA p p &f! J! ~ 0 ~ ~ U i I a d ~
ne r a ~ o q pMXUQ s p g o w g q ~:uosea~q d
-q e loj s! s q Inq '4arum 01 p~erls!p n q lpnsJO
maprna m ! p mp aw s!11 - p a KJU sop X l d q
%u!llodq le "P"EIJ U O P W ~ ~ ! . m-q
h s s m u u n are mq qms q-~ pna~uor,s q q
-s@addv30 uno3 w=!3
W-%.ul4~~~"nm~!mFFPi~.kl~pldn
! oloqd m - J u =
mpba enelprrI JO ~ ! @ u o ~ n r p ; ~ ~
7ql~*uJl@q3=e't~~08~mww
-A pI;wo~3U! n
d @u> m m w!Un
Jo Unq) V '8002 '6 W
&SAoyDds UOA *VSUDH
8002 '01
ZZ 'ON
U O ~ ~ H W ~ ~ " ~
NO. 22 Legal memo ran dun^ March 10, 2008
A 14-Year Vote-Fraud Conspiracy This 14-year conspiracy was detailed by wit-

A striking example of identity fraud at polling nesses who participated in the fraud and were able
places, well within living memory, is described in a to describe in great derail how it was accomplished.
grand jury repon publicly released in 1984 by the The grand jury founcl evidence of fraudulent and
Kings County District Attorney and former Demo- illegal practices in "two primary elections for Con-
cratic Congresswoman Elizabeth ~ o l t z m a n Had
.~ gress held in 1976 and 1982, four primary elec-
it checked its own archives, The New York Times tions for the Assembly in three difierent assembly
would have found a story from 1984. "Boss Tweed districts, three primary elections for the State Sen-
Is Gone, But Not His Vote," that detailed the find- ate in one senatorial district and two elections for
ings of the grand jury7 As that article reported, the state committee in two different districts."1° For 14
grand jury report "disclosed that cemetery voting years, the conspirators engaged in practices that
and other forms of stuffing the ballot box were not included:
buried with Tammany all."' the forgery of voter registration cards with
The grand jury report revealed extensive voter the names of fictitious persons, the filing
registration and voter impersonation fraud in pri- of these cards with the Board of Elections,
mary elections in Brooklyn between 1968 and [and] the recruitment of people to cast
1982 that affected races for the US. Congress and multiple votes on behalf of specified
the New York Smte Senate and Assembly. Accord- candidates using these forged cards or the
ing to H o l ~ m a n ,"[~Ihegrand jury investigation cards of deceased and 01her persons.1 '
has uncovered a systematic attack on the integrity The grand jury explained that "the ease and
of elections in Brooklyn." Holtzman warned that boldness with which these fraudulent schemes
unless there were immediate changes in proce- were canied nut shows the vulnerability of our
dures, there was "a danger that serious fraud could entire electoral process to unscrupulous and fraud-
occur in connection with the upcoming e~ection."~ ulent manipulation.n12
1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., Nos. 07-21 and 07-25 (U.S. Supreme Court, cen. granted Sept. 25,2007);2005
IND.LEGIS.S m . PL. 109;scc IND. CODE§§ 3-11-8-23.1(c),3-5-2-40.5. This voter ID law does not apply to those who are
over 65, disabled, or confined by illness or injury, all of whom may cast absentee ballots. See IND.CODE§§ 3-11-10-
24(a)(3)-(5).The law a h does nor apply LO individuals -who vore in person at a precinct polling place that is located at a
stare licensed care facility where the vorrr resides." Id. at § 3-11-8-25.1(e).
2. Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 E Supp. 2d 775 (S.D. Ind. 2006).
3. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 E3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007).
4. The Court and Voter 1D5,N.Y. TIMES,Jan. 9, 2008.
5. Linda Greenhouse,Justic~sIndicate They May Uphold VoterID Rulcs, N.Y. IIMES, Jan. 10,2008. According to Mr. Smith,
-there's not a single recorded example of voter impersonation fraud.. .. ItS not happening and, indeed, every single indica-
tion in this record is that the evidence of this kind of fraud occumng, to call it scant is to overstate it." Transcript at 19-20.
Crawford v. hlarion County Election Bd., Nos. 07-21and 07-25 (U.S. Supreme Court, cert. granted Sept. 25.2007). avail-
able at h ~ ~ p ~ / ~ ~ ~ . s u p r e m e c o u ~ . g o v / o r a l ~ a r g u m e n t s / ~ e n t ~ t r a ~ ~ n p ~ O 7 - L 1 ~ p d f .
6. Press Release, Brooklyn, New York, District Attorney's OEfice, D.A. Holtzman Announces Grand Jury Report Disclosing
Systematic Voting Fraud in Brooklyn (Sepr. 5, 1984);In the Matter of Confidential Investigation, No. R84-11 (N.Y.
Supreme Court 1384) [hereinafter Grand Jury Report].
7. Frank Lynn, Boss hveed Is h e , But Not His Vole, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 9. 1984.
8 Id
9. District Attorney's Office,supra n. 6, at 1-2.
10. Grand Jury Repon, supra n. 6, at 2. Although the grand jury could not determine whether these illegal activities had
altered the outcome of those elecrions. it did find that the ourcome of at least one State Committee election in 1978 was
changed by fraudulent voting. Id.
11. Id.
NO. 22 Legal Memorandum March 10,2008
The Tools of Vote Fraud This process was also successful because of the
One of the key factors in the success of this way the Postal Service handled the mail. The nor-
scheme was the "advent of mail-in registration [in mal procedure of all election jurisdictions in the
New Yorkl in 1976 [which] made the creation of United States is to mail a voter registration card to a
bogus registration cards even easier and less subject newly registered voter after the reptration applica-
to detection."13 Congress mandated the same lype tion form has been received and processed.
of New York-style mail-in registration nationwide Although the primary purpose of the mailing is to
in 1993 with the passage of the National Voter Reg- provide the new voter with the voter registration
istration Act, thus ensuring that the security prob- card, it is also intended to ensure that a real person
lems caused by unsupervised mail-in registration in has registered and provided an accurate address.
New York were spread nationwide. In fact, accord- The New York Board of Elections thus relied on the
ing to the grand jury, "mail-in registration has Postal Service to return any registration cards that
become the principal means of perpetrating elec- were undeliverable because the registrant was ficti-
tion fraud" in New york.14 tious or did not live at the address on the applica-
t ion form. Election jurisdictions today still rely on
Another change in the law that increased fraud
the Postal Service for this validation.
was the new practice that allowed any organization
to obtain bulk quantities of voter registration forms However, the grand jury found that "mail carri-
from the Board of Elections h a t "contain no identi- ers did not return these cards particularly where
fyin serial number at the time they are given the address on the card was that of a large multiple
The conspirators obtained blank voter reg- dwelling.. .land] would frequently leave the unde-
istration carcls and then filled them out with ficti- liverable voter registration cards in a common area
tious first names and real last names taken from of the buildii~g."To take advan~ageof this, the
party enrollment books within the targeted voting conspirators used the addresses of multiple dwell-
~recinct: ings in which members of their crews lived, which
For example, if a John Brown actually lived at them the ability to collect the bogus registra-
1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York, the tion cards." The Executive Director of the State
application would be completed in the name Board of Elections at he time, Thomas W Wallace,
of Mary Brown, 1 Park Place, Brooklyn, New commented that the handling of voter registration
York. It was anticipated that when the mail cards by the Postal Service varied greatly through-
for the fictitious Mary Brown was delivered to out the state and was a continuing problem for
John Broun at his address, John Brown election officials.l8
would discard the nolice rather than return it In addition to a voter's signature, New York's
to the post office. This plan reduced the voter registration application forms at that time
likelihood that the voter registration notice included a physical description of the voter-
card would be returned to the Board of something that is nonexistent on the mail-in voter
Elections. hereby mi~umiiingt l ~ e ~ i b d i t y registration applications used today. Even so, the
that the fraud would be detected.' vote-fraud conspirators avoided detection eilher by
I2. Id. at 3.
13. Id. at 11.
14. Id
15. Id. Without serial numbers, an election jurisdiction cannoL determine which organization may be responsible for problem-
atic or frdudulent registration forms that are received.
16. Id at 12.
17. Id. at 10-1 1.
18. Lynn,supra n. 7.
NO. 22 L e d Memorandum March 10, 2008
using their own physical descriptions or by provid- Moreover, the same witness had been present at
ing general descriptions that could be met by a meeting prior to elec~ion da that was
numerous people engaged in the scheme. ..attended by twenty crew chlefs.'"'lf the other
Thc fraudulent forms wcrc cithcr mailed or dcliv- crews averaged as many lraudulent votes, then
ered to the Board of Elections. often with a group of there would have been at least 2,000 phony
legitimate registrations. The grand jury reported votes cast in that election without detection by
that in one 1978 legislative race alone, 1,000 bogus precinct poll workers or election officials.
voter registration forms were successfull filed with- By 1982, the witness "was to have provided
out detection by the b a r d of Elections.' Although twenty-five workers to vote in a Congressional
New York law required a check at the polling place primary election again using bogus voter regis-
of the voter's signature, this proved to be no obstacle tration cards."22
to this fraud because the persons creating the ficti- In addition to voting in the names of fictitious
tious voter registration application forms would voters who had been successfully registered, the
later vote under the same names. so their signatures crews used several other methods of casting fraud-
at the polling place would match their signatures on ulent votes. One method involved voting under the
the original registration forms. names of legitimate voters. By reviewing the voter
These attempts to steal elections through the use registration records at the Board of Elections prior
of fraudulent voter registrations culminated each to election day, the conspirators were able to Find
election day with votes cast using the fictitious the names of newly registered voters. Using the
cards. One witness testified that he first partici- names of these voters, the crews would go to the
pated as a fraudulent voter when he was only 17. appropriate polling places as soon as the polls
voting in a legislative primary in 1968 "using a reg- opened in the morning to vote under those names:
istration card prepared under a different name by a The reasoning behind this method,
member of the local Democratic club.n20 according to the experience of one witness,
In 1970. the witness voted at least 10 times, at was that newly registered voters often do
10 different polling places, using bogus regis- not vote. By arriving at the polling sites
tration cards. He was part of a crew of five per- early. the bogus voter would not need to
sons, each of whom was paid $40 for the dayk worry about the possibility that the real
activities. voter had actually voted.23
In the 1972 Democratic primary election, he Another method e n d e d collecting, during
received a promotion to crew chief, running a nominating petition drives, the names of registered
crew of five members. voters who had died or moved. Members of the
By 1974, his crew had grown to eight members, various crews were then sent to polling places on
each of whom voted in excess of 20 times, and election day to vote in the names of those voters.
there were approximately 20 other crews oper- The signature requirement did not prevent such
ating during that election. fraudulent voting ei~lier,which points out the inad-
In 1976, the grand jury witness led a crew of equacy of signature matching (a highly trained skill
that cannot be taught in a matter of hours to the
five people who cast at least 100 fraudulent
average poll worker) to prevent this type of fraud.
votes. Credit cards present a similar problem, since the
l9. GrandJury- &port, juplu n. 6, at 13.

20. Id. at 14.
21. Id. at 14-15.
22. Id. at 15.
23. Id. at 15.
NO. 22 hd Memorandum March 10, 2008
signature requirement on credit cards does not pre- because someone had already cast a ballot in his
vent the ~ i ~ c avolume
n t of credit card Fraud that name at his polling place. He had no recourse at the
occurs in the United States. poll to find out "why his had occurred, whether
Database tcchnolog). is anothcr tool of thc rradc there was some error or whatever else, and the poll-
that was not available then but is widespread now. ing station iwlf didn't keep any record of it."25
Voter registration lists are public information in In a 2007 city council election in Hoboken. New
most states, and databases containing detailed Jersey, the former zoning board president noticed a
information on voters are available From a wide group of men near his polling place being given
variety of commercial vendors. index cards by two people shonly before the June
The databases of such commercial vendors are election. One of those men later entered the polling
usually much more up-to-date than the informa- place and triecl to vole in the name of another reg-
tion contained in Lhe voler registration databases istered voter who. it turned out, no longer lived in
maintained by election officials. This makes it very the ward. The imposter was caught only because he
easy for anyone with access to such information to happened to be challenged by the zoning board
determine the names of voters who are still regis- president. He admitled ro the police that the group
tered but who have died or moved out of a jurisdic- of men from a homeless shelter had been paid $10
tion. As Justice Roberts pointed out in the Indiana each to vote using others' names.16
voter ID case, the record in the litigation showed Last year, in a case reminiscen~of Boss Tweed
that 41.4 percent of the names on Indiana's voter and the Brooklyn grand jury report, the U.5.
registration rolls were bad entries, representing Department of Justice won a voting rights lawsuit
tens of thousands of ineli ible voters-a trove of in Noxubee, Mississippi, against a defendant
potential fraudulent votes.& named Ike Brown, as well as the county election
board.27 Brown, a convicted felon, was the head of
A Widespread Problem the local Democratic Party. He had set up a political
The widespread impersonation fraud that machine t h a ~worked to guarantee the election of
occurred in Brooklyn raises the question of his approved candidates to local office+sentiaUy
whether such fraud is a problem elsewhere in the his version of Tarnrnany Hall. One of the conten-
country today. More recent cases provide evidence tions in the litigation was that the local election
of what may be a wider problem that is very diffi- board's "failure to purge the voter registration roll
cult to detect in jurisdicrions that do not require to eliminate persons who have moved or died and
voter identification. who are thus no longer eligible voters" increased
For example, Dr. Robert Pastor, Executive Direc- the opportunity for voter fraud by creating "the
tor of the Baker-Carter Commission on Federal potential for persons to vote under others' names."
Election Reform and Director of the Center for The court cited the testimony of one of the govern-
Democracy and Election Management at American ment's witnesses, a former deputy sheriff. who said
University, testified before the U.S. Commission on that "he saw Ike Brown outside the door of the pre-
Civil Rights in 2006 that he was once unable to vote cinct talking lo a young black lady.. .and heard him
2-t. Transcript in Cruwford, supru n. 5 , at 18.

25. Transcript of Briefing on Votcr Fraud and Voter Intimidation,Unitcd States Commission on Civll Rights, OCL.13,2006. nr 185.
26. See Madehe Friedman, Anatomy oJVokr Fraud- WIIIOJ& Follow Up on Alleged $10 Vote Payoff?HUDSONREP~RTERJuly 1,
2007; Unclear Which Agency Wd Investlgm F r a d Proseatnrk 0 )Nhnng for Rejenai, kIvmor\i R E P O K Jdy~ 8,2007.
27. U.S.v. Brown, 494 E SUPP.2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007). The lawsuil was filed under Sections 2 and 11 of the Voting kghts
Act and led to the first judgment in the U.S. Finding racial discrimination in voling by black officials against white voters.
The court said that it had -not had to look far to find ample direct and circumstaruial evidence of an intent to dk-rimmina
against white voters which has manifested itself through practices designed to deny and/or dilute the voting rights of white
voters in Noxubee." ld. at 449.
NO. 22 Legal Memorandum March 10. 2008
tell her to go in there and vote, to use any name, intended to prevent a fraudulent vote by an indi-
and that no one was going to say anything."2a vidual who not only had claimed to be a resident of
Mississippi does not require a photo ID for in- a stale other than Indiana, but also had actually
person voting, but it is now uncler court order to registered to vote there as well.30
implement such a requirement due to a federal case Unfortunately. attempts by neighboring states
filed by the Mississippi Democratic Party over its such as Kentucky and Tennessee to compare their
concern that the suteS open piirnaiy system and voter re@trauon lists Lor individuals registered iil
lack of party registration makes il unable to identlfy both states have been met with lawsuits contesting
non-Democrats and prevent them from voting in their right to do so.31 A federal court even issued
its primaries.29 This effort by the Mississippi Dem- an injunction barring the State of Washington from
ocratic Party is instructive because it discloses that refusing to regis~erindividuals whose application
threats to free, fair. and open elections concern not information (such as their residence address) does
only elective office and those who eventually hold not match infoinntion on that inditidual that is
them, but also the political parties as they recruit contained in other state databases, such as the
and organize voters and nominate heir candidates. Department of Licensing's (drivers licenses),
Political parties merit protection as much as indi- thereby making it extremely difficult for a state to
vidual voters whose franchise is diluted and denied verify the accuracy and validity of information
by the commission of fraud. being provided by an individual in an attempt to
The Indiana voter ID case itself also demon- register to vote.32
strates the problem of double voting by individuals One of the changes recommended by the New
who are illegally registered to vote in more than York grand jury to prevent problems caused by
one state. Because different states do not generally outside organizations filing fraudulent voter regis-
run database matching comparisons between their tration forms was "serializing and recording the
voter registration lists, there is no national process serial numbers of all voter registration cards dis-
by which to detect multiple registrations. One of tributed in bulk and insisting on greater account-
the Lndiana voters highlighted by the League of ability by organizations engaged in voter
Women Voters who supposedly could not vote due registration."33 A number of states have recently
to the voter ID law turned out to be registered to attempted to implement such requirements after
vote not just in Indiana, but also in Florida, where they received large numbers of fraudulent voter
she o ~ m 3s home and claimed a homestead exemp- registration forms, or received legitimate forms too
tion (which requires an individual to assert resi- late to be effective for an upcoming election, from
dency). She was not allowed to vote in Indiana third parties such as the Association o: Commu-
because she tried to use a Florida driver's license as nity Organiza~ionsfor Reform Now (ACORN).
her I k l e a r evidence h a t the law worked as These fraud-prevention rlki~rts, however, were
28. Brown, 494 E SWP. 2d at 486, n. 73. According to news accounts and sources in h e Justice Depamnent, in an apparent
attempt to intimidate this witness, a Noxubee deputy sheriff and political ally of Brown arrested the witness for disorderly
conduct and reckless drihlng only days after the government named him as a witness in a filing with the federal court. In
an unprecedented move, the federal judge stayed the county prosecution. See John Mott Coffey, Noxubee Voting Rights Trial
to Begin Ticesday, COMMERCWL DISPATCH,Jan. 13,2007;Bill Nichols, Voting Rights Act Pointed in a New Direclion, USA TODAY,
April 3,2006.
29. See Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F: SUPP.2d 641 (N.D.Miss. 2007).
30. Cindy Bevington, Voter Cited by Opponents ojlndianak ID Law Registered in Two States, EVENINGST* January 9, 2008.
31. See Stumbo v. Keniucky State Board of Elections, No. 06-(3-610 (Franklin Cir., Ky. OCL.2,2006).
32. See Washington Association of Churches v. Reed, 492 E Swr. 2d 1264 (W.D. Wash. 2006); see also Florida State Conf. of
NAACP v. Browning, No. 4:07CV-402 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2007). appeal filed Dec. 19, 2007.
33. Grand Jury Report, supra n. 6, at 22.
NO. 22 Legal Memorandum March 10.2008
halted by lawsuits filed by organizations such as Even though it led to no indictments, the New
Project Vote and the League of Women Voters that York investigation still serves a valuable purpose.
claimed that such requirements would impede Most clearly, it demonstrates that voter imperson-
their voter registration ation is a real problem and one that is nearly
Similarly, Ohio's attempt to improve third-party impossible for election officials to detect given the
voter registration was also struck down. The law weak tools usually at their disposal. Further, the
mandated training for individuals who assist appli- investigation provides good reason to believe that
cants in voter registration; required them to pro- this 14-year-long conspiracy to submit thousands
vide their name, signature, address, and employer (if not tens of thousands) of fraudulent votes in
on the voter registration form of each individual New York City could not have occurred if voters
they assist; and required them to return the forms had been required to present photo identification
directly to election officials rather than entrust when they voted.
them to a third party for delivery. Thezie proviisions New York's experience also demonstrata the fal-
were all enjoined as violations of the National Voter lacy of several arguments and assertions made by
Registration Act and the First and Fourteenth the petitioners' attorney, Paul Smith, in the Indiana
Amendments to the ~onstitution.~'Even if the case and by critics of voter ID in general. For exam-
court rulings w-er2 legally correct (a questionable ple, Smith told Chief Justice Roberts that imper-
conclusion), that is all the more reason for a state to sonation fraud is unlikely because it is not hard to
correct for potential fraud by requiring some form detect: "When you're going into the polls and say-
of reasonable voter ID at the polls. ing, I'm Joe Smith, you're dealing with a neighbor-
hood person who knows a lot of people who are
Lessons Learned there, you have to match that person's signature."38
There were no indictmen& issued by the New The idea that, in our mobile society today, all of
York grand jury as a result of its investigation the poll workers in a precinct will be "neighbor-
"because the statute of limitations had run out in hood" workers who know everyone in their pre-
some cases and because several of those involved cinct (even a small precinct) does not match reality.
were given immunity in return for t e ~ t i r n o n ~ . ' ' ~The
~ poll worker manual for the Board of Elections
Remarkably, [he fraud was apparently discovered for the City of New York states that polling places
only because of the actions of a former state senator, have only 750 registered vo~ers,~' yet the imper-
Vander L. Beatty, who was convicted of voter fraud sonation fraud that occurred in Brooklyn involving
and conspiracy. After Beatty lost the 1982 Demo- thousands of fraudulent votes went undetected for
cratic congressional primary election, some of his 14 years even in such relatively small precincts.
"supporters hid in the Brooklyn Board of Elections Many jurisdictions in other states and counties
office until after business hours and then made have much larger precincts, some of them contain-
some obvious forgeries of registration cards to cre- ing thousands of registered voters.
ate the appearance of irregularities" in order to give
Beatty the ability to challenge (unsuccessfully) the Contrary to Mr. Smith's claims, New York's sig-
winner of the primary election.37 nature requirement also did nothing to stop this
successful voter fraud conspiracy from casting
34.Szr: Projtxi Volt. v. Blacl\wcll, 455 E Sb-PP. 2cl69+ (N.D. Oluo 2006), Lrague oi\Vo~nerrVo~crbof Florida v. CULL,+S7 E
SUPP.2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
35. Project Vote v. Blackwell, No. 1:06CV-1628(N.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2008).
36. Lynn, supra n. 7.
37. Id.
38. Transcripi in Crawford, supra n. 5, at 19.
39. N.Y. Bd. Of Elections, POLL WORKERSMANUAL2007 15, at ht~p://vote.nyc.nyus/pdVdocumen~s/bodpollworkers~
pollworkersmanual.pdl, page 15.
NO. 22 Lgd Memorandum March 10,2008
b o p s votes in person at polling places. The partic- In 1984. the New York grand jury recommended
ipants in the Brooklyn case impersonated newly that the governor and state legislature examine as a
registered, deceased, and moved voters by voting possible remedy "requiring identification from vot-
in their place for years without detec~ion. ers at the time of voting or regi~tration."~'In 2005,
the bipartisan Baker-Carter Commission on Fed-
Voter ID: A Sensible Solution eral Election Reform also recommended requiring
In recent elections, thousands of fraudulent voter photo ID for in-person voting because "[iln close or
registration forms have been detected by election offi- disputed elections, and there are many, a small
cials aU over the country. Given the minimal to non- amount of fraud could make rhe margin of diKer-
existent screening efforts engaged in by most election ence. And second, the perception of possible fraud
jurisdictions, there is no way to know how many contributes to low confidence in the system.n42
others slipped through. In states without identifica- Voters in nearly 100 democracies are required to
tion require men^, election officials have no way to present photo identlhcation to ensure the integrity
prevent bogus votes from being cast by unscrupulous of elections.43 Our southern neighbor, Mexico,
individuals based on fictitious voter registrations, by requires both a photo ID and a thumbprint. and
impersonators, or by noncitizens who are registered turnout has increased in its eleclions since this
to vote-another growing problem.40 This is a secu- requirement was implemented.34 If Mexico can
rity problem that requires a solution. implement a s~~ccessful photo ID program for its
As the New York voter fraud investigation and voters, there is no valid reason the United States
other cases illustrate, impersonation fraud does cannot do the same.
occur and can be difficult or impossible to detect.
As the grand jury in New York properly con-
States such as Indiana and Georgia have a legiti-
cluded at the end of ics investigation of a vote-fraud
mate and entirely reasonable interest in requiring
conspiracy that had been successfully carried out
voters to idenufy themselves when they vote in
without detection for 14 years, "The core of the
order to prevent impersonation fraud and voting
democratic process is the right of the people to
through the use of fraudulent voter registration
choose their representatives in fair elections. Fraud
forms. The Indiana case also demonstrates that
in the election process is into~erable."~~
voter identification can detect unlawful multiple
voter gistr rations by individuals in ddferent states. -Hans A. von Spahovsky served as a member of the
Finally, requiring a govemmenr-issued photo ID Federcll Election Commissionfor twoyears. Before that,
can prevent illegal aliens from voting (except in he was Counsel io the Assistani Attorney General for
states that issue driver's licenses to noncitizens). A Civil Rights at the U.S. Department oflwtice, where he
simple requirement that a voter demonstrate his
specialized in voting and election issues. He also served
authentic identity assures that free elections remain as a counfy election oficial in Georgiaforfive years us
n member of the Fulton County Registration and Elec-
untainted by fraud that undermines their fairness
and, in turn. disappoints the expectations of the
tion Board.
voting public
40. In just one Texas county, jury summonses led to the discovery that ar least 330 ille~alaliens were registered to vote and
that 41 had voted repeatedly "in more than a dozen local, state and federal elections between 2001 and (20071." Guillermo
X Garcia, Vote Fraud Probed in Bcxar, EXPRESSNnvs, June 8,2007.
41. Grand Jury Report, supra n. 6, at 2 1-22.
42. Commission on Federal Election Reform, B ~ ~ D M G
C~NFIDENCI: I N U.S. ELECTIONS 18, Sep~.2005
43. Id. at 5.
44. John R Lott, Jr., Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Irnpacl that REgulations ro Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates,
August 18,20C%,pp. 2-3, at htcp~/~~.vore.caltech.edunioterID/ssm-id~2561l .pdi.
45. Grand Jury Report, slipra n. 6. at 3.
APPEAL, NPROSE
U.S. District Court

Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-CV-01744-ARR-LB
Strunk v. United States Postal Service et a1 Date Filed: 04/18/2008

Assigned to: Judge Allyne R. Ross Date Terminated: 06/13/2008
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Cause: 42: 1983 Civil Rights Act Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff
Christopher Earl Strunk represented by Christopher Earl Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 28 1
Brooklyn, NY 11238
7 18-574-7701
Email: Uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
PRO SE
Defendant
(VSPS)
Defendant
James C. Miller H
I
Chairmun USPS Board of Directors
Defendant
The City of New York
(NYC)
Defendant
NYC Board of Elections:
.James J. Sampel. President, Frederic M.
Utnane, Secretary, Anthony Corno, Julie
Dent. Nero Grcrhum Jr., Terrence C.
O'Connor, Juan Carlos Polanco. Noncj.
Mottola-Schacher. Gregory C. Sournas,
~MaryannYennella, each in o#icial
capacity and Individuully
Interested Party
NYC City Council and Speaker
Christine Quinn
interested P a m
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Interested Partly
Borough President Marty Markowik
Interested Party
Interested P m
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo
Interested P&
-
Senator Velamette Montgomery

Interested P-am
Brooklyn Community Board 3
Lnterested Party
House of Representatives
Strbcomrniftee or? Conzmel-ce,Trude, und
Con.slmrer Proteclion
Interested P&
-- -
NY House Members: Edolphus Towns

loth, Major Owens 11th, Caroline
Maloney 14th, John M. McHugh 23rd,
Brian Higgins 27th
Interested Pam
U.S. Department of Homeland SecuriQ,
Immigration Customs Enforcement
Interested P m
U.S. Department of Justice
1 # IDocket Text
I
COMPLAINT against United States Postal Service, James C. Miller 111. The City of
New York. NYC City Council and Speaker Christine Quinn. NYC Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, NYC Board of Elections:, tiled by Christopl~erEarl Strunk. (Attachments: #
1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Jones. Sandra) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
MOTION for Lcave to Proceed in for~napauperis by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Jones.
Sandra) (Entered: 0510 112008)
Notice of Related Case Assignment~Designation(Jones. Sandra) (Entered: 0510112008)
Letter dated 413012008 from pro se Christopher Earl Strunk to Clerk of the Court, re:
"Notice of related case NDNY 0 4 - c ~1-193 with references." WlAttachments: # 1
A - 121
Strunk's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. # 2 Notice of Motion, # 3
Appendix (part I), # 4 Appendix (part 11). (Fonilcirded to Judge Ross) (Latka-Mucha,
Wieslawa) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
05/09/2008 5 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The complaint, filed in forma palperis, is dismissed
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2)(B).
However. in an abundance of caution and in light of Pltff'spro se status. the court grants
P l f l leave to replead within 30 days from the date of this order as set forth above. See
G o m c v . Cnv,, 202 F.3d 593. 597 (2nd Cir. 2000)(citation omitted). If Pltff fails to
replead within the time allowed. judgment dismissed the complaint shall be entered. The
court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. tj 19 15(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith and therefore infortrrti pauperis status is diened for the
purpose of an appeal. C o p p e d ~ U n i t e d S t a t e s 369
, U.S. 444-45 (1962). Ordered by
Judge Allyne R. Ross on 5/9/2008. (Abdallah, Fida) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
06/09/2008 6 Letter dated 6/8/2008 fiom pro se Christopher Earl Strunk to Clerk of the Court, re:
Amended Complaint. (Latka-Mucha Wieslawa) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
06/09/2008 7 "E
-D COMPLAINT (Jzrry Triul Reqrrest) with denrandfor Tetnporury Restraint
Preliminary Injzmction und Special M(ister Eqlrity Relief' against United States Postal
Service: James C. Miller HI: The City of New York: NYC Board of Elections: James J.
Sampel. President. Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Anthony Como. Julie Dent, Nero
Graham Jr.. Terrence C. O'Connor. Juan Carlos Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher,
Gregory C. Soumas, Maryann Y e ~ e l l a NYC
: City Council and Speaker Christine
Quinn; NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Borough President Marty Markowitz; New
York State Board of Elections; Attorney General Andrew Cuomo; Senator Velamette
Montgomery; Brooklyn Community Board 3: House of Representatives Subcommittee
on Commerce. Trade, and Consumer Protection; NY House Members: Edolphus Towns
10th. Major Owens 1 lth. Caroline Maloney 14th. John M. McHugh 23rd. Brian Higgins
27th; U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Immigration Custon~sEnforcement; U.S.
Department of Justice; filed by pro se Christopher Earl Strunk, dated 6/8/2008. (Latka-
Mucha, Wieslawa) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
0611312008 8 ORDER AND CIVIL JUDGMENT: It is ORDERED. ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that the action is dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. $ 19 15
(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would
not be taken in good faith and therefore ij7.fortnupauperis status is denied for the
purpose an appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. So Ordered.
(Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross. on 611 112008) C/muiled ~c~/appeal.spacket (Latka-
Mucha. Wieslawa) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
06/30/2008 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 8 Judgment. by Christopher Earl Strunk. Filing fee $455
receipt # 354600. NOA served ECF. (Gonzalez, Mary) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
06/30/2008 Elcctronic Index to Record on Appeal scnt to US Court of Appeals. For docket entries
without a hyperlink, contact the court and we'll arrange for the document(s) to be made
available to you. 3 Notice of Related Case AssignmenVDesignation. 8 Judgment,. 9
Notice of Appeal, 4 Letter. 7 Amended Complaint..,. 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis, 5 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ... 6 Letter, 1
Complaint. (Gonzalez, Mary) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RONALD G. LOEBER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
THOMAS SPARGO, individually and as Justice of

the NYS Supreme Court, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, filed by
Defendants Thomas J. Spargo, Joseph L. Bruno, the State Senate, Sheldon Silver, the State
Assembly, George E. Pataki, Randy A. Daniels, ELiot Spitzer and all members of the NYS Senate
and Assembly previously named therein as John and/or Jane Doe's ("State Defendants") on April 9,
2008, seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint in its entirety and denial of Plaintiffs' request
for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. 4 2284. Dkt. No. 98. As per the Court's January 8,2008
Decision, the State Defendants are the only Defendants remaining in this action, Dkt. No. 8 1.
I. Background
On October 15,2004, pro se Plaintiffs filed a Complaint asserting, among other things,
various constitutional violations arising out of the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA") ( Pub. L. No.
107-252, 116 Stat. 1666,42 U.S.C. $15301-1 5545 (2002)). Dkt. No. 1. On October 29,2004, the
Court dismissed the Complaint. Dkt. No. 5. On appeal, the Second Circuit, inter alia, dismissed all
claims pertaining to the November 2004 elections, but remanded "the redistricting claims" including
the issue of whether the case should be referred to a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $2284.
Dkt. No. 19.
Plaintiffs then filed the Amended Complaint, bringing forth fourteen (14) causes of action
under HAVA and various other statutes, including 42 U.S.C. $9 1983 and 1985. Dkt. No. 25. In
addition to HAVA claims, Plaintiffs appear to challenge the reapportionment of the State of New
York's current legislative, judicial and con~essionaldistricts. Id.at 829. By Decision and Order
dated January 8,2008, the Court dismissed all claims brought under HAVA and the False Claims
Act, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for a preliminary injunction, and dismissed the apportionment claims
as against the City of New York and Federal Defendants, as well as the National Association of
Secretaries of State. Dkt. No. 8 1. The Court noted that the constitutionality of the redistricting plan
was not yet before the Court at that time and that the State Defendants had not yet been heard on the
issue and deferred decision on whether the redistricting claim required a three-judge court. Id. The
Court W h e r directed the Plaintiffs to name and properly serve the John and Jane Doe defendants or
the action would be dismissed against them. Plaintiffs thereafter served all members of the State
Assembly and State Senate.
The State Defendants now seek to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to F.R.C.P.
12(b)(6) and 12(c), as well as F.R.C.P. 8(a). Initially, however, the Court must consider whether il
is necessary to convene a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. 5 2284(a).

11. Discussion
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not presented any cognizable constitutional question,
that the Plaintiffs lack standing, that the State Defendants are entitled to dismissal on the grounds of
legislative immunity and lack of personal involvement, and that the claims remaining in the
Amended Complaint do not pass muster under even the liberal standards of F.R.C.P. 8(a).
A. Legal Standard
As the Supreme Court has recently explained:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need
detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (internal quotations, alterations
and citations omitted). "Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a
claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only 'fair notice' of the nature of the claim,
but also 'grounds' on which the claim rests." Id. at 1965 n.3. "'[A] district court must retain the
power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual
controversy to proceed."' at 1967 (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v.
Carpenters, 459 U.S. 5 19, 528, n. 17 (1983)).
Thus, to survive a Rule 12 motion, Plaintiffs must pass the '"plausibility standard,' which
obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where
such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible." Isba1 v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58
(2d Cir. 2007).
B. Three judge panel
Defendants contend that because Plaintiffs lack standing and have not raised a substantial
Constitutional issue, the case should be dismissed without convening a three-judge panel. Under 28
U.S.C. 5 2284, "[a] district court of three judges shall be convened when . . . an action is filed
challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the
apportionment of any statewide legislative body." 28 U.S.C. (j 2284(a). First, however, to
determine whether a three-judge panel is required, the single judge must inquire (1) "whether the
constitutional question raised is substantial"; (2) ''whether the complaint at least formally alleges a
basis for equitable relief'; and (3) "whether the case presented otherwise comes within the
requirements of the three-judge statute." Idlewild Liquor Cow. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 7 15
(1962).
A single judge may dismiss a claim if the Constitutional claim is insubstantial, Bailey v.
Patterson, 369 U.S. 3 l,33 (1 962), or "if the plaintiff lacks standing or the suit is otherwise not
justiciable in the district court." 17A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure $4235,
at 2 13 (2007); see also Long v. District of Columbia, 469 F.2d 927,930 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Puerto
Rican Intern. Airlines, Inc. v. Colon, 409 F.Supp. 960. 966 (D.P.R. 1975) ("[Sltanding . . . is a
ground upon which a single judge can decline to convene a three judge court and order dismissal of
the complaint"); Am. Commuters Ass'n v. Levitt, 279 F-Supp. 40,45-46 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)).
B. Analysis of Plaintiffs claims
In turning to the Amended Complaint, the Court is aware that because Plaintiffs are
proceedingpro se, the Amended Complaint is to be construed liberally. Phillips v. Girdich, 408
F.3d 124, 127-28 (2d Cir.2005). Initially, the Court notes that the first, fifth, ninth, tenth, eleventh.
thirteenth. and fourteenth causes of action allege violations related to HAVA. These claims,
however, were dismissed by the Court's Order dated January 8,2008. Dkt. No. 8 1.
Plaintiffs' second cause of action (and possibly the sixth cause of action) alleges violation of
New York State Constitution Article 3 Section 4 based on New York City's allotment of 26 senate
districts. Not only does this claim rest on an incorrect assumption that New York City is a single
county, as opposed to consisting of five separate counties, but Article 3, Section 4 was among the
constitutional reapportionment provisions declared unconstitutional in WMCA Inc. v. Lomenzo,
377 US 63 (1963). Accordingly, this claim is hereby dismissed under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). A three-
judge panel is not required to address this claim or to dismiss it. & Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S.
at 33 (holding that a three-judge panel is not required "when the claim that a statute is
unconstitutional is wholly insubstantial, legally speaking nonexistent.")
Plaintiffs' remaining causes of action (third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and twelfth) do
not comprehensibly refer to any federal provisions that are allegedly violated, and do not even all
relate to redistricting or apportionment.' The Amended Complaint does not appear to present a
discernable reapportionment claim under the federal constitution, such that there is no cause to
convene a three-judge panel. Although Plaintiffs claim various injuries including, for example,
discrimination2(Am. Compl. f 30), "rotten boroughs injury" (n 32), and "disproportionate

diminished dilution injuries" (132), the Court is unable to decipher from the Amended Complaint a
'
The seventh cause of action may possibly make a possible gerrymandering claim, but as
discussed below, a gerrymandering claim against the 2002 New York redistricting plan is
insubstantial based on a prior decision.
This comes fiom a very liberal construction of the following: "That Plaintiffs as US
Citizens are denied equal protection and substantive due process suffer injury to individual Bottorn-
up suffrage and Homerule autonomy of the PEOPLE within a municipal entity aq a firewall against
corruption entitled to a respective board of elections therein, suffer infringement of speech in the
state legislature the US House, unequal due process in the judiciary and unreasonable unequally
reimbursed unhnded financial burden upon New York citizen property differently than that for
citizens of the several states, as a taking imposed by unconstitutional provisions of HAVA in the
Congressional definition of 'Voting Age Person" ('YAP") rather than "Citizen Voting Age
Persons" ("CVAP"), is prima facie discrimination evidence proven in related case . . ." Am. Compl.
7 30.
clear Constitutional claim challenging New York State's 2002 redistricting plan or the connection of
any alleged Constitutional violations to any particular acts by the State Defendants. Accordingly,
the Amended Complaint may be dismissed without convening a three-judge panel. See e.g.,
Duckworth v. State Board of Elections, 213 F. Supp. 2d 543 (D.M.D. 2002) (dismissing challenge
to Maryland's congressional districting plan without referral to three-judge panel).
In addition, the Court notes that a constitutional question is insubstantial ifprior decisions
render the issue frivolous and leave no room for any inference of controversy. Goosby v. Osser, 409
U.S. 5 12. 5 18 ( 1 973); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. at 33 (holding that a three-judge panel is not
required when "prior decisions make frivolous any claim" of unconstitutionality). The redistricting
plan presently challenged by Plaintiffs has already withstood scrutiny under constitutional
challenges including one person-one vote, population-based and genymandering. Rodrirmez v.
Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 125 S.Ct. 627 (2004) (granting summary judgment and
dismissing complaint because the redistricting plan did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or
the Voting Rights Act, but instead reflected traditional districting principles by maintaining equality
of population). That decision upholding the redistricting plan was reached by a three-judge panel
and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Id.

As previously noted, a Court may dismiss a claim if the Constitutional claim is insubstantial,
Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 3 1. In this case, there is a prior decision finding that the 2002 New
York redistricting plan was constitutional. Even with a liberal construction of Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, there are no possibly comprehensible redistricting claims brought by Plaintiffs that raise
a controversy beyond the analysis in the prior decision. In addition, because Plaintiffs' claims, even
when liberally construed, do not present a discernable reapportionment claim under the federal
A - 128
constitution, the Plaintiffs' Constitutional claims are hereby dismissed in their entirety.
111. Conclusion
Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 98) is GRANTED; and it is
further
ORDERED. that Plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. $2284(a) (Dkt.
No. 104) is DENIED; and it is hrther
ORDERED, that the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 25) is DISMISSED in its entirety; and
it is fixther
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 3 1,2008

Albany, New York
U.S.District Judge \
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#28 1
Brooklyn, New York 1 1238
August 8,2008
BY MAIL U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn N.D. OF N.Y.
United States District Judge of the FILED
U.S. District Court Northern District of New York
James T. Foley U.S. Co~~rlhouse *UG 1 1 2008
445 Broadway, Room 424 LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN, CLERK
Albany, N Y 12207 ALBANY
Re: Lueber et al.v. S ~ m p oer d.NDNY 04cv- 1 193
Subject: FRCvP Rule 60 reconsideration of the August 1,2008 decision
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn,
As a sovereign nature1 person, I am above the corporate nature of this cou* and as a
sovereign citizen of the State of New York am guaranteed my Supreme sovereignty in the people
under the social contract of the state constitution and laws, and that no authority can on any
pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived
from and granted by the people of this state, and I demand reconsideration of the outrageous
decision of August 1,2008 as guaranteed under FRCvP Rule 60.
That I am a natural person with We The People as natural persons of the State of New York
(a corporate entity), who are grateful to Ahnighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its
blessings apart h m any such corporate fiction or pretender monarch, and or as further guaranteed
by the 9* and 1 0 Amendments
~ to the Federal Constitution, and Magna Carte. That nunc pro tunc I
inherit all the sovereign rights, privileges and property that a living n a n d human inures from the
creator Yahweh whose son Jesus Christ gumantees my sovereign Freedom given from Almighty
God against corporate fiction bent on enslaving unbelievers.
That for the record and with no dishonor intended, but may be a matter of 28 USC 455
recusai, if for no other reason other than clarification for our appeal from the August 1,2008
decision in which the court has d i e d our rights guaranteed under the Amendment, I must
ask whether or not the Court is able to make a judgment free and clear of other commitments, the
Court must answer the following questions:
Have you taken any oath other than that of your oath of office?
Have you taken a Masonic oath?
Have you taken a Kolnidre oath in which you must forgive all in your private capacity?
That the August 1,2008 dismissal disparages our social contract right to a republican form
of government in New York, as such violates our ninth amendment right enumeration in the U.S.
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people; and that any false statement that d i d i t s or distracts from the qutation of rights,
property, and by injurious falsehood libels and defames my title to our social contract equity in the
August 1,2008 decision flies in the of the NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 that
guarantees quote:
S 2. Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be
exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derivedfiom and gmnted by
the people of thh state.
That any false statement that discredits or distracts from the reputation of my individual
freedoms, liberty, property, thatby such injurious falsehood libels and defames my title to our
social contract is done in the presence of Yahweh our God, ignores the consolidated city of New
York that remains the only home-rule temmtorydescribed as such by "no two counties or the
tern-torythereof as now organized", that would be a certified question from 2"6Circuit to NYS
Appeals Court, and that applies under the NYS Constitution Artide Section 4 tirai quote:
No county shaU havefour or more senators unless it shall have afill ratiofor each senator.
No county shall have more than one-third of all the senators; and no two counties or the
territory rhereofm now organized which are adjoining counties, or which are separated only by
public waters, shall haw more than one-Mf of all the senatom.
The ratiofor apportioning senators shall ahvays be obtained by dividing the number of
inhabitants, excluding aliens, byfifiv, and the senate shall always be compsed offifiy members,
The WMCA case eliminated theformula: except that if any county having three or more
senators at the time of any apportionment shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator or
senators, such additional senator or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty
senators, and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent.
The WMCQ care eliminafed thefonnrrlo; One member of assembly shall be apportioned to
every county, including Fulton and Hamilton as one county, containing less than the ratio and one-
half over. (ONLYas it applies to county population size that is determined by home rule
status based upon entitlement to a board of efections within and that the assembly size ratio as
with senate enlargement is declared uncoestitutionnl)
Two members shall be apportioned to every other county. ((Still requires a home-rule county
to be entitled to at least two ADSwithin - WHOLLY WITHIN.)
That the court ignores the express provision for deficiencies in county home mle defined by:
The county of Hamilton shall elect with the county of Fulton, until the population of the county
of Hamilton shall according to the ratio, entitle it to a member. But the legislature may abolish the
said county of Hamilton and annex the territory thereof to some other county or counties.
Your finding based upon the proper use of WMCQrequires that only 50 senate districts and
150 assembly districts may be used until the legislature or a mandated twenty year constitutional
convention determines otherwise a new legislative enlargement formula
That unless Your finding tes the existence of the entire New York State Constitution as
7
it appears, then requires that my 18 Senate District is only one of fifty to include 3 Assembly
Districts already pre-cleared by the US DOJ Voting Rights Section wholly within the 18* SD.
Further, there is no legal authority in ReynaUv v. Sims or WMCA v Lomenzo that gives an
Article I11 court the power to eliminate the NYSC Articles I11 section 1 through 6 in its entirety,
You are absolutely bound to only a narrowty tailored rescission as done in the k b r v Caw case
that would apply to a specific injury under the 14& Amendment.
Further, I was an intervener party in R&gua v Pataki and therein was granted standing to
sue separately from the narrow complaint there that inter alia requested an increase in senate
districts within NYC from 62 to 63, along with other claims challenged under the so-called VRA as
if the minority makeup of assembly districts within NYC varied violative of the VRA, and that all
causes were dismissed for the reasons that your decision misconstrues and will not standup to my
appeal will be reversed, in that Rodriguez v. Putaki was a sham case as defined under 28 USC 1359.
Furthermore, that any false statement that discredits or distracts from the reputation of my
rights, property, and by such injurious falsehood libels and defames my title to our social contract
equity as applies under the NYS Constitution Arlicle LIISection 5 thut for Brooklyn (alkla Kings
County) from April 2002 applies to my New Yorlc 1 8 Senate~ Distrid (SD) done differently for
SDs within Brooklyn as my equity injury here despite express mandate, quote:
assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be,
shall be wholly within a senate district
In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts
among the senate districts of any county.
That the court disparages and deFames my and Plaintiffs' rights by cherry picking done with
WMCA, Reynolb v Sims, and R h q u e z v Pa&& cases that were improperly applied by the court
and when exposed to second circuit any fair dealing with the issues return to district again for the
next Census on April 1 5,20 10 for delivery December 3 1,2010.
At the heart of the cases is denial of a republican form of government in New Yo* that has
destroyed any expectation of participation in the electoral process h m the vast majority of state
citizens resident in a home rule county who in no less than 47 counties are without any dedicated
voice in the legislature.
We have a right to know whether or not the court considers the state constitution has been
nullified in its entirety by the WMCA, Reynolds v Sims, Rodriguez decisions and whether or not this
court considers our citizen right to a republican form of government under the 9& amendment to
Federal constitution continues. Nowhere in any federal case to date has there been any expression
that would give anyone other than a state citizen who is also a USA citizen over 17 years of age the
right to sufliage and when otherwise construed disparages that right prdected by the !Y"
Amendment as you have done by your decision.
The express words of the state constihrtion have been ignored by this court which in itself is
an outrageous disparagement of our 9* amen- rights.
After March 6,2006 only a F e d d Judge and the NYS BOE has authority under the State
Constitution to redistricting state legislative and federal house districts, given the fact that the state
legislature has no authority aRer March 6, of the sixth year following the redistricting.
I am only able to speak for myself herein and as such speak with the authority of a sovereign
citizen with power over the federal courts who have screwed up here in New York and are required
to correct ignorant mistakes; thus I urge the Court to reconsider the trespass upon me and if any of
the questions listed above are answered in t k affirmative that recusal applies under 28 USC 455.
Respecthlly submitted by,
Dated: August 8,2008 ls/t%&t+aEpa~
Brooklyn New York
Christopher Earl S W
cc PlaintifEs and Defendants' counsel(s)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Case Odcv-1193(LEK)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and USPS MAIL,
On August 8,2008 and under penalty of peajury, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, caused to be
Electronically e-mailed, and sent by regular mail S-nk's :mCvP Rule 60 reansideration of
the Apaust 1,2008 decision endorsed August 8,2008 for service to Plainti& and Defendants'
attorneys as follows:
Plain- hNDNY 04-cv-l1!B: bbdemfalls(aad.com bil-corn. ,b v d e ' i l . c o m ,

amkabel6hrahoo.com, fraben~Dtooline.net,hvanalIenliilhvc.rr.com. medicaid!axlew@ahoo.com ,
r a ~ t o ~ m o 2 ~ a h o o . c orwmes&ml.com
m, , u1~carvotes2rl~vcab.rr,com..wm, and
postage paid by First Class U.S. Mail to PlaintBRoy Pierre Dcticge-Cormier 25 Haitte Jones Circle
Defendants' Coa& io NDNY 04cv-1193: Londaw@mac.com. i e f f i e v . d v o ~ . m . n v . u s ,

tvalentine@ekdons.state.nv.us ,jek@konstantvlaw.com , BarbaraCoUreIl~oi.~ov ,
I do declare and d f L under penalty of pejury:
Dated: August 8,2008 / s / ~ M S b U l u &

Brooklyn New York
Christopher Earl Shank
Page 1 of 1
Bill Van Ailen

From: Christopher Strunk [ustrunck@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 08,2008 439 PM
Cc: bbglensfalb@aol.ann; bitlgage@bdrd.wrn; ~ @ a o l . c mcap$abel@yahoo.com;

;
frabend&Wbnline.net hvanallenm.rr.com; m e d ~ ~ a h o 0 . m ;
Subject: C M i f h b of Service of SENnic's Raquest for Reconsiderationof D e d s i in EDNY Wcv-

1193
Attaciunents: Strunk request for reconsideration of the 8-01-08 Decision in NDNY Wcv-l193.pdf
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Case 04-cv-1193(LEK)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and USPS MAIL
On August 8,2008 and under penalty of perjury, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, caused to be
Electronically e-mailed, and sent by regular mail Strunk's :FRCvP Rnle 60 reconsideration o m
Augu&1,2008 dee2i.b endorsed August 8 , 2 0 0 8 for service to PlaintifE and Defendants' attorneys as
follows:
Plniatifb in NDNY-W-1193: bbglensfalls@aol.com , billgage@otmail.com ,bvdeitz@aol.com,

captgabel@ahoo.com ,hbenda@optonline.net , hvanallen@hvc.rr.com, medicaidtaxlevy@ahoo.com .
,rsaxpress@aol.com , uncasvotes2, rloebe@nycap.rr.com ,and
raptorprimo2004~bd@yahoo.com
postage paid by First Class U.S. Mail to Plaintiff Roy Pierre Detiege-Cormier25 Haitte Jones Circle Brooklyn
New York 11213
Defendants' Coonseb in NDNY-OQcV-1193: Longlaw@rnac.com, jefiy.dvorin@oag.state.ny.us,

~alentine@elections.state.ny,us ,jek@konstantylaw.com , B&araCottrell@usdoj.gov ,
dwkloss@klosslaw.com ,aaron.baldwin@oag.state.ny.us
I do declare and certifj. undet penalty of pejury:
Dated:August 8,2008 I d ~ ~ U S t U U L B
Brooklyn New York
Ch&tophtr Earl Strank
STATEOF NEW YORK
GENERAL
OFFICE OF T H E ATTORNEY
ANDREW M. C U O M O STATE COUNSEL DIVISION

Attorney General Litigation Bureau
Writer Direct: (518) 474-2913

Fax: (518) 473-1572
August I 8.2008
Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn via CMIECF

United States District Judge
James T. Foley Courthouse
445 Broadway, Room 424
Albany. NY 12207-2926
Re: Loeber, el al. v. Spargo, et al.

04-CV- 1193 (LEWRFT)
Dear Judge Kahn:
Please accept this letter briefon behalfof the State Defendants in response to and opposition
to the motion for reconsideration submitted by plaintiffChristopher Earl Strunk (docket #I 15). For
the reasons set forth below and also set forth in the State Defendants' initial moving papers (docket
#98) and reply papers (docket #102), the motion for reconsideration should be denied.
Plaintiff Strunk seeks reconsideration of the Judgment in favor of the defendants (docket
#I 10) and this Court's corresponding Order (docket #109) dated July 3 1,2008 which dismissed the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and denied the plaintif&' request for a three-judge panel under 28
U.S.C.A. §2284(a).
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for very limited grounds for relief
from a judgment or order. Rule 60(a) allows correction of clerical mistakes, oversights. and
omissions, but has no application to the instant motion. Although the plaintiff does not specify the
basis for the relief sought or what sub-section he moves under, it is presumed that the plaintiffmoves
under Rule 60(b). That Rule allows for relief fiomjudgment based on mistake, excusable neglect,
newly discovered evidence and fraud, among other reasons justifying relief. F.R.C.P. 60(b)( 1)-(6).
Since the plaintiffdoes not suggest either that there has been an intervening change in controlling law
or that he has discovered new evidence, the defendants fiuther assume that Strunk seeks to argue that
reconsideration is necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Under
the applicable legal standards, however, reconsideration should bc denied.
T h e C a p i t o l . Albany. N Y 12224-0341 (518) 474-2913. Fax (518) 473-1572

NOT FOR S E R m OF PAPERS
While the granting or denial of a motion under such rule is within the broad discretion of the
Court, "[slince 60(b) allows extraordinary judicial relief, it is invoked only upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances." Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 6 1 (2d Cir. 1986). "Final judgments
should not be lightly reopened." Id.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict and the plaintiffs burden in
seeking reconsideration is heavy. The Second Circuit has instructed that "reconsideration will
generally be denied unless the rnoving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked - matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion
reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,257 (2d Cu. 1995).
A motion for reconsideration "should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to
relitigate an issue already decided." Id. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration is not to be used
"for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits,
or otherwise taking a 'second bite at the apple'. ..." Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d
Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). This is essentially what the plaintiffis improperly seeking to do in this
instance.
The plaintiffhas not pointed to any overlooked controllingdecision or constitutional provision

which may reasonably be expected to alter the Court's dismissal of the matter. Instead, the plaintiff
merely claims that the court's Order dismissing the Amended Complaint was "outrageous" and
"drsparages our social contact right to a republican form of government in New York." (Docket
#115).
It is respecthlly submitted that in the July 3 1,2008 Order, the Court properly reviewed the
relevant law and properly applied it to the facts of this case. Specifically, the Court appropriately
addressed and rejected the plaintit%' arguments under New York State Constitution Article 3,
Section 4 (g, Order at docket #I09 at pp. 4-5) and the plaintiffs' potential federal constitutional
challenges to the redistricting plan at issue m., at pp.5-6). Thus, the Court's Order was legally
correct and did not work a manifest injustice on the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Court should deny Strunk's motion for reconsideration as this case does not
present any exceptional cucurnstances warranting such extraordmry relief. The plaintiff has simply
not met his heavy burden ofdemonstrating any grounds upon which the Court's prior decision should
be altered.
Respectfklly Submittcd,
/J/ c9/nwn oft.*ULA(nt>Z
Aaron M. Baldwin
Assistant Attorney General
Bar Roll #510175
cc: All Plaintif% (via First Class Mail per attached Declaration of Service);
All Counsel (via CM/ECF)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I, Aaron M. Baldwin, declare pursuant to 28 USC 5 1746, that on August 18, 2008, 1
served the annexed Letter Brief upon all defendants of record via CMIECF and upon the
following individuals by depositing true copies thereof, properly enclosed in sealed, postpaid
wrappers, in a post office box in the City of Albany, a depository under the exclusive care and
custody ofthe United States Post Office Department, directed to the individuals at the addresses
designated for that purpose. as follows:
Dated: August 18,2008
Albany, New York
l~/&mJJuM W I N
AARON M. BALDWIN
Christopher Strunk Ronald E. Sacoff

593 Vanderbilt Avenue 84 Boylan Street
Apt #281 Staten Island, NY 10312
Brooklyn, NY 1 1238
Gabriel Rassano
Ronald G. Loeber 135 Gordon Place
2 130 Berne Altamont Road Freeport, NY 1 1520
Altamont, NY 12009
Edward M. Person, Jr.
William E. Bombard 392 Saldane Avenue
P.O. Box 882 North Babylon, NY 1 1703
Glens Falls, NY 12801
The Ad tioc NYS Citizens Tor Constitutional
William A. Gage Legislative Redistricting
10 Greenfield Lane 351 North Road
Hampton, NY 12837 Hurley, NY 12443
John Fodone Burr V. Deitz

P.O. Box 28 444 Whitehall Road
Clarendon, NY 14429 Albany, NY 12208
H. William Van Allen Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cornier

35 1 North Road 25 Hattie Jones Circle
Hurley. NY 12443 Brooklyn, NY 1 1213
Fairlene G . Rabenda
8 Claudia Lane
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
RONALD G . LOEBER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against- 1:O4-CV- 1 I93

(LEWRFT)
THOMAS SPARGO, individually and as Justice of
the NYS Supreme Court, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Letter Motion filed by Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk
( " S W ' ) requesting reconsideration of this Court's Order, dated July 3 1.2008, dismissing the
Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C.A. (j
2284(a). Letter Motion (Dkt. No. 1 15); July 3 1 Order (Dkt. No. 109). Defendants have filed a
response in opposition to Strunk's Motion. Response (Dkt. No. 117).
A. Legal Standard
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict, and "reconsideration will
generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked--matters. in other words. that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion
reached by the court." Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,257 (2d Cir. 1995). The burden
I
I
on a party moving for reconsideration of an order is thus substantial. Toland v. Walsh, No. 9:04-
CV-0773,2008 WL 657247, at * I (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7.2008). There are only three possible grounds
I
upon which motions for reconsideration may be granted: (1) an intervening change in law, (2) the
availability of evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice, Shannon v. Verizon New York, Inc., 519 F.Supp.2d 304,307 (N.D.N.Y.
2007) (citing Doe v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983). It
appears that Strunk is basing his motion for reconsideration on a need to correct an error of law or to
prevent manifest injustice.
B. Recusal
Initially, Strunk's Letter Motion appears to also suggest that the Court should recuse itself
for "disparaging" Plaintiffs' rights unless the Court "is able to make a judgment fiee and clear of
other commitments."' Letter Motion at 1 (Dkt. No. 115). However, Plaintiff has not actually
moved for recusal, and certainly not in any format that complies with the statutory requirements.
Plaintiff has also not alleged any basis that would warrant recusal under either of the two statutes
that govern the recusal of federal judges--Sections 144 and 455 of the Judicial Code. 28 U.S.C. 44
144,455.
So far as Section 144 is concerned, Plaintiff failed to file the requisite affidavit sufficiently
alleging "that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either
against him or in favor of any adverse party." In addition, as the Supreme Court said in Liteky,
"judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." L i t e h
v. United Slates, 510 U.S. 540,555-56 (1994).2 Plaintiff has also failed to meet the requirements of
' Strunk then includes examples, asking whether the Court has taken any oath other than the
oath of office, such as "a Masonic oath ... [or] a Kolnidre oath in which you must forgive all in your
private capacity."
It should also be noted also that the determination oiwhether such an affidavit is timely
and legally sufficient is made by the judge whose recusal is sought. See, e . h Berger v. United
States 255 U.S. 22,32,36 (1 92 I); LoCascio473 F.3d 493,498 (2d Cir.2007)
-7
Section 455(a), which requires that a judge recuse when "an objective, disinterested observer fully
informed of the underlying facts [would] entertain significant doubt that justice would be done
absent recusal." See Ln re Aguinda, 241 F.3d 194,201 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting United States v.
Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 8 11, 8 1 5 (2d Cir. 1992)) ('Where a case, by contrast, involves remote,
contingent, indirect or speculative interests, disqualification is not required.").
C. Discussion
Strunk then claims that by affecting Plaintiffs' rights, the July 3 1 Order -'flies in the face of
the NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 that guarantees quote: 'S 2. Supreme sovereignty in
the people. No authority can, or any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this
state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state."' Letter Motion
at 1-2. To the extent that this argument appears to challenge the Court's personal jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs, this claim is waived since it cannot be brought after the Court's disposition of the case,
and since Plaintiffs already waived any challenge to the Coud's personal jurisdiction over them by
I
I
filing this suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h); see, e.& Andros Compania Maritima, S.A. v. Intertanker Ltd,
7 18 F-Supp. 1215, 1217 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (appearing and seeking affirmative relief from the Court is
the paradigm of such a waiver) (citing Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59,67-68 (1938)).
I
Plaintiff Strunk next reiterates various legal arguments already presented to the Court
regarding New York State Constitution's Article 3, Section 4 and the Plaintiffs' potential federal
constitutional challenges to the redistricting plan. However, a motion for reconsideration "should
not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader,
1
(quoting > 572 F.2d 953,958 (2d Cir. 1978), cert.
denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1 979)) ("'a judge has an affirmative duty to inquire into the legal sufficiency
of such an affidavit and not to disqualify himself unnecessarily. . ."').
70 F.3d at 257. A motion for reconsideration is not to be used "for relitigating old issues, presenting
the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a 'second bite at
the apple'. .. ." Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).
"Since 60(b) allows extraordinary judicial relief, it is invoked only upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances." Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). "Final judgments
should not be lightly reopened." Plaintiff has not alerted the Court to any overlooked
controlling decision, constitutional provision. or data which may be reasonably expected to alter the
Court's dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established any '-exceptional circumstances" under
which reconsideration is warranted.
D. Conclusion
Therefore, based on the foregoing. it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 115) is DENIED; and
it is fiu-ther
ORDERED, that the Court's July 3 1,2008 Order, dismissing the Amended Complaint and
denying Plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel (Dkt. No. 109) is AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 10,2008

Albany, New York
U.S. District Judge \

ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please take notice that on September2,2008 the court received a notice of appeal
in the action set forth below. This notice serves to inform the Second Circuit of the pending
appeal and provide them with the basic information they need to begin processing the
appeal. After receipt of this notice, the Second Circuit will prepare and issue a scheduling
order which will outline the obligations and responsibilitiesof the parties with regard to this
appeal. Should you have any questions priorto the issuance of a scheduling order, please
feel free to contact the District Court Clerk's Office.
Sincerely,
Lawrence K. Baerman
U.S. District Court
By: Britney Norton

Deputy Clerk
For Court Use Only:
CASE TITLE: Ronald G. Loeber, et al. v. Thomas J. Spargo, et al.
CASE NUMBER: 1:04-CV-1193 LEKIRFT
NOTICE OF APPEAL - Docket # 118
Document being Appealed:
Final Judgement: Docket # 109, 110

InterlocutoryAppeal: Docket #
Other: Docket #
FEE STATUS: Paid - DueX Waived (IFP1CJA)-
IFP revoked - Application Attached - IFP pending before USDJ -
COUNSEL: CJA - RETAINED - PRO S E X
TIME STATUS: TimelyX Out of Time -
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Granted - Denied -
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY: Granted - Denied - NIA -

LUIS ~J.~L,ocI
Federal Rules of Appellate R
From a Judgment or Order 01a D&trktCourt. I- 1
United States District Court for the Dimict of

- DNY ~ r uw w )
m e r h o a ~ m OF
File ~ ~ m b c r 0 Y- CL/-
U.S.DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF N.Y.
nLEo
..
v. ) N d c e of Appeal SEP 0 2 2008

LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN, CLERK
C.D., 1 ALBANY
~ ~ 1
t .
Notice is hereby given that (,
*See Rule 3(c) far permissible ways of identifying appellants
/hu,g CF/tfip ~ * l ) r ( ~ m ~
USCA2 Docket Sheet for 08-3242 Page 1 of 7
General Docket
Second Circuit Court of
Appeals
INDIV
OPEN
Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-3242-cv

Nsuit : 2440 CIVIL RIGHTS-Other
Strunk v. United States Postal Service Filed 6/30/08
Appeal EDNY (BROOKLYN)

from:
Case type information:
Civil
United States
None
Lower court information:
District: 08-cv-1744
Trial Judge: Allyne Ross
MagJudge: Lois Bloom
Date Filed: 04/17/08
Date order/judgement: 6/13/2008
Date NOA filed: 6/30/2008
Fee status: Paid
Panel Assignment:
Panel: SS RAK RCW None
Date of decision:
Prior cases: NONE
Current cases NONE
Official Caption 1/
INDIV
OPEN
http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=08-3242&puid=01263147226 1/10/2010
--------------------------------------
Docket No. [s] : 08-3242 -cv
Plaintiff-Appellant,
United States Postal Service, James C. Miller III,

Chairman USPS Board of Directors, The City of New York,
NYC Board of Elections: James J. Sampel, President,
Frederic M. Umane, Secretary, Anthony Como, Julie Dent,
Nero Graham Jr., Terrence C. O`Connor, Juan Carlos
Polanco, Nancy Mottola-Schacher, Grgory C. Soumas,
Maryann Yennella, each in official capacity and
Individually,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------------------------
Authorized Abbreviated Caption 2/

--------------------------------------
Docket No. [s] : 08-3242 -cv
Strunk v. United States Postal Service
--------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
1/ Fed. R. App. P. Rule 12 [a] and 32 [a].
2/ For use on correspondence and motions only.
Docket as of January 06, 2010 1:38 am Page 2
INDIV
OPEN
Christopher Earl Strunk Christopher Earl Strunk
Plaintiff-Appellant n/a
593 Vanderbilt Ave. 281

Brooklyn , NY , 11238
718-574-7701
NYC Board of Elections: Michael A. Cardozo Esq.
Defendant-Appellee [ LD n ]
Corporation Counsel of the,
City of New York
100 Church St.
New York , NY , 10007
917-472-3434
The City of New York Michael A. Cardozo Esq.(See

above)
James C. Miller Peter A. Norling Esq.
U.S. Attorney`s Office, Eastern
District of New York
1 Pierrepont Plaza, Att: Ms.
Brooklyn , NY , 11201al
Specialist
718-254-6280
INDIV
OPEN
United States Postal Service Peter A. Norling Esq.(See above)
United States Postal Service Varuni Nelson Esq.
Defendant-Appellee [ n ]
U.S. Attorney`s Office for the
Eastern District of New York
1 Pierrepont Plaza, Att: Ms.
Brooklyn , NY , 11201al
Specialist
718-254-6015
INDIV
OPEN
6/30/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, Copy of

notice of appeal and district court docket
entries on behalf of APPELLANT
Christopher Strunk, filed. [Entry date
Jul 3 2008 ] [CM]
6/30/08 Note: This appeal was PRO SE when filed.

[Entry date Jul 3 2008 ] [CM]
6/30/08 Note SEE case number(s): 037679-cv,

03-9072-cv, 03-9132-cv, 03-9204-cv,
04-0910-cv, 04-1085-cv, 04-3758-cv,
04-5720-cv, 04-1566-cv, 05-2216-cv,
05-6536-op, 05-6956-cv, 06-0635-cv06-2390-cv,
07-0051-cv, 07-0103-cv, 08-0739-cv.
6/30/08 Copy of district court order dated 6/11/08,

the action is dismissed for failure ro state
a claim and as frivolous RECEIVED. Signed by:
Allyne r. Ross, U.S.D.J. [Entry date Jul

3 2008 ] [CM]
6/30/08 Record on Appeal Electronically Filed

(Original documents remain in the
originating court).
7/3/08 Instructional Forms sent to Pro Se litigant

7/3/08 Appellant Christopher Strunk motion allow

emergency relief for ballot access , TRO,
preliminary injunction, mandumus and remand
appeal filed with proof of service. [Entry
date Jul 7 2008 ] [CM]
7/10/08 Appellant Christopher Strunk motion

expedite emergency motion for ballot access
at the New York September 9, 2008 Republican
Party Primary filed with proof of service.
7/10/08 Appellee James Miller et al. in opposition

to motion allow, remand appeal filed with
proof of service. [Entry date Jul 11 2008
] [CM]
7/15/08 Notice to all parties of Motion Order dated

7/15/08. [Entry date Jul 15 2008 ] [CM]
7/15/08 Order FILED DENYING motion allow emergency

relief for ballot access, TRO, Preliminart
injunction, mandamus by Appellant
INDIV
OPEN
Christopher Strunk, Order FILED DENYING

motion remand appeal by Appellant
Christopher Strunk (JF). [Entry date Jul
15 2008 ] [CM]
7/16/08 Notice to all parties of Order dated 7/16/08.

7/16/08 Scheduling order #1 filed. Appellants brief

due 8/15/2008. Appellees brief due
9/15/2008. Ready week 10/27/2008. [Entry
date Jul 16 2008 ] [CM]
7/16/08 Notice to all parties of scheduling order #1.

7/16/08 Order FILED GRANTING motion expedite motion

by Appellant Christopher Strunk. The motion
has been expedited and determined. (JF)
7/18/08 The new case manager assigned to this case

is: Gonzalez, Armando. [Entry date Jul 18
2008 ] [RR]
8/20/08 Notice of appeal acknowledgment letter from

Varuni Nelson received. [Entry date Aug 25
2008 ] [GP]
9/5/08 Order to Show Cause for not filing brief, by

APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, , FILED.
Response due by: 9/19/08.
[Entry date Sep 5 2008 ] [AG]
9/5/08 Notice to Pro se Order to Show Cause.

9/19/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, brief FILED

with proof of service. [Entry date Sep 22
2008 ] [AG]
9/19/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, appendix

filed w/pfs. [Entry date Sep 22 2008 ]
[AG]
9/25/08 Scheduling order #2 filed. Appellees brief

due 10/27/2008. Ready week 12/8/2008.
9/25/08 Notice to counsel/Pro Se informing them of

Scheduling Order #2. [Entry date Sep 25
2008 ] [AG]
10/1/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, brief FILED
INDIV
OPEN
WITH ERRATA CORRECTIONS, FILED with proof of

service. [Entry date Oct 8 2008 ] [AG]
10/2/08 APPELLANT Christopher Strunk, brief

RECEIVED. With "Errata Corrections"
[Entry date Oct 2 2008 ] [AG]
10/2/08 Appellant Christopher Strunk motion allow

to file Appellant's brief with Errata
Corrections, filed with proof of service.
10/8/08 Notice to counsel/Pro Se Order dated

10/08/08. [Entry date Oct 8 2008 ] [AG]
10/8/08 Order FILED GRANTING motion allow by

Appellant Christopher Strunk, endorsed on
motion dated 10/2/2008 [Entry date Oct 8
2008 ] [AG]
10/29/08 Order filed stating, "Petitioner, pro se,

has filed motions for "Emergenecy Relief for
Ballot Access, TRO, Preliminary Injunction,
Mandamus, and Remand," and to expedited the
"Emergency Motion for Ballot Access." Upon
due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that
the motions are DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk's Office shall issue
a briefing schedule. " [Entry date Oct 29
2008 ] [AG]
10/29/08 Scheduling order #3 filed. Appellees brief

due 12/29/2008. Ready week 2/9/2009.
Appellants brief due 11/28/2008. [Entry
date Oct 29 2008 ] [AG]
10/29/08 Notice to counsel/Pro Se Scheduling Order #3.

12/29/08 Letter received from Mr. Sternberg,

informing the court that as counsel to
Michael Cardozo they will not be filing
responsive papers on plaintiff`s appeal to
this Court because he was never served in
this case. [Entry date Jan 8 2009 ] [AG]
12/29/08 APPELLEE NYC Board of Elections:, The

City of New York, United States Postal
Service, James Miller, LETTER BRIEF filed
with proof of service. [Entry date May 20
2009 ] [AG]
6/5/09 The new case manager assigned to this case

is: Crossman, Ahronda. [Entry date Jun 5
2009 ] [RR]
7/28/09 Local Rule 34 Notice Sent [Entry date Jul

28 2009 ] [AC]
INDIV
OPEN
11/5/09 Proposed for argument the week of 1/11/10 A

Panel. [Entry date Nov 5 2009 ] [CA]
11/24/09 Set for submission on 1/15/10 A Panel {on

Submission without oral argument}{10am}
[Entry date Nov 24 2009 ] [AV]
12/9/09 Calendar argument notice mailed to

attorneys/parties. [Entry date Dec 9 2009
] [AG]
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in re Appeal Case 08-3242-cv
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 10,2010, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjury with 28 USC $1746
caused the service of seven complete sets of the T1080 Motion with supporting declaration to have
the 08-3242-cv January 15,2010 on submission hearing changed to be heard with the 08-4323-cv
oral panel hearing signed January 8,2010 pursuant to the Schedule upon counsels to Appellees by
placing each complete package in a properly addressed envelope with proper postage f$deliv&
0
by the United States Postal Service as follows:

C'
r
"
L
0s-
c=,>.
5 tf:
-
';rZ
4
,
"';
. -.-
mI' *
AARON M. BALDWIN Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. 3p,;

C-2
a "".
.-.
Assistant Attorney General of New York New York State ~ o a r dof ~ l e c t i mln
&g~>
ZIZ
- : i
i
The Capitol 40 Steuben St. P
r
*m
"
Albany, New York 12224-0341 Albany ,NY ,12207 vs
THE CITY OF NEW YORK WAN J. KIM

Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo United States Attorney Assistant
NYC Law Department Attorney General
100 Church Street Civil Rights Division
New York, NY 10007 U.S. Department of Justice
Room 7254--NWB
JAMES E. LONG, ESQ. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W
668 Central Avenue Washington, D.C. 20530
Albany, New Yo* 12206
Peter A. Norling Esq.
JAMES E. KONSTANTY, ESQ. U.S. Attorney's Office,
Konstanty Law Office Eastern District of New York
252 Main Street 1 Pierrepont Plaza, Att: Ms.
Oneonta, NY 13820 Brooklyn ,NY , 11201
I do declare and certify under penalty of pejury:

n
Dated: January 1 1,2010
Brooklyn, New Yo
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1

Brooklyn., New York 11238
(845) 90 1-6767 Email: chris(ii),strunk.ws

Strunk's 2nd Circuit T1080 08-3242-cv Motion To Hear On Same Day As 08-4323-cv Stamped Received

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strunk's 2nd Circuit T1080 08-3242-cv Motion To Hear On Same Day As 08-4323-cv Stamped Received

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

~ e & s t to have ~ppellant

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:

MOVING PARTY: OPPOSING PARTY:

Plaintiff Defendant %>70 TI -.

Appellanfletitioner AppelleelRespondent w-oz'

Court-JudgeIAgency appealed from:

Please check appropriate boxes:

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28

1. Declarant is the Appellant/Petitioner herein Appeal Case Strunk

Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238.

2. Declarant files this declaration in support of the T1080 motion

day before the same panel as in Appeal Case 08-4323-cv.

3. That the Hearing date on submission for the 08-3242-cv Appeal

Case is scheduled for January 15, 2010 and hereby is requested to be

coordinated for a different date at the Court’s choosing, in that Declarant is

4. Declarant has spoken with Appellants, H. William: Van-Allen

HOC NYS (New York State) CITIZENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL

LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING, an un-incorporated membership

association of Plaintiffs, and neither oppose this motion request to have

5. Declarant is an active voter within the New York (NY) 57th

6. Those as a matter of economy of Court time and consistency of

the U.S. Supreme Court were it necessary.

7. That as a ninth amendment injury issue before this Court also,

8. That Declarant’s inalienable rights are given by Almighty God

recuse him or herself in that such Judge by default accepts a usurper

spiritual leader over all men contrary to requirements of the Declaration of

Independence of July 4, 1776 thereafter incorporated into each Constitution

of the,founding colonies including the April 20, 1777 New York

Constitution, that thereafter broke with King George 111.

9. Declarant as a matter of epistemological proof and logic, knows

obtain a fair hearing without a Judge@)dedicated to Almighty Godfor our

freedom and the Original Constitution, and which is diametrically opposed

to the Jesuit Doctrine of ggSocial

system and governance since 1868 and is synonymous with the

unconstitutional heresy of the "theLiving Constitution".

Respectfilly submitted and certified to be true under penalty of

Dated: January 8,2010

593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281

Christopher Earl Strunk,

Christopher Earl Strunk

Christopher Earl Strunk

James C. Miller III, Chairman USPS Board of Directors

THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC)

NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General

Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................……………………... 2

• Ballot Access and Suffrage injury with Issues 7 thru 12………………………………………5

a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel with Issues 20 thru 21……………………………………........9

STATEMENT CONCERNING JURISDICTION......................................………………………10

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .................................………………………11

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................………………………11

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION

NEW YORK STATUTES

RELATED CASES (Appellant as direct party):

RELATED APPEAL CASES:

Complaint (AC) of 08-cv-1744 filed 6/9/08 (A-26).

three judge panel on statewide districting.

Court Jurisdiction over United States Postal Service

with those similarly situated.